the golden rule + trying to go to heaven = the tower of babel
“i want to go to heaven” → “how can i make this heaven for the other person”
they did that already
the result was God broke one language into many if I recall correctly (punishment)
golden rule:
youtube.com/watch?v=n8aJG1f815Q
note the language subtext in the video
we speak of the golden rule lightly, but when you really consider it, its not an easy rule to follow
it begs the reconciliatory question; it begs the power question;
hypocrisy is the answer
Sure, but this is not sufficient to define God.
Perhaps other ways to say it:
“Evil cannot exist without God”
“God created all that is perceived as Evil”
“God gave Satan his existence and is present in such”
Frankly, “Is” does not serve well as a verb in the case where omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience are of legitimate concerns.
To me, it feels like we need a verb to more accurately shape the meaning, the relationship, the identity (or rather the aspect of such).
If God existing is dependent on his defeat of the devil and overcoming evil, it sounds more like symbiotic interdependency where God needs evil to be God and evil needs God to be evil. Without evil, god would never come into its own. Without God, no evil would ever have been pushed to the point to be defined as evil.
DL,
Thank you for that compliment.
Christians are primarily martyrs though mostly only the priests and preachers know this fully. It gives control. Christians cling to the past, Jewish look forward, in general. Look at the two religions as siblings , siblings rarely view life the same even though raised almost identically. We need that though, we need the evolution of differences. To gain true knowledge as a species we must allow for differences even annoying or hateful or negative. A god would know that we must as a species experience difference must work out the problems to evolve. Hell we are a young species compared to the universe. You kick your kids out of the nest to let them grow. They hate it or love it at first then mature, hopefully. To say the god is evil or hateful is akin to denigrating all parents.
I have an idea, bear with me please, not sure I can flesh it out properly but, if anyone here can figure it out it would be you.
The ancients were flamboyant with descriptions. They were given to drama and comparisons, analogy. Our interpretations probably lack the true color. What if the universe was the tree and earth is the apple that Eve took. The god would have to be an energy being/entity. Adam and Eve birthed to have a species evolve into companion. Sentience is key. Look at the other species that have or may have sentience. Let’s say that they possibly have beliefs. Ok the apple of knowledge is this planet. The ancients gave other species credit for personalities and intellect that we through religion and ego deny.
We are on the apple of knowledge to gain knowledge, eating that apple??? Help me out here, do you see something of what I am trying to get at?
I think the symbolism behind the apple is changing along with the ability to understand. ,one held, it represented knowledge of good and evil, later after they became relative concepts, it was knowledge per se, and I think that now, it may represents consciessness. Self consciessness, the ego, may be the ultimate purveyor, engendering a conflict between a sacred and profane creation of Man.
“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.
A pure mind would be a free thinking mind and not the mind of idol worshiping Christians. Right?
How would you phrase a positive interpretation of what God did in the story of his torture and murder of King David’s baby, all because he was angry with the King?
Regards
DL
Webster’s dictionary is available to all but it surprises me to know that you do not know what is good and what is evil.
Regards
DL
Demiurge is what my religion in its myths, not in its beliefs, but it is a noun.
dem·i·urge
noun
: demiurge; plural noun: demiurges
a being responsible for the creation of the universe, in particular.
•(in Platonic philosophy) the Maker or Creator of the world.
•(in Gnosticism and other theological systems) a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual.
When speaking to Christians of Yahweh, who is a demiurge to me, I just use the more modern term of genocidal son murdering prick.
As a poetic mind, you might be able to shorten that for me without losing the flavor.
Regards
DL
In our dualistic world, I agree. To destroy one is to destroy the other as it would become a meaningless term.
Most dislike evil because they have put it in opposition to good, while not recognizing that Yin and Yang, the usual symbol used for duality, are complimentary to each other and not in opposition to each other. Every in must have an out and one cannot exist without the other.
Regards
DL
Yes.
Yours is an old concept of the oneness of all. Anon wrote on that. “If you can’t see God in all, you can’t see God at all.”
Gnostic Christianity follows that type of thinking.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, “If those who attract you say, ‘See, the Kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, ‘It is under the earth,’ then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”
Is this the type of thing what you were trying to say?
Regards
DL
If I understand what you are saying, I disagree and see consciousness as trying to reconcile the conflicts between the sacred and the profane.
Please expand your last thought above with small words for my small understanding of the words sacred and profane.
Regards
DL
The Golden Rule is the second greatest commandment. If you know what the greatest one is, then you know that your argument is completely full of shit. Why would you base ‘incontrovertible’ proof on what it says in the Bible, and then not bother quoting (or apparently even reading) the Bible? Three pages of pointless bitching about what biblical passages allegedly mean without 1 solitary quote.
Why should I mention Jesus’ first commandment when it obviously cannot be done?
Love, like faith, needs works and deeds. You cannot do anything for God and he is obviously not doing anything back to anyone.
In terms of God, you cannot love alone and he is absent.
If I have to quote Jesus to you, it is you who shows that you have not read the bible. I have.
Regards
DL
DL, I am looking up definitions of Gnostic and Gnosticism, damn interesting reading as it has different definitions depending upon where you read from. From subtle to major differences. Even your references are subject to interpretations. Interesting.
Not sure if it is Gnostic that I interpret or something else.
I can definitely see Gnosticism in it. Not my intention though. I used sociology and observations of other sciences. I see probability of more evolved beings having a vested interest in this planet. Experiment, loneliness, ownership or tool. We know we do not understand fully ancient languages, we know generations tweak meanings, we know that thought and knowledge evolved or de evolved. I just propose a scenario???
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you””
Perhaps at some point God came to realize lol the flaw within his rule.
What makes us think and feel that the way in which we would choose to be treated is the way in which others would choose to be treated!!!
I realize that the rule is supposed to come from an altruistic leaning but it can be a slippery slope actually.
Let’s take for instance the masochist. His perspective, human experience, way of being, might end up hurting the other person since he would treat others as he would choose to be treated - which might be quite shabbily since the masochist might not know otherwise.
I have put a little blurb together to show some of what I see as Gnostic Christianity.
One key piece to remember is that, even though our myths show some supernatural content, we do not hold any supernatural beliefs.
I am a Gnostic Christian, Our beliefs are not what Christianity says they are. We lost the God wars and they distorted our belief system. The lies have been known since the findings of our scriptures and myths at Nag Hammadi.
Gnostic Christianity is a teaching system from Jesus but not the one the church ever dares to teach. It frees us from religion and that is of course not what religions want. They never want the student to graduate as they might lose revenue and people.
Here is a bit of history as well as a nutshell version of how that freedom is gained.
Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers after God. God here I define as the best laws and rules to live life with.
We believe that those laws and rules, as Jesus said, are found in our minds/hearts. I use the following to try to illustrate this notion. A bit of history and then a mindset and method to do what I promote.
youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia … =PLCBF574D
The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.
youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes … r_embedded
This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.
youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y
When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.
Regards
DL
If aliens, having developed faster than light space travel, can get here, they can get anywhere and that would just make us one of many possible stops.
To me, if friendly, they would likely just watch and learn or make gentle contact. If aggressive, we would likely already know by our slavery to them.
Regards
DL
M & S is often shown as the exception to the rule, but lest we forget, the rule assumes normal people and not the lunatic fringe.
Regards
DL