Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes against

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Greatest I am » Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:50 am

Serendipper wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Perhaps, but I do not trust people who idol worship a genocidal son murdering demiurge that they can somehow see as good.

If Christians are that far of the mark on good and evil, why would you trust them on any other issue?

Missing the mark a lot doesn't mean they don't hit it sometimes and even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Better to trust the Gnostic Christian as they do not agree much with the Christian worshipers of a satanic god.

What's a gnostic christian? Is that opposed to an agnostic christian where one values faith and the other values conceptual knowledge?

Gnostic = conceptual, cataphatic knowledge = what god is = painter applying paint to produce an image
Agnostic = nonconceptual, apophatic knowledge (ie faith) = what god isn't = sculptor removing stone to reveal an image


What a Gnostic Christian is is best described by the name of my god.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:06 am

.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:41 pm

Greatest I am wrote:The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL
I don't think the Bible clearly says this, though SOME quotes can be interpreted this way. And if it is clear then we certainly don't need outside experts, ones strongly affected by the lens of other religions or psychologies, to show what the Bible really means - re: the videos you suggest.

And the section of the Bible specifically referring to childish things also says that women were made for men, but men were not made for women.

That writer seems not to have given up childish things, nor is it made clear exactly what is meant by childish things. As in many parts of the Bible, it is open to interpretatoins, especially given the many writers and modes in the full context of the Bible, and of course its two halves.

and of course Jesus said that only one who is like a child...etc.

And yes, I realize that is also open to interpretations, some which might work with the other quote, some that might not.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Greatest I am » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:57 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL
I don't think the Bible clearly says this, though SOME quotes can be interpreted this way. And if it is clear then we certainly don't need outside experts, ones strongly affected by the lens of other religions or psychologies, to show what the Bible really means - re: the videos you suggest.

And the section of the Bible specifically referring to childish things also says that women were made for men, but men were not made for women.

That writer seems not to have given up childish things, nor is it made clear exactly what is meant by childish things. As in many parts of the Bible, it is open to interpretatoins, especially given the many writers and modes in the full context of the Bible, and of course its two halves.

and of course Jesus said that only one who is like a child...etc.

And yes, I realize that is also open to interpretations, some which might work with the other quote, some that might not.


No argument on this. You are correct in that it is how you think of the supernatural that is important to you.

Do you think a supernatural invisible realm as a good realm to build an ideology on?

Would you let a childish mind guide humanity based on imaginary entities?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:09 pm

phyllo wrote:
He says there is just one thing: the self. I suppose he means the Brahman.
In that case, there is no 'other'. What do 'selfless' and 'selfish' mean? Nothing?
I'm really surprised that this has become a topic for debate on a philosophy forum.

It's weird that people debate stuff on a philosophy forum.



Why do you feel that way?
One often encounters posters who are "surprised" that everyone does not think as they do. They are "surprised" that there is more than one way to look at a subject. They are "surprised" that there is something to debate.

LOL

What do you expect? People who thank you for posting informative videos and who always agree with you?

Oh holy hell you gotta stop with the holier than thou innuendo.

You said "I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't understand a lot of this." And now you imply I have no justification to be surprised. Well how can you tell if you know nothing about it and had no class in philosophy? Go take a poll of philosophy students and if you discover that many of them believe there are selfless acts, then come tell me I'm wrong. Until then you're just pedestalizing yourself by speaking from ignorance as if you knew enough to judge me.

phyllo wrote:
But water is not a function of impurities. Water is H2O and the impurities are not water. Tea is water + impurities (the tea flavors).
People were able to identify water long before anybody thought of hydrogen, oxygen or molecules. They could distinguish tea from water as well.

I think that they can identify love in spite of whatever selfish/selfless labels philosophers insist on attaching.


Well good. If you already know everything, then stop asking questions.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:18 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL
I don't think the Bible clearly says this, though SOME quotes can be interpreted this way. And if it is clear then we certainly don't need outside experts, ones strongly affected by the lens of other religions or psychologies, to show what the Bible really means - re: the videos you suggest.

And the section of the Bible specifically referring to childish things also says that women were made for men, but men were not made for women.

That writer seems not to have given up childish things, nor is it made clear exactly what is meant by childish things. As in many parts of the Bible, it is open to interpretatoins, especially given the many writers and modes in the full context of the Bible, and of course its two halves.

and of course Jesus said that only one who is like a child...etc.

And yes, I realize that is also open to interpretations, some which might work with the other quote, some that might not.


1 Corinthians 3
3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.


11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Matthew 18
18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two senses of child: one means inability to understand spiritual concepts and the other means humility.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:43 pm

Greatest I am wrote:What a Gnostic Christian is is best described by the name of my god.

I've been listening to Bart Ehrman who happened to remark that Gnostic Christians believed there is special knowledge and might have implied it was like magic chants or incantations. Alan also said that if one knew the name of God, he could exercise some special power with it. I don't know much about this topic.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

Does that imply anything about the name Will I am (William)?

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

I currently believe that any mind picture of God is a graven image and it's more prudent to not try to conceptualize God. Faith is not-clinging.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

How does one become brother to Jesus?

What do you make of the verse:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.


19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


That satanist on youtube (Mark Passio I think) says the verse alludes to duality and the nondual (eye be single). I'm not sure.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


It is not a direction to keep the commandments, but keeping the commandments is evidence of a saved condition.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.


Predestination supports the idea that there is nothing to be done.

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

Reminds me of this

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:54 pm

You said "I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't understand a lot of this."
Yes I did because love of others and caring for others can be easily seen. I don't understand why somebody would deny the reality of those observations.
Go take a poll of philosophy students and if you discover that many of them believe there are selfless acts, then come tell me I'm wrong.
As far as I'm concerned the better questions are : do you see people who love others? do you see people who care about others?
Until then you're just pedestalizing yourself by speaking from ignorance as if you knew enough to judge me.
You're the one talking down at me as if you and the philosophy 101 students have the ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:17 pm

Greatest I am wrote:No argument on this. You are correct in that it is how you think of the supernatural that is important to you.
My post was about the Bible. You have not responded to the points I made.

Do you think a supernatural invisible realm as a good realm to build an ideology on?
That is not relevant. I am not one of the writers of the Bible. We were talking about what a quote meant and the Bible's position or positions on the supernatural. The Bible portrays all sorts of supernatural events and entities and you add to them elsewhere with God walking around in clothes.

Would you let a childish mind guide humanity based on imaginary entities?
Also not a response to the points I made which were about the Bible. As I said there are quotes in the Bible that can be, but need not be, interpreted as saying that something more metaphorical is meant. But there are many quotes and ways of describing events such that they come off as describing real supernatural events.

Here you go personal and mention the supernatural being important to me. But the issue is not my beliefs or lack of in the supernatural. The issue is what the Bible is saying.

Here you make no attempt to respond to my points about the Bible and shift to focusing on me.

You're not much of a philosophical discussion partner. You are a proselytizer, who posts as if, at least, you either are afraid to deal with ideas that differ from yours or think that people should only listen to you or agree with you after repetition.

That is childish. I'll check back in few months and see if you can actually read other people's posts AND show this by responding to the points, at least some of them, that other people make.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:19 pm

If I see a mother doing something for her child ...

Why wouldn't I say that she cares about the child?

Why would I say that she cares only about herself?

:-?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby felix dakat » Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:47 am

Serendipper wrote:
felix dakat wrote: It's absolutistic, all or nothing, black and white, zero-sum thinking. Why people prefer that kind of thinking over relativistic, both and, more or less, nonzero thinking is another question.

If love = X% selfishness + 100-X% selflessness then we couldn't have a definition for love since we'd spend all our time on the slippery slope looking for a place to draw the line. If you want definitions and communication, you have to have absolutes.
It seems to me you're describing an ideal prototype which is the best example of a category and the standard against which all category members are to be judged. Such is the absolute or essence or ideal of something which was the best example of that thing in experience or fantasy. This idealized experience becomes the standard against which all lesser real things are measured. Ideologues and absolutists believe uncritically in the reality of their absolutes or ideals. Sure we need ideal prototypes to communicate. But it doesn't follow from that that they are real. Language is the imperfect product of human primates. Words referring to actual phenomena can't be understood as naming fixed and discrete entities or properties. They're naming points on a curve of probabilities.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:30 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:That is childish. I'll check back in few months and see if you can actually read other people's posts AND show this by responding to the points, at least some of them, that other people make.

You're just mad and don't really mean that :)

I'm not condoning his behavior (nor condemning it because I'm not really following closely enough), but why should the rest of us suffer because you're mad at him? I'd prefer it if you didn't take a few-month vacation.

We all want to be here and this wouldn't be a place to be if it weren't for us, so let's try to get along.

Per the thread about moderation, this is how one moderates an extreme situation. Bring it back to center and try to keep people from escalating and leaving. I may not be that good at it, but this is *basically* how lol
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:51 am

felix dakat wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
felix dakat wrote: It's absolutistic, all or nothing, black and white, zero-sum thinking. Why people prefer that kind of thinking over relativistic, both and, more or less, nonzero thinking is another question.

If love = X% selfishness + 100-X% selflessness then we couldn't have a definition for love since we'd spend all our time on the slippery slope looking for a place to draw the line. If you want definitions and communication, you have to have absolutes.
It seems to me you're describing an ideal prototype which is the best example of a category and the standard against which all category members are to be judged. Such is the absolute or essence or ideal of something which was the best example of that thing in experience or fantasy. This idealized experience becomes the standard against which all lesser real things are measured. Ideologues and absolutists believe uncritically in the reality of their absolutes or ideals. Sure we need ideal prototypes to communicate. But it doesn't follow from that that they are real. Language is the imperfect product of human primates. Words referring to actual phenomena can't be understood as naming fixed and discrete entities or properties. They're naming points on a curve of probabilities.

I can live with words not being real, but if we're going to communicate, we must have absolute definitions so we know clearly what each other are talking about. Also, I've noticed that most arguments stem from not having agreeable definitions.

For instance, atheists are offended when someone insists they believe there is no god, but that's what the word means, or should mean, because else we're left with atheism = agnosticism and then we need a new word for people who believe there is no god. Why insist on having this much confusion?

This is where I differ with Christopher Hitchens who believes agnostics are disingenuous and loathes the advent of the word, and I can't for the life of me figure out why he's so married to a particular word. Why not say "Fine, I'm agnostic. Happy?" It's better than enduring a 2 hour debate centered around semantic bickering regarding the meaning of atheism rather than the validity of it.

I could also speak critically of definitions within the science of physics. What is heat? There are oodles of quora pages defining what heat is. Why does a simple definition need to be so difficult to convey? What are gamma rays? It depends who you ask. A science should have clear and absolute definitions; otherwise it's an art.

Likewise with love. If there isn't a clear, concise, and absolute definition for the word, then defining the word becomes an art.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:18 am

phyllo wrote:
You said "I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't understand a lot of this."
Yes I did because love of others and caring for others can be easily seen. I don't understand why somebody would deny the reality of those observations.

But caring about others is caring about yourself.

Go take a poll of philosophy students and if you discover that many of them believe there are selfless acts, then come tell me I'm wrong.
As far as I'm concerned the better questions are : do you see people who love others? do you see people who care about others?

Sure I see people who care about others, but only because they care about themselves.

Until then you're just pedestalizing yourself by speaking from ignorance as if you knew enough to judge me.
You're the one talking down at me as if you and the philosophy 101 students have the ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.

No, philosophy 101 students represent what most philosophers believe and not what is true. I'm surprised this is an issue because most philosophy students would not require this to be explained to them. If this were a motorcycle forum, I would not be surprised that members have not encountered the "no selfless acts" claim, but on a philosophy forum, it is surprising to me and my surprise is justified by my experience in philosophy class and not my arrogance.

You've distorted that in every way possible: You've implied through exaggeration that I'm surprised that people do not agree with everything I say and then painted a picture that I should expect people to worship me for posting some videos n stuff. Now you distort my surprise as being a claim of what is correct or incorrect. It is not, but it's a claim about popular knowledge (right or wrong) I expected philosophers to already have. And it's not an appeal to authority by popularity anymore than expecting most mathematicians to already be familiar with 1+1=2.

I just find it odd that everyone offline knows what I'm talking about, but everyone online doesn't. How can there be such a disconnect?

If I see a mother doing something for her child ...

Why wouldn't I say that she cares about the child?

Why would I say that she cares only about herself?

She doesn't ONLY care about herself, but she cares about the child BECAUSE she cares about herself. If the child dies, it would hurt her, so if she doesn't want to be hurt, she has to care for the child.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:04 am

Serendipper wrote:You're just mad and don't really mean that :)
Almost, I was mad AND I really meant that.

I'm not condoning his behavior (nor condemning it because I'm not really following closely enough), but why should the rest of us suffer because you're mad at him? I'd prefer it if you didn't take a few-month vacation.
Well, thank you. But I meant in responding to his posts. I will still be here scaring people from bringing up certain philosophers (though not Watts) and doing whatever it is you would miss (hopefully).

We all want to be here and this wouldn't be a place to be if it weren't for us, so let's try to get along.
[/quote]
OK. One of my methods is to take breaks from people. So, I'll take a break from him, but respond to other posts here, at least probably. And I was reading them and found yours with that possibility in mind.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:18 am

Serendipper wrote:[
But caring about others is caring about yourself.
In a no self universe, why would caring for others boil down to care for oneself. Wouldn't it simply be caring?

Sure I see people who care about others, but only because they care about themselves.
Ibid.
But for all we know it is the other way around. Especially in a no self universe. There is care and it aims in different directions. Why said it is only about what only seems to be inside?

Until then you're just pedestalizing yourself by speaking from ignorance as if you knew enough to judge me.
You're the one talking down at me as if you and the philosophy 101 students have the ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.


If I see a mother doing something for her child ...

Why wouldn't I say that she cares about the child?

Why would I say that she cares only about herself?

She doesn't ONLY care about herself, but she cares about the child BECAUSE she cares about herself. If the child dies, it would hurt her, so if she doesn't want to be hurt, she has to care for the child.

This does not fit with my experience. Further you are putting it into a causal chain of events - leading to the child's death. A mother cares for her child in attitude and feeling directly on sight. It is not for something. Evolution is not teleological. It just is. Whether it was adapative or not AND THAT'S WHY IT SURVIVED AS A TRAIT has nothing to do with what it is for or doing in the mother. She cares about the child, period. That is what she is, someone who cares about her offspring. She is also a creature that cares about herself. There is no need to reduce her care to one kind of care, especially for someone who does not believe in selves or considers inside and outside illusory.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:26 am

A pregnant lady who cares for her self only will commit abortion. Normal women don't do this only psychos.

I think all sane nature cares about the outside first which is how it feeds itself. If it only cared for itself it would selfcannibalize and not even exist. It sounds weird I know.
I'll go away now.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the cupboard by your kn knees

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:55 am

barbarianhorde wrote:A pregnant lady who cares for her self only will commit abortion. Normal women don't do this only psychos.

I think all sane nature cares about the outside first which is how it feeds itself. If it only cared for itself it would selfcannibalize and not even exist. It sounds weird I know.
I'll go away now.

No, no. In general I agree with the path. Caring is outward first, then we get a sense of ourselves, and if we learn to, from the care of others, care about ourselves. It is not even a given that we care about ourselves.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:04 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:A pregnant lady who cares for her self only will commit abortion. Normal women don't do this only psychos.

I think all sane nature cares about the outside first which is how it feeds itself. If it only cared for itself it would selfcannibalize and not even exist. It sounds weird I know.
I'll go away now.

No, no. In general I agree with the path. Caring is outward first, then we get a sense of ourselves, and if we learn to, from the care of others, care about ourselves. It is not even a given that we care about ourselves.

Ok yeah, also we learn because others care for us too. The mom teaches us after all. The womb cares for us then gives us to the moms arms who care for us and so on.

What do you think comes first for a formula for happiness, caring for or being cared for.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the cupboard by your kn knees

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Greatest I am » Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:26 pm

"Serendipper"]
Greatest I am wrote:What a Gnostic Christian is is best described by the name of my god.

I've been listening to Bart Ehrman who happened to remark that Gnostic Christians believed there is special knowledge and might have implied it was like magic chants or incantations. Alan also said that if one knew the name of God, he could exercise some special power with it. I don't know much about this topic.[/quote]

The only god you can know is you and yes, if you accept that you are your own master, you can control yourself.

To mane any other your god does not give you control of him. It slaves you to him.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

Does that imply anything about the name Will I am (William)?


Not that I know of.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

I currently believe that any mind picture of God is a graven image and it's more prudent to not try to conceptualize God. Faith is not-clinging.


Faith without facts is not wanting to know the truth.

Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenists and perpetual seekers who follow what we see as the best ideology but we are eager to raise the bar of excellence and thus do not idol worship the way Christians and Muslims do. Like Buddhist say, if you see god on the road, kill him. We are eager to kill the ideal we see for a higher one.
The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

How does one become brother to Jesus?


Those three quotes say it all, basically. Go inside of yourself using Jesus as a mantra. You can else use anything else that helps you enter meditation.
What do you make of the verse:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Let me let Jesus answer that.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.


19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


That satanist on youtube (Mark Passio I think) says the verse alludes to duality and the nondual (eye be single). I'm not sure.


That is not how I describe our single eye. I see it more as our just using insight to find what Yung and Freud named our Father Complex.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


It is not a direction to keep the commandments, but keeping the commandments is evidence of a saved condition.


Firstly, the commandments are garbage.
Second, if your last were true, than all Christians are condemned as they break the first few commandments by putting Jesus above Yahweh.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.


Predestination supports the idea that there is nothing to be done.


Not to me. It indicates that many will seek a Christ consciousness and find it.

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

Reminds me of this

[/quote]

Not to that ridiculous level, but ya.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:51 pm

No, philosophy 101 students represent what most philosophers believe and not what is true. I'm surprised this is an issue because most philosophy students would not require this to be explained to them. If this were a motorcycle forum, I would not be surprised that members have not encountered the "no selfless acts" claim, but on a philosophy forum, it is surprising to me and my surprise is justified by my experience in philosophy class and not my arrogance.

You've distorted that in every way possible: You've implied through exaggeration that I'm surprised that people do not agree with everything I say and then painted a picture that I should expect people to worship me for posting some videos n stuff. Now you distort my surprise as being a claim of what is correct or incorrect.
But you are arguing that "There are no selfless acts" is a true statement.

You are also arguing that "You cannot love someone else" is true.

You are also arguing that "You cannot care about someone else" is true.

In fact, you equate these statements to the mathematical equation 1+1=2. IOW something beyond dispute.
("And it's not an appeal to authority by popularity anymore than expecting most mathematicians to already be familiar with 1+1=2.")

I just find it odd that everyone offline knows what I'm talking about, but everyone online doesn't. How can there be such a disconnect?
Maybe everyone offline accepts your definitions and assumptions and people online don't accept without justifications.

I don't accept your definitions and assumptions with respect to love and caring because they appear not to be supported by my observations.

Don't take it personally. I don't accept a lot of definitions and assumptions in philosophy and theology. And therefore I don't accept a lot of the conclusions.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:08 pm

Serendipper wrote: If this were a motorcycle forum, I would not be surprised that members have not encountered the "no selfless acts" claim, but on a philosophy forum, it is surprising to me and my surprise is justified by my experience in philosophy class and not my arrogance.
I'd be surprised if Phyllo hasn't encountered it before. I certainly have. It appears every now and then. Are you sure you are not taking disagreement for never having encountered it?

I don't think I encountered it in the beginning philosophy class I took. But I certainly heard people saying it. It's the kind of meme that circulates and not just in academic circles or in the educated class. There are many forms, some seeing all acts as selfish - iow that there is no actual care about anybody else. Joker and his later avatars would bring that one up occasionally here.

I would tend to think there are no selfless acts, though I would want that term defined. But that's different for me than saying that really it is only self-care or some of the other ways all acts have been described.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:45 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:You're just mad and don't really mean that :)
Almost, I was mad AND I really meant that.

I'm not condoning his behavior (nor condemning it because I'm not really following closely enough), but why should the rest of us suffer because you're mad at him? I'd prefer it if you didn't take a few-month vacation.
Well, thank you. But I meant in responding to his posts. I will still be here scaring people from bringing up certain philosophers (though not Watts) and doing whatever it is you would miss (hopefully).

We all want to be here and this wouldn't be a place to be if it weren't for us, so let's try to get along.

OK. One of my methods is to take breaks from people. So, I'll take a break from him, but respond to other posts here, at least probably. And I was reading them and found yours with that possibility in mind.

I know what you mean. I have to take breaks from people in general to regain my center.

Rober Price did it in this debate at 2:09:30



You think Paul didn't write Galatians?
That's right.
Wow!
If you think my views are wildly insane then there's no point in going on [sets mic down].


Misalignment of ethics I reckon. That's a shame because I was waiting to hear why he thought Paul didn't write Galatians.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:19 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote: If this were a motorcycle forum, I would not be surprised that members have not encountered the "no selfless acts" claim, but on a philosophy forum, it is surprising to me and my surprise is justified by my experience in philosophy class and not my arrogance.
I'd be surprised if Phyllo hasn't encountered it before. I certainly have. It appears every now and then. Are you sure you are not taking disagreement for never having encountered it?


Hmm... you may be right. Maybe I am assuming that because he disagrees, that he's never encountered it, and I may have been right purely by luck because if he had encountered it, I think he would have said so by now. Probably the reason I just assumed he never encountered it is because people who have heard it before usually (exclusively) concede that there are no selfless acts. It's not by indoctrination either since after eons of thinking on the subject, from Aristotle to Nietzsche, there doesn't seem to be an example of a selfless act or even how an act could be selfless. So I think that one day in a classroom of debating whether selfless acts exists would be sufficient to convince pretty much anyone and therefore if someone is not convinced, then he must not have encountered it before. I think you caught me in a legitimate assumption though, so you deserve credit for that! :)

I would tend to think there are no selfless acts, though I would want that term defined. But that's different for me than saying that really it is only self-care or some of the other ways all acts have been described.


A selfless act is an act that doesn't ultimately benefit the one doing the act. The best objection was the guy who said he reflexively ran to the aid of someone in an auto accident and he insisted it was selfless because he didn't have time to even think about it, but reflexes aren't acts (if reflexes are acts, then what isn't an act?). So if an act is selfless, then it's not an act and if it's an act, then it's not selfless.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:38 am

phyllo wrote:
No, philosophy 101 students represent what most philosophers believe and not what is true. I'm surprised this is an issue because most philosophy students would not require this to be explained to them. If this were a motorcycle forum, I would not be surprised that members have not encountered the "no selfless acts" claim, but on a philosophy forum, it is surprising to me and my surprise is justified by my experience in philosophy class and not my arrogance.

You've distorted that in every way possible: You've implied through exaggeration that I'm surprised that people do not agree with everything I say and then painted a picture that I should expect people to worship me for posting some videos n stuff. Now you distort my surprise as being a claim of what is correct or incorrect.
But you are arguing that "There are no selfless acts" is a true statement.

You are also arguing that "You cannot love someone else" is true.

You are also arguing that "You cannot care about someone else" is true.

In fact, you equate these statements to the mathematical equation 1+1=2. IOW something beyond dispute.
("And it's not an appeal to authority by popularity anymore than expecting most mathematicians to already be familiar with 1+1=2.")

I'm not appealing to popularity to show the statements are true, but to show the statements are notorious. The fact that you can't get your head around that doesn't bode well for your capacity to understand deeper concepts.

Mathematicians accept 1+1=2
Philosophers accept there are no selfless acts.

In no way does acceptance imply truth. Truth is independent of acceptance and both are separate arguments.

1) I'm asserting popularity to justify my being surprised, which you distorted as some form of arrogance.
2) I'm asserting all acts have a selfish motivation, which is self-evident from inspection of every and all acts until we encounter one that is not.

Those are separate arguments and you either can't see that or refuse to.

“How could something originate in its antithesis? … The unselfish act in self-interest? … Such origination is impossible; and he who dreams of it is a fool, indeed worse than a fool; the things of the highest value must have another origin of their own.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil

First, any being who would be capable of purely selfless actions only is more fabulous than the phoenix. It cannot even be imagined clearly because from the start the whole concept of "selfless action," if carefully examined, evaporates into the air. Never has a man done anything that was only for others; and without any personal motivation. Indeed, how could he do anything that had no reference to himself, that is, with no inner compulsion (which would have to be based on a personal need)? How could the ego act without ego? http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/frie ... b645f.html

There's no such thing as altruism. No such thing as a truly selfless act. We always get paid, one way or another. HAHA LUNG, Mind Control: The Ancient Art of Psychological Warfare

The most altruistic and sustainable philosophies fail before the brute brain stem imperative of self-interest. PETER WATTS, Blindsight

Biologists, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists have all held that "altruism" is never what it seems. That all apparently selfless acts are self-centered is known in the sciences as 'universal egoism', which according to the prominent psychologist Richard Gross, "is the dominant ethos in social science including psychology. [...] Sociobiologists consider that acts of apparent altruism turn out to be acts of selfishness in disguise". There is such agreement amongst psychologists and specialists that it seems "altruism is an impossibility". http://www.humantruth.info/altruism.html


Independent of the truthfulness of the claim, EVERYONE believes it.... except you. You're taking on the entire science and academic community in effort to support your sinking dogma no differently than apologetics against evolution... and it will remain a dogma until you provide some substantiation that neither I nor Nietzsche, nor Rand, nor Aristotle, nor Kant, nor Watts, nor anyone I've ever seen or heard of, could conceive.

I just find it odd that everyone offline knows what I'm talking about, but everyone online doesn't. How can there be such a disconnect?
Maybe everyone offline accepts your definitions and assumptions and people online don't accept without justifications.

Or maybe people online are trolls? I've provided infinitely more justification here than I ever could offline.

I don't accept your definitions and assumptions with respect to love and caring because they appear not to be supported by my observations.

Then your observations are either more or less perceptive than a long list of fancy-pants philosophers: either you are genius to such extent that even the smartest people can't see what you see or you're not equipped to see what everyone else can plainly see. Take your pick.

Don't take it personally. I don't accept a lot of definitions and assumptions in philosophy and theology. And therefore I don't accept a lot of the conclusions.

Don't take it personally, but you're painting yourself as a troll with such admission. Repetitive and habitual dogmatic dismissal without rationale is the very definition of trolling and "not matching my observations" is not rationale.

So either come up with some example of a selfless act or concede selfless acts do not exist so that we can move on from this, otherwise your continued objections on the basis of "not feeling right" are impeding progress.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ierrellus