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 Serendipper » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:10 pm

Greatest I am wrote:This question, be you a believer or not, is designed to have the reader show his moral position.

Not mythologized, literalized, stupidly, as he began as a myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL


This one is hilariously funny. Uploaded 2010, I don't know why it took so long for me to find it.

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby felix dakat » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:40 pm

Serendipper wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Before we get too carried away nuancing every bump n wiggle throughout the life of Jesus, have we established that he even existed?

Don't watch this video from 5:00 to 30:00 if you want to preserve your faith.

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas Paine.

What blows my mind is how someone living in the 1700's could know that.


If Jesus was a myth, then discussing whether he would have condemned or condone Yahweh is absurd.

I think we can discuss whether fictional characters would have done this or that. What would Frasier Crane say about it? That's why I said "the jesus character is the opposite of the father character while the holy spirit character is rarely, if ever, personified." Whether they are real or not is inconsequential to whether they are the same personality.

I think it's more likely that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person whose story was mythologized by the church after he died.

Maybe so, but it would be awfully coincidental that so many others were: born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, died on a cross, resurrected 3 days later. There also isn't much historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus.

But whoever created the words of Jesus was pretty smart and whoever distorted them, wasn't.


There were Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again. So, I get the idea that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again. The problem is that we have these ancient letters written in the first century by this guy Paul who mentions in passing that he knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter and he talks about things they did. If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed.

Another reason for supposing Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome. The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies of Israel. So if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah. You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies.

But, the mythicists are right that the NT Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical. The historical Jesus was mythologized. In the gospel texts there is evidence of editing. But, embarrassing facts remain that run counter to the mythic narrative that wouldn't be there if Jesus were invented whole cloth. And those facts are further evidence that he really existed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion ... arrassment

And oh yeah it is possible to discuss what fictional characters might do in different hypothetical situations. So we could talk about Jesus that way. But, there are so many versions of Jesus that it gets complicated right off. For example, based on their interpretation of the Bible some Christians think Jesus was Yahweh so the question whether he would condemn or condone Yahweh would be about whether he would condemn or condone himself. In the Hebrew Bible it does say that Yahweh repented of his actions from time to time. But, that's absurd if one assumes that God is omniscient. So, it all seems to depend on what is presupposed. Garbage in, garbage out, so to speak.
Last edited by felix dakat on Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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 barbarianhorde » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:42 pm

I like how you decide for God what he can do and feel, Felix.
He needs you.
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 felix dakat » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:49 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:I like how you decide for God what he can do and feel, Felix.
He needs you.


Glad I could help.

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 Greatest I am » Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:46 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:This question, be you a believer or not, is designed to have the reader show his moral position.

Not mythologized, literalized, stupidly, as he began as a myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL


This one is hilariously funny. Uploaded 2010, I don't know why it took so long for me to find it.



I think the ancient wrote the bible and intentionally put contradictions is as the bible was created to activate thinking and not to be taken literally. Those contradictions were designed to be debated, not believed as real.

Most have forgotten that and ignore the brighter ancient ways.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:46 pm

felix dakat wrote:There were Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again. So, I get the idea that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again. The problem is that we have these ancient letters written in the first century by this guy Paul who mentions in passing that he knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter and he talks about things they did. If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed.

I get your point, but how do we know any of those people existed? I could say I read the writings of a guy who knew Niles Crane, the brother of Frasier, but it would be a tv script.

Another reason for supposing Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome. The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies of Israel. So if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah. You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies.

We couldn't make up a messiah that defeated the enemies of Israel because that obviously didn't happen. I think the theory is that those types of gods that were "humiliated, tortured and the killed by their enemies" had been successful in the past and was simply copied and renamed into Jesus rather than Horace et al.

But, the mythicists are right that the NT Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical. The historical Jesus was mythologized. In the gospel texts there is evidence of editing. But, embarrassing facts remain that run counter to the mythic narrative that wouldn't be there if Jesus were invented whole cloth. And those facts are further evidence that he really existed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion ... arrassment


That presupposes what is considered embarrassing.

Reminds me of: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=192850&start=50#p2676344

Serendipper wrote:
Otto_West wrote:Jesus is a Jew on a stick. Any god crucified on a cross is a weak pitiful god not worthy of worship beyond slaves.


Now that is interesting! So, what sort of god would be more impressive?

If you had all the power in the universe that there is to have, what would be the most difficult thing for you to do? The answer would be your most impressive accomplishment.


What most people regard as powerful is actually weakness and the bravest warriors are the most terrified (hence why they are warriors). So I don't see a powerful god laying its powers down as anything to be embarrassed by.

And oh yeah it is possible to discuss what fictional characters might do in different hypothetical situations. So we could talk about Jesus that way. But, there are so many versions of Jesus that it gets complicated right off. For example, based on their interpretation of the Bible some Christians think Jesus was Yahweh so the question whether he would condemn or condone Yahweh would be about whether he would condemn or condone himself. In the Hebrew Bible it does say that Yahweh repented of his actions from time to time. But, that's absurd if one assumes that God is omniscient. So, it all seems to depend on what is presupposed. Garbage in, garbage out, so to speak.


Mom is a fundamentalist and when I was a kid, we'd patronize Pentecostal churches exclusively. I've witnessed a lot of wild stuff and thought it was normal. No snakes or drinking poison, but not far from it. Anyway, the Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists and pretty much all bible-belt churches teach the trinity where the Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost are all God, but separate persons (whatever sense you can make from that). They cite John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So they say Jesus was the Word who became man while God (Father) stayed in heaven. They are two separate persons, but also the same God. They also point to the fact that Jesus had to be God because no man could have accomplished what Jesus did (defeat death).

A few years ago it became increasingly a problem to me that Jesus and Father were not the same personality and I couldn't make sense of why the Father seemed to pass judgement and kill while Jesus forgave and revived who the Father had killed (or allowed to die). How could the same God be polar opposite to itself?

The Father says vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord. But Jesus says forgive 70 x 7 and turn the other cheek because the meek will inherit the earth. The Father causes the earth to open and swallow people for making a golden cow, but Jesus forgives those nailing him to a cross by simply pointing out that they're confused and don't realize what they are doing. Well aren't the people with the golden cow also confused? So is the Father not as smart/perceptive as Jesus or is he less divine? Ultimately I decided the Father is just a natural aspect of the universe that cannot be reasoned with (a non-person force like gravity).

What the supernatural/divine had represented to me was that which is not natural, such as turning the other cheek instead of fighting back or desiring vengeance. I consider that a divine principle exceeding displays of power to defeat enemies because, ultimately, all displays of power are evidence of fear/insecurity and not divine at all! What Jesus preached was exceedingly wise, to the point of being divine, and a quantum leap beyond what evolution had instilled in the animal; above natural = supernatural. But I've not seen anything by the Father worth writing home about, nevermind being divine/supernatural, but more animalistic and representative of what an ancient, uneducated, animal-like people would do/say. And here I agree with Christopher Hitchens that if a God were to reveal himself, why pick some of the dumbest people in ancient history? If he had waited 100,000 years, then why not wait another 2000 until now when we have the capability to substantiate with evidence? Or why not appear to the chinese who were more intelligent than the desert people? The Father was created by a weak and stupid people who wished they were powerful, but Jesus is something else and whoever created his words was clearly genius.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:20 pm

Greatest I am wrote:I think the ancient wrote the bible and intentionally put contradictions is as the bible was created to activate thinking and not to be taken literally. Those contradictions were designed to be debated, not believed as real.

That would require an unbelievable amount of foresight to intentionally include contradictions which would have the known effect of causing people to dig deeper rather than reject the text due to the contradictions. And one doesn't need contradictions to make folks perceive hidden messages.

Most have forgotten that and ignore the brighter ancient ways.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Regards
DL

As soon as we open the door for allegorical interpretation we've removed all authority from it because truth could be gleaned in a way that wasn't intended, like people do to songs all the time. For instance the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was theorized to mean LSD or the band KISS was Knights in Satan's Service. That's off the top of my head and probably not the best examples, but hopefully you can see that interpretation is quite different than intention of the authors.

On the other hand, Jesus' main strategy for conveyance of nonceptual information was through allegory and it is indeed a powerful tool to speak by analogy, but I don't see why they needed to make the text factually incorrect or inconsistent with itself in order to implement allegory.

Regarding the intelligence of the ancients, I think the Indians (from India) and Chinese were ahead the Arabs in terms of enlightenment, profundity and scientific progress. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if I were.

As Alan Watts used to say, the Arabs would stone anyone claiming to be god, but the Hindus would have laughed and said "Of course! It's about time you found out! LOL" He says the good news (gospel) is not that Jesus is god, but that you are too.

The whole presentation is here:



At least start at 36:30 where he substantiates the claim that we are all the sons of god.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:52 pm

Serendipper wrote:I get your point, but how do we know any of those people existed? I could say I read the writings of a guy who knew Niles Crane, the brother of Frasier, but it would be a tv script.


There are non-Christian sources that attest to the existence of these people. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus supports the NT story that Jesus' brother, James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem.

Serendipper wrote:We couldn't make up a messiah that defeated the enemies of Israel because that obviously didn't happen. I think the theory is that those types of gods that were "humiliated, tortured and the killed by their enemies" had been successful in the past and was simply copied and renamed into Jesus rather than Horace et al.


Why put a different name on the mythical god? Why not just believe in Horus?

Serendipper wrote:That presupposes what is considered embarrassing.


According to the historical criteria of embarrassment, what is embarrassing is related to what is being attested. So, for example, if Jesus and his disciples are attested to be self-consistent pacifists who didn't carry weapons, the story that in the garden of Gethsemane they had swords is an embarrassment to that claim.

Serendipper wrote:
Otto_West wrote:Jesus is a Jew on a stick. Any god crucified on a cross is a weak pitiful god not worthy of worship beyond slaves.

Now that is interesting! So, what sort of god would be more impressive?
If you had all the power in the universe that there is to have, what would be the most difficult thing for you to do? The answer would be your most impressive accomplishment.
What most people regard as powerful is actually weakness and the bravest warriors are the most terrified (hence why they are warriors). So I don't see a powerful god laying its powers down as anything to be embarrassed by.


I was referring to the criteria of embarrassment in the technical sense that historians use it. You seem to be talking about it in a colloquial sense.

Serendipper wrote:Mom is a fundamentalist and when I was a kid, we'd patronize Pentecostal churches exclusively. I've witnessed a lot of wild stuff and thought it was normal. No snakes or drinking poison, but not far from it. Anyway, the Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists and pretty much all bible-belt churches teach the trinity where the Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost are all God, but separate persons (whatever sense you can make from that). They cite John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So they say Jesus was the Word who became man while God (Father) stayed in heaven. They are two separate persons, but also the same God. They also point to the fact that Jesus had to be God because no man could have accomplished what Jesus did (defeat death). A few years ago it became increasingly a problem to me that Jesus and Father were not the same personality and I couldn't make sense of why the Father seemed to pass judgement and kill while Jesus forgave and revived who the Father had killed (or allowed to die). How could the same God be polar opposite to itself? The Father says vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord. But Jesus says forgive 70 x 7 and turn the other cheek because the meek will inherit the earth. The Father causes the earth to open and swallow people for making a golden cow, but Jesus forgives those nailing him to a cross by simply pointing out that they're confused and don't realize what they are doing. Well aren't the people with the golden cow also confused? So is the Father not as smart/perceptive as Jesus or is he less divine? Ultimately I decided the Father is just a natural aspect of the universe that cannot be reasoned with (a non-person force like gravity).What the supernatural/divine had represented to me was that which is not natural, such as turning the other cheek instead of fighting back or desiring vengeance. I consider that a divine principle exceeding displays of power to defeat enemies because, ultimately, all displays of power are evidence of fear/insecurity and not divine at all! What Jesus preached was exceedingly wise, to the point of being divine, and a quantum leap beyond what evolution had instilled in the animal; above natural = supernatural. But I've not seen anything by the Father worth writing home about, nevermind being divine/supernatural, but more animalistic and representative of what an ancient, uneducated, animal-like people would do/say. And here I agree with Christopher Hitchens that if a God were to reveal himself, why pick some of the dumbest people in ancient history? If he had waited 100,000 years, then why not wait another 2000 until now when we have the capability to substantiate with evidence? Or why not appear to the chinese who were more intelligent than the desert people? The Father was created by a weak and stupid people who wished they were powerful, but Jesus is something else and whoever created his words was clearly genius.


You've got some valid existential questions in there, but did Hitchens really say that? If so, it seems like he went out of his way to be antisemitic.

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:11 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I get your point, but how do we know any of those people existed? I could say I read the writings of a guy who knew Niles Crane, the brother of Frasier, but it would be a tv script.


There are non-Christian sources that attest to the existence of these people. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus supports the NT story that Jesus' brother, James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem.

I honestly don't know much about this. All I know is people who seem to know what they're talking about make the claim that there is little evidence that Jesus existed, which carries no real authority by itself, yet when the claim is coupled with the idea that Jesus could be modeled after sun worship, that sensibility adds credibility to the overall argument which demands some counterevidence substantiating his existence, imo.

Serendipper wrote:We couldn't make up a messiah that defeated the enemies of Israel because that obviously didn't happen. I think the theory is that those types of gods that were "humiliated, tortured and the killed by their enemies" had been successful in the past and was simply copied and renamed into Jesus rather than Horace et al.


Why put a different name on the mythical god? Why not just believe in Horus?

Oh did I misspell that? Oops. Well, why not go straight to the source and just worship the sun?

Serendipper wrote:That presupposes what is considered embarrassing.


According to the historical criteria of embarrassment, what is embarrassing is related to what is being attested. So, for example, if Jesus and his disciples are attested to be self-consistent pacifists who didn't carry weapons, the story that in the garden of Gethsemane they had swords is an embarrassment to that claim.


Yes, you're right! And Jesus admonished the one who cut off the ear of the high priest saying those who live by the sword shall also die by the sword.

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Serendipper wrote:
Otto_West wrote:Jesus is a Jew on a stick. Any god crucified on a cross is a weak pitiful god not worthy of worship beyond slaves.

Now that is interesting! So, what sort of god would be more impressive?
If you had all the power in the universe that there is to have, what would be the most difficult thing for you to do? The answer would be your most impressive accomplishment.
What most people regard as powerful is actually weakness and the bravest warriors are the most terrified (hence why they are warriors). So I don't see a powerful god laying its powers down as anything to be embarrassed by.


I was referring to the criteria of embarrassment in the technical sense that historians use it. You seem to be talking about it in a colloquial sense.

Embarrassment is always relative. Swords are embarrassing to the pacifists while pacifism is embarrassing to the warriors. I've proudly done things in the past that are embarrassing to me now, so there is no one perspective on embarrassing situations that could be used as a scientific tool of substantiation.

You've got some valid existential questions in there, but did Hitchens really say that? If so, it seems like he went out of his way to be antisemitic.




Here he's demonstrating the apparent reasoning of God by saying:

now we've got to
02:50
intervene! Now you have to believe it! You
02:58
have to believe it and the revelation
03:00
must be personal, so
03:04
we'll pick the most backward; the most
03:08
barbaric; the most illiterate; the most
03:11
superstitious; and the most savage people
03:13
we can find in the most stony area of
03:16
the of the world. We won't appear to the
03:19
Chinese who can already read.

That's a valid point. Why wait 100,000 years with complete indifference to immorality and then pick the dumbest people in the roughest place to reveal yourself? It seems more likely that those people invented the religion in the image of their backward ways, but begs the question of who Jesus could have been.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby felix dakat » Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:03 pm

Serendipper wrote:I honestly don't know much about this. All I know is people who seem to know what they're talking about make the claim that there is little evidence that Jesus existed, which carries no real authority by itself, yet when the claim is coupled with the idea that Jesus could be modeled after sun worship, that sensibility adds credibility to the overall argument which demands some counterevidence substantiating his existence, imo.


Here's an informative debate between scholars on two sides of the issue in case your interested in learning more about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIxxDfkaXVY

Oh did I misspell that? Oops. Well, why not go straight to the source and just worship the sun?


That's kinda off topic.


Serendipper wrote:
Otto_West wrote:Jesus is a Jew on a stick. Any god crucified on a cross is a weak pitiful god not worthy of worship beyond slaves.

Now that is interesting! So, what sort of god would be more impressive?
If you had all the power in the universe that there is to have, what would be the most difficult thing for you to do? The answer would be your most impressive accomplishment.
What most people regard as powerful is actually weakness and the bravest warriors are the most terrified (hence why they are warriors). So I don't see a powerful god laying its powers down as anything to be embarrassed by.


Again, you're using the notion of embarrassment in a generic sense. So, we're not talking about the same thing.

Anyway, the idea that Jesus was God laying down his powers is fantastical to the point of absurdity. It is, in all probability, a mythical embellishment of whatever actually happened to Jesus of Nazareth.


Embarrassment is always relative. Swords are embarrassing to the pacifists while pacifism is embarrassing to the warriors. I've proudly done things in the past that are embarrassing to me now, so there is no one perspective on embarrassing situations that could be used as a scientific tool of substantiation.


True. Embarrassment is always relative. I already acknowledged that and supplied the sword episode as a case in point. But, I explained that the criteria of embarrassment is a historical methodological technique. It's not about being embarrassed in an emotional sense. It's about facts in a story that run counter to the overarching narrative as presented that suggest what may really have happened.

Serendipper wrote:

Here he's demonstrating the apparent reasoning of God by saying:

now we've got to
02:50
intervene! Now you have to believe it! You
02:58
have to believe it and the revelation
03:00
must be personal, so
03:04
we'll pick the most backward; the most
03:08
barbaric; the most illiterate; the most
03:11
superstitious; and the most savage people
03:13
we can find in the most stony area of
03:16
the of the world. We won't appear to the
03:19
Chinese who can already read.

That's a valid point. Why wait 100,000 years with complete indifference to immorality and then pick the dumbest people in the roughest place to reveal yourself? It seems more likely that those people invented the religion in the image of their backward ways, but begs the question of who Jesus could have been.


"Dumbest" is your adjective not his. Were they really? If we're talking about Abraham, I'll grant that they were probably illiterate. Were they the most superstitious, backward or savage? I doubt it. They were probably like many other tribes at the time. I read it as antisemitic hyperbole.

Now according to the mythical narrative, it didn't take 100,000 years, more like 6,000 from Adam till now. But, in the real world, it's a valid question for the Abrahamic religions. It's basically and illustrative way of framing the theological problem of evil. I don't know what you mean about Jesus. He was most likely a first century Galilean Jew who made messianic claims, drew a small following and was executed by the Roman governor for it. His stunned followers developed a mythological/theological narrative that explained what had happened and that narrative became the foundation of the religious institution known as the church.

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 Greatest I am » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:55 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:I think the ancient wrote the bible and intentionally put contradictions is as the bible was created to activate thinking and not to be taken literally. Those contradictions were designed to be debated, not believed as real.

That would require an unbelievable amount of foresight to intentionally include contradictions which would have the known effect of causing people to dig deeper rather than reject the text due to the contradictions. And one doesn't need contradictions to make folks perceive hidden messages.

Most have forgotten that and ignore the brighter ancient ways.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Regards
DL

As soon as we open the door for allegorical interpretation we've removed all authority from it because truth could be gleaned in a way that wasn't intended, like people do to songs all the time. For instance the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was theorized to mean LSD or the band KISS was Knights in Satan's Service. That's off the top of my head and probably not the best examples, but hopefully you can see that interpretation is quite different than intention of the authors.

On the other hand, Jesus' main strategy for conveyance of nonceptual information was through allegory and it is indeed a powerful tool to speak by analogy, but I don't see why they needed to make the text factually incorrect or inconsistent with itself in order to implement allegory.

Regarding the intelligence of the ancients, I think the Indians (from India) and Chinese were ahead the Arabs in terms of enlightenment, profundity and scientific progress. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if I were.

As Alan Watts used to say, the Arabs would stone anyone claiming to be god, but the Hindus would have laughed and said "Of course! It's about time you found out! LOL" He says the good news (gospel) is not that Jesus is god, but that you are too.

The whole presentation is here:



At least start at 36:30 where he substantiates the claim that we are all the sons of god.


I have that in my library. It is an eye opener for those who can see.

My god is I am. Who is yours?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:09 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I honestly don't know much about this. All I know is people who seem to know what they're talking about make the claim that there is little evidence that Jesus existed, which carries no real authority by itself, yet when the claim is coupled with the idea that Jesus could be modeled after sun worship, that sensibility adds credibility to the overall argument which demands some counterevidence substantiating his existence, imo.


Here's an informative debate between scholars on two sides of the issue in case your interested in learning more about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIxxDfkaXVY

Thanks I'll check it out tonight.

Oh did I misspell that? Oops. Well, why not go straight to the source and just worship the sun?


That's kinda off topic.

I'm just following you.


Embarrassment is always relative. Swords are embarrassing to the pacifists while pacifism is embarrassing to the warriors. I've proudly done things in the past that are embarrassing to me now, so there is no one perspective on embarrassing situations that could be used as a scientific tool of substantiation.


True. Embarrassment is always relative. I already acknowledged that and supplied the sword episode as a case in point. But, I explained that the criteria of embarrassment is a historical methodological technique. It's not about being embarrassed in an emotional sense. It's about facts in a story that run counter to the overarching narrative as presented that suggest what may really have happened.

So you're suggesting that Jesus existed because facts ran counter to the overarching narrative as presented (ie embarrassment)? I'm not sure to what extent inconsistencies can be substantive.

Serendipper wrote:now we've got to
02:50
intervene! Now you have to believe it! You
02:58
have to believe it and the revelation
03:00
must be personal, so
03:04
we'll pick the most backward; the most
03:08
barbaric; the most illiterate; the most
03:11
superstitious; and the most savage people
03:13
we can find in the most stony area of
03:16
the of the world. We won't appear to the
03:19
Chinese who can already read.

That's a valid point. Why wait 100,000 years with complete indifference to immorality and then pick the dumbest people in the roughest place to reveal yourself? It seems more likely that those people invented the religion in the image of their backward ways, but begs the question of who Jesus could have been.


"Dumbest" is your adjective not his.

He said "the most backward; the most barbaric; the most illiterate; the most superstitious; and the most savage people." If that does not qualify as being the dumbest, then I'm not sure I understand what being dumb means.

Were they really? If we're talking about Abraham, I'll grant that they were probably illiterate. Were they the most superstitious, backward or savage? I doubt it. They were probably like many other tribes at the time. I read it as antisemitic hyperbole.

I don't think it has anything to do with being Jewish, but simply living in a warm climate had no selective pressure for intelligence. Circumcision seems a little bit barbaric to me as well as sacrificing animals and sometimes even children. Having a death penalty for just about every crime seems kinda savage and being obsessed with ritualistic ceremonies involving blood seems a bit backward.

Now according to the mythical narrative, it didn't take 100,000 years, more like 6,000 from Adam till now.

I suppose that is true, but even then it depends who you ask and how one tabulates the passage of time relative to the patriarchs listed in the bible. But ok 6000 from Adam till now, then how long from Adam to Moses? Why wait that amount of time until the 10 commandments? And why wait 4000 years to usher Jesus onto the scene? Why not wait 2000 more? Just think of how much more that could have been accomplished if the 12 disciples had iphones streaming to the cloud. But that would remove the element of faith because with that amount of evidence, who would need faith?

But, in the real world, it's a valid question for the Abrahamic religions. It's basically and illustrative way of framing the theological problem of evil. I don't know what you mean about Jesus. He was most likely a first century Galilean Jew who made messianic claims, drew a small following and was executed by the Roman governor for it. His stunned followers developed a mythological/theological narrative that explained what had happened and that narrative became the foundation of the religious institution known as the church.

That seems about right, if Jesus existed.

Since "genius" is a subjective designation, let me appeal to authority on the matter:

What is Genius?

The best way to answer such a question is to describe what genius is not. First and foremost, genius does not necessarily relate to talent. Being exceptionally good at some particular task does not automatically make one a genius. In light of this, people like Albert Einstein and Johann Sebastian Bach were not geniuses, but simply very talented people. Indeed, a genius need not be very talented in any area of life at all. Or if he does have some talent, it would necessarily find its most concentrated expression in the realm of wisdom. Genius is a function of one's relationship with Ultimate Reality and thus is a function of consciousness. The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius. By this definition, people like Jesus, the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and Socrates were geniuses to greater or lesser degree.

Albert Einstein, although gifted with a prodigious intellect, had a very poor relationship with Reality. The highest he ever reached in this relationship was a sense of awe and wonder at the Universe, which means that his connection with Reality was largely emotional and subconscious. It was, at bottom, little more than an emotional reaction to his own limited understanding of Reality as a whole. Einstein failed to take the all-important conceptual leap into full understanding of Reality, and thus he failed to reach the level of genius. The chief characteristic of a genius is independence of mind. This independence is attained through his having a clear and conscious grasp of the nature of Reality, which results in his mind being unmoved by the myths and fashions of his culture. Indeed, everything he thinks, says and does is performed with authority, a quality that arises when one's knowledge is permanent, complete, and beyond doubt.


http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128

Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. Genius! Only he who is without sin has any pretense to condemn a sinner.
The meek shall inherit the earth. Genius! He expanded the proverb "pride cometh before a fall" to the invariable conclusion that only the humble could endure to the end without self-destruction.
Forgive them for they know not what they do. Genius! For in understanding it is impossible to be angry.
Always take the lowest seat. Genius! For those who exalt themselves shall be abased while those who humble themselves shall be exalted.

Jesus was truly a pioneer of novels ways of thought relative to a primal culture that focused upon the most immediate desires. Whoever played the character role of Jesus was, without a doubt, a genius who was in touch with some deeper aspect of reality which wasn't readily apparent to the people of the time and still isn't even today.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:15 pm

Greatest I am wrote:My god is I am. Who is yours?

Who is I am?

Since any being can only love itself, I suppose my god is me. This would be true even of Yahweh; that he could only love himself.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:41 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:My god is I am. Who is yours?

Who is I am?

Since any being can only love itself, I suppose my god is me. This would be true even of Yahweh; that he could only love himself.


The right answer which says you have a Gnostic Christian spirit.

I do not agree with this.

"Since any being can only love itself,"

That has not been my experience and am beyond arguments that would refute my experience.

I offer my sympathy.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:32 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:My god is I am. Who is yours?

Who is I am?

Since any being can only love itself, I suppose my god is me. This would be true even of Yahweh; that he could only love himself.


The right answer which says you have a Gnostic Christian spirit.

Well at least my affliction has a name lol

I do not agree with this.

"Since any being can only love itself,"

That has not been my experience and am beyond arguments that would refute my experience.

In order to commit a selfless act, you'd have to do something that didn't ultimately benefit you and that is simply impossible. Everything you do is for your own benefit.

The closest anyone ever came to refuting that was the guy who testified that he ran to the aid of someone in an auto accident without even thinking first; it was totally reflexive. So I retorted that if it's reflexive, then YOU didn't do it, but rather it happened to you.

If you save someone from drowning, then it was because YOU couldn't stand the fact that someone was drowning, so it was pure selfishness.
If you give to the needy, it's because YOU couldn't live with yourself if you did not, so it's pure selfishness that you give.
And if a god cares for his people, then it's because he couldn't stand it if he did not, so it's pure selfishness that he keeps people alive.

Unselfish acts are absolutely impossible.

I offer my sympathy.

I humbly accept!
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:42 pm

In order to commit a selfless act, you'd have to do something that didn't ultimately benefit you and that is simply impossible. Everything you do is for your own benefit.

The closest anyone ever came to refuting that was the guy who testified that he ran to the aid of someone in an auto accident without even thinking first; it was totally reflexive. So I retorted that if it's reflexive, then YOU didn't do it, but rather it happened to you.

If you save someone from drowning, then it was because YOU couldn't stand the fact that someone was drowning, so it was pure selfishness.
If you give to the needy, it's because YOU couldn't live with yourself if you did not, so it's pure selfishness that you give.
And if a god cares for his people, then it's because he couldn't stand it if he did not, so it's pure selfishness that he keeps people alive.

Unselfish acts are absolutely impossible.
You do realize that this is your description of (un)selfish acts and not actually a defense of your statement "any being can only love itself". :-"
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 Serendipper » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:57 pm

phyllo wrote:
In order to commit a selfless act, you'd have to do something that didn't ultimately benefit you and that is simply impossible. Everything you do is for your own benefit.

The closest anyone ever came to refuting that was the guy who testified that he ran to the aid of someone in an auto accident without even thinking first; it was totally reflexive. So I retorted that if it's reflexive, then YOU didn't do it, but rather it happened to you.

If you save someone from drowning, then it was because YOU couldn't stand the fact that someone was drowning, so it was pure selfishness.
If you give to the needy, it's because YOU couldn't live with yourself if you did not, so it's pure selfishness that you give.
And if a god cares for his people, then it's because he couldn't stand it if he did not, so it's pure selfishness that he keeps people alive.

Unselfish acts are absolutely impossible.
You do realize that this is your description of (un)selfish acts and not actually a defense of your statement "any being can only love itself". :-"

Well do you know of a possible unselfish act or do you have a unique definition for love? For instance, I love how you follow me about disagreeing with whatever I say without actually presenting a reason for disagreement :D
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:13 pm

Well do you know of a possible unselfish act or do you have a unique definition for love? For instance, I love how you follow me about disagreeing with whatever I say without actually presenting a reason for disagreement :D
I would say that it's possible to love someone and to get a personal benefit out of that love. Love being a pleasant feeling for the lover, for instance. IOW, loving someone is not necessarily an unselfish act.

Therefore a discussion of unselfish acts is beside the point when defending the statement "any being can only love itself".
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 Serendipper » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:03 am

phyllo wrote:
Well do you know of a possible unselfish act or do you have a unique definition for love? For instance, I love how you follow me about disagreeing with whatever I say without actually presenting a reason for disagreement :D
I would say that it's possible to love someone and to get a personal benefit out of that love. Love being a pleasant feeling for the lover, for instance. IOW, loving someone is not necessarily an unselfish act.

Therefore a discussion of unselfish acts is beside the point when defending the statement "any being can only love itself".

So love is a function of dopamine? Well that argues for selfishness since any being would strive to maximize dopamine and it wouldn't be genuine love at all.

From the bible perspective:

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.


Well, those are two impossible goals because 1) we cannot control who we love and 2) we can only love ourselves.

Who is our neighbor? The parable of the good Samaritan:

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?


The only way you can love your neighbor as yourself is if you happen to fancy the idea, and that is not anything you have power over. You cannot choose to feel bad for someone if you do not feel bad and you cannot choose to ignore the suffering of someone if the idea of it actually causes you pain. And whether you help the person is a function of how much pain it causes you.

When we get real with this fact and realize that none of us are righteous and every one of us are rascals, then we can lay down pretense and form mutually beneficial alliances and symbiotic relationships because, most often, what's good for you is also good for me.

I have no special regard for the poor because I have no mechanism to have, but helping the poor helps me because a rising tide lifts all boats. I don't support the minimum wage because I'm altruistic, but I support it because I'm a selfish prick. Robinhood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor because he gave a crap about the poor, but because he did what was best for him.

Ethics are what are good for me; not you, because keeping my word forms strong alliances which is good for me. I'm not striving to be righteous, but striving to make my life as good as possible. I don't need a god barking orders to keep me in line; I need a brain to realize that being a decent person benefits me. That is probably why atheism and intelligence go hand in hand with an overall moral people while the opposite is true among the religious, most especially Islam, because it's a more powerful incentive to act in a way that you can see with your mind, as clear as day, how acting moral is self-beneficial rather than blindly trusting in some law as a matter of faith.

Furthermore, I was listening to Hitchens last night who was going on about how morally relative the moral absolutes are and I was waiting for an opportunity to include it here:

Start at 1:10:00



if you can't
71:57
condemn anyone without being yourself
72:00
without sin, then we can't even arrest
72:03
Charles Manson unless we were sinless
72:06
ourselves, so these moral absolutes are
72:09
actually more full of more
72:10
moral relativism than you might think. And the
72:12
reason people want there to be
72:14
absolutes is this they want there to be
72:15
an absolute authority who can give them
72:18
to you because wouldn't that save you
72:20
all the trouble of thinking out ethics
72:21
for yourself, which is where I started


Felix, apparently, according to Hitchens, one of the bits of genius I attributed to Jesus was knitted in late, so I wonder who it was.

the Nazarene says you can't condemn
71:45
anyone unless you can cast the first
71:46
stone actually that bit was knitted into
71:48
the Bible quite late and is almost
71:50
certainly a fabrication but it's
71:52
believed in by many Christians
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:47 am

Serendipper wrote:[

The right answer which says you have a Gnostic Christian spirit.

Well at least my affliction has a name lol

I do not agree with this.

"Since any being can only love itself,"

That has not been my experience and am beyond arguments that would refute my experience.

In order to commit a selfless act, you'd have to do something that didn't ultimately benefit you and that is simply impossible. Everything you do is for your own benefit.

The closest anyone ever came to refuting that was the guy who testified that he ran to the aid of someone in an auto accident without even thinking first; it was totally reflexive. So I retorted that if it's reflexive, then YOU didn't do it, but rather it happened to you.

If you save someone from drowning, then it was because YOU couldn't stand the fact that someone was drowning, so it was pure selfishness.
If you give to the needy, it's because YOU couldn't live with yourself if you did not, so it's pure selfishness that you give.
And if a god cares for his people, then it's because he couldn't stand it if he did not, so it's pure selfishness that he keeps people alive.

Unselfish acts are absolutely impossible.

I offer my sympathy.

I humbly accept![/quote]

You brought up the word selfless.
I never used it and do not see true love as selfless as it must have reciprocity to be true love. Seems we are on the same page.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

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

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:51 am

So love is a function of dopamine? Well that argues for selfishness since any being would strive to maximize dopamine and it wouldn't be genuine love at all.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Are you saying that "genuine love" has to be entirely selfless?

Why isn't the lover 'allowed' to get anything out of it?
From the bible perspective:
Why bring up the bible? I didn't. And you're an Alan Watts style Buddhist?
Well, those are two impossible goals because 1) we cannot control who we love and 2) we can only love ourselves
...
The only way you can love your neighbor as yourself is if you happen to fancy the idea, and that is not anything you have power over.
If you are going biblical, then a recurring theme is that of free will. Which suggest that one can choose to love.
The only way you can love your neighbor as yourself is if you happen to fancy the idea, and that is not anything you have power over. You cannot choose to feel bad for someone if you do not feel bad and you cannot choose to ignore the suffering of someone if the idea of it actually causes you pain. And whether you help the person is a function of how much pain it causes you.

When we get real with this fact and realize that none of us are righteous and every one of us are rascals, then we can lay down pretense and form mutually beneficial alliances and symbiotic relationships because, most often, what's good for you is also good for me.

I have no special regard for the poor because I have no mechanism to have, but helping the poor helps me because a rising tide lifts all boats. I don't support the minimum wage because I'm altruistic, but I support it because I'm a selfish prick. Robinhood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor because he gave a crap about the poor, but because he did what was best for him.

Ethics are what are good for me; not you, because keeping my word forms strong alliances which is good for me. I'm not striving to be righteous, but striving to make my life as good as possible. I don't need a god barking orders to keep me in line; I need a brain to realize that being a decent person benefits me. That is probably why atheism and intelligence go hand in hand with an overall moral people while the opposite is true among the religious, most especially Islam, because it's a more powerful incentive to act in a way that you can see with your mind, as clear as day, how acting moral is self-beneficial rather than blindly trusting in some law as a matter of faith.
This seems to be another tangent ... this time about selfishness and the ability to choose.
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 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:29 am

Serendipper wrote:
phyllo wrote:
In order to commit a selfless act, you'd have to do something that didn't ultimately benefit you and that is simply impossible. Everything you do is for your own benefit.

The closest anyone ever came to refuting that was the guy who testified that he ran to the aid of someone in an auto accident without even thinking first; it was totally reflexive. So I retorted that if it's reflexive, then YOU didn't do it, but rather it happened to you.

If you save someone from drowning, then it was because YOU couldn't stand the fact that someone was drowning, so it was pure selfishness.
If you give to the needy, it's because YOU couldn't live with yourself if you did not, so it's pure selfishness that you give.
And if a god cares for his people, then it's because he couldn't stand it if he did not, so it's pure selfishness that he keeps people alive.

Unselfish acts are absolutely impossible.
You do realize that this is your description of (un)selfish acts and not actually a defense of your statement "any being can only love itself". :-"

Well do you know of a possible unselfish act or do you have a unique definition for love? For instance, I love how you follow me about disagreeing with whatever I say without actually presenting a reason for disagreement :D


I think the term selfish gets meaning when you lack care for others. Your interests do not include the interests of others. You do not care about other people.

Yes, an empathic person is also taking care of their own preferences and emotions. That's who they are, the kind of person who is affected negatively by the pain of others in some contexts.

Of course people will even die to save others. Some animals will help animals of other species, including us.

I think it makes sense to distinguish this behavior and the attendant attitudes and feelings from people who do not give a shit about other people.

Selfish would describe those who do not give that shit.
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 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:09 pm

phyllo wrote:
phyllo wrote:I would say that it's possible to love someone and to get a personal benefit out of that love. Love being a pleasant feeling for the lover, for instance.
So love is a function of dopamine? Well that argues for selfishness since any being would strive to maximize dopamine and it wouldn't be genuine love at all.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

You said "love being a pleasant feeling for the lover" which is saying love = feeling, which is saying love = dopamine.

Are you saying that "genuine love" has to be entirely selfless?

Yes I actually thought that went without saying.

Why isn't the lover 'allowed' to get anything out of it?

Because then it wouldn't be love. If love is selflessness, then selfishness is not love.

From the bible perspective:
Why bring up the bible?

Because: 1) I have a decent working knowledge of it. 2) it's the context of the thread. 3) the bible has some authoritative value concerning the definition of love.

And you're an Alan Watts style Buddhist?

Alan was an Episcopalian Priest who described himself as "semi-Buddhist, semi-Hindu", though I'm not sure why since he also said "Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export" and he clearly favored the "dramatic model" over the "organic model", so I have no idea in what way he considered himself Buddhist at all. For me, I don't know where I fit except that I've fancied the panvitalist idea. I tend not to fit many categories. Alan used to say "This is reality [claps hands or bangs gong].... and we wont give it a name." I'm not a big fan of labels either.

There are words for people like me,
But I don't think there's very many.


Name that tune?

Well, those are two impossible goals because 1) we cannot control who we love and 2) we can only love ourselves
...
The only way you can love your neighbor as yourself is if you happen to fancy the idea, and that is not anything you have power over.
If you are going biblical, then a recurring theme is that of free will. Which suggest that one can choose to love.

You have free expression of your will, but not the freedom to determine what your will wants.

The only way you can love your neighbor as yourself is if you happen to fancy the idea, and that is not anything you have power over. You cannot choose to feel bad for someone if you do not feel bad and you cannot choose to ignore the suffering of someone if the idea of it actually causes you pain. And whether you help the person is a function of how much pain it causes you.

When we get real with this fact and realize that none of us are righteous and every one of us are rascals, then we can lay down pretense and form mutually beneficial alliances and symbiotic relationships because, most often, what's good for you is also good for me.

I have no special regard for the poor because I have no mechanism to have, but helping the poor helps me because a rising tide lifts all boats. I don't support the minimum wage because I'm altruistic, but I support it because I'm a selfish prick. Robinhood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor because he gave a crap about the poor, but because he did what was best for him.

Ethics are what are good for me; not you, because keeping my word forms strong alliances which is good for me. I'm not striving to be righteous, but striving to make my life as good as possible. I don't need a god barking orders to keep me in line; I need a brain to realize that being a decent person benefits me. That is probably why atheism and intelligence go hand in hand with an overall moral people while the opposite is true among the religious, most especially Islam, because it's a more powerful incentive to act in a way that you can see with your mind, as clear as day, how acting moral is self-beneficial rather than blindly trusting in some law as a matter of faith.
This seems to be another tangent ... this time about selfishness and the ability to choose.

Well it's ethics and bible, so it's on topic.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:20 pm

Greatest I am wrote:You brought up the word selfless.

I thought it was common knowledge that love is selfless, especially with regard to what god to worship.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.


I never used it and do not see true love as selfless as it must have reciprocity to be true love. Seems we are on the same page.

I suppose so, but most Christians don't see it that way.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:31 pm

Yes I actually thought that went without saying.
A lot of your arguments are based on "Stuff that goes without saying".
Because then it wouldn't be love. If love is selflessness, then selfishness is not love.
It's not at all clear that love has to be selflessness. It's just your idea that it is.

And even that is far from the original statement "any being can only love itself" which remains unjustified.
Because: 1) I have a decent working knowledge of it. 2) it's the context of the thread. 3) the bible has some authoritative value concerning the definition of love.
You do like your authorities.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Prismatic567