Is recognition that Jews have the best ideology of the Abrahamic cults the reaso

Well that's rude. Your 'Regards, DL' is annoying. What does it stand for ?? D*ckheaded Liar ?? Somebody ban this troll. He's been here a day and caused more trouble than I have in my year of being here.

Silas Mercury wrote: Well that's rude. Your 'Regards, DL' is annoying. What does it stand for ?? D*ckheaded Liar ?? Somebody ban this troll. He's been here a day and caused more trouble than I have in my year of being here.

No

Gisteron wrote: [

Some interesting points. Thanks.

Some I agree with others, well, just wow. Like the view that God would end sacrifice by having one last really big one for the gripper. So to speak.

I was surprised that you did not think homophobia and misogyny as immoral since you do know a bit about reciprocity and the Golden Rule.

You may be right that I would have to wait for a theist to engage but I did pull the following for a quick follow up.

"I'm no expert on matters of moral philosophy, but from the two classes I took on the subject, it would seem that it is not the same. The positive form is instructive. It tells us what to do to others. The negative form is prohibitive. It tells us what not to do to them. It is trivially easy to follow one rule and break the other by one and the same action (or indeed inaction)."

The positive form is instructive.
I think that if you know what to do to others, then you would automatically know what not to do to others.

The negative form is prohibitive.
I think that if you know what not to do to others, you should automatically what to do to them.

If you agree then you see that either form is identical to the other in terms of instruction which is what I originally stated in my reply.

Regards
DL

Zenchi wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote:
I live by these just as you likely do.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Silly Kaa, tricks are for kids. :laugh:

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL

Eh, the "Dickheaded Liar" thing is no less rude by any means, if we are going to make rudeness important at all.

But with that, and in light of what OB said, too, I'd also remark that I do not think GIa is trolling.
However, given that he posted this also on an art sharing community , a drug harm reduction and self-help community (which, if I may be so opinionated, I find a rather distasteful choice of place to bring religion to), and a Total War gaming community independently and around the same time (though he has been a member of all three for years now, and mostly preaching much of the same, at least on DeviantArt), I am getting to doubt just how interested he is in discussing this as opposed to just spreading his message.

I do think Greatest-I-am/Gnostic Bishop is at least representing his genuine position, even if I wouldn't dare assume that he sincerely seeks to think about it or anyone else's, here or elsewhere.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL

Greatest-I-am wrote: The positive form is instructive.
I think that if you know what to do to others, then you would automatically know what not to do to others.

The negative form is prohibitive.
I think that if you know what not to do to others, you should automatically what to do to them.

If you agree then you see that either form is identical to the other in terms of instruction which is what I originally stated in my reply.

Sure, if I agreed, I'd agree. But I don't. If I tell you a number is not 19, that doesn't mean it is 76. Likewise, if I tell you a number is greater than 4 that doesn't mean that it isn't 9. An instruction to do one thing is not a prohibition against another. Likewise a prohibition to do one thing is not an instruction (or even permission) to do another. Now, if the Golden Rule said "Do everything to others that you would do to yourself, and do nothing else to them", or if it said "Do nothing to others what you wouldn't have done unto you, but do to them everything else", those two would be effectively equivalent. But the versions of the Golden Rule we know are neither, and I'd frankly think of them as even less moral if they were.

Gisteron wrote: Eh, the "Dickheaded Liar" thing is no less rude by any means, if we are going to make rudeness important at all.

But with that, and in light of what OB said, too, I'd also remark that I do not think GIa is trolling.
However, given that he posted this also on an art sharing community , a drug harm reduction and self-help community (which, if I may be so opinionated, I find a rather distasteful choice of place to bring religion to), and a Total War gaming community independently and around the same time (though he has been a member of all three for years now, and mostly preaching much of the same, at least on DeviantArt), I am getting to doubt just how interested he is in discussing this as opposed to just spreading his message.

I do think Greatest-I-am/Gnostic Bishop is at least representing his genuine position, even if I wouldn't dare assume that he sincerely seeks to think about it or anyone else's, here or elsewhere.

My agenda first and foremost is to seek good minds so that I might lose an argument and actually learn something.

As you might know, like here, good minds are hard to find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be

My agenda, because I see religions as the cause of much evil, is to try to show people that respecting religions that do not deserve it is not the moral thing to do.

Both Christianity and Islam have grown their religions by the sword instead of good deeds and are homophobic and misogynous cults and are the main focus for my hate of evil religions.

If you do not know when and how to hate, you will not know when or how to love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M5Zdn4

In short, I am here to learn, teach, and preach about Gnostic Christianity as it is the only worthy ideology that I have found to date.

Regards
DL

Gisteron wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote: The positive form is instructive.
I think that if you know what to do to others, then you would automatically know what not to do to others.

The negative form is prohibitive.
I think that if you know what not to do to others, you should automatically what to do to them.

If you agree then you see that either form is identical to the other in terms of instruction which is what I originally stated in my reply.

Sure, if I agreed, I'd agree. But I don't. If I tell you a number is not 19, that doesn't mean it is 76. Likewise, if I tell you a number is greater than 4 that doesn't mean that it isn't 9. An instruction to do one thing is not a prohibition against another. Likewise a prohibition to do one thing is not an instruction (or even permission) to do another. Now, if the Golden Rule said "Do everything to others that you would do to yourself, and do nothing else to them", or if it said "Do nothing to others what you wouldn't have done unto you, but do to them everything else", those two would be effectively equivalent. But the versions of the Golden Rule we know are neither, and I'd frankly think of them as even less moral if they were.

We were not talking of issues with numbers but with reciprocity taught or learned from a positive or negative side.

You did not like the negative and preferred the positive.

If the issue at hand is, should I steal from someone, and the negatively given Golden Rule says --- That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. --- it tells me since I would hate to have my goods stolen, that I should not do it because it is hateful to me.

If the issue at hand is, should I steal from someone, and the positively given Golden Rule says --- Do unto others what you want done to you. --- it tells me, since I know that I would hate to have my goods stolen, that I should not do it because it is hateful to me or what I would not want done to me.

The two Golden Rules impart the same information so if you are going to say that one is better than the other, you will have to come up with a better argument delivered in about the same way.

Pick your issue and do not gum it up with, like your numbers, a thousand of variables as then the message gets lost.

Regards
DL

So I'm myself one of those who feels like aside from some primitive tribal urges there is no reason why one would have to commit oneself to an ideology in the first place. The creating an in-group and an out-group never doesn't grow into a complex where you think the in-group is superior to the out-group by some unspecified metric. It doesn't stay healthy for long.
I may not enjoy a community of people using the same label to describe themselves, and I am perhaps the kind of person who can just get by alone for a while, to some extent. At any rate, what I gain by this... solitude, for lack of a better term, is that I never get to be misrepresented by someone claiming to be like me. I also never get to represent anyone who isn't me. I never get to take shortcuts in thinking or in judgement, because I have no dogma that would take those burdens away from me. I am never wrong because an ideology commanded me to be, rather all my mistakes are my own to bear, and my own to correct. This responsibility is something I think central to the human condition and I cannot help but think less of anyone who recognizing this still chooses instead the easy path of having something else make the decisions for them.

So with this short insight into where I'm coming from...
What about Gnostic Christianity makes it "worthy" an ideology, and worthy of what at that? I'm not asking for another sermon on its superiority to Christianity or Islam and I'm frankly not comfortable being pushed to defend either of those. Without comparing your ideology to anything else, what about it itself is any good? By what standard is having it better than not having it?