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

Zenchi wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote: quote="Zenchi" post=265955][

quote="Greatest-I-am" post=265945]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_M.dn4

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

Say I bite, say everyone here who's active agrees with what your attempting to sell, what then?

Then girdle your verbal loins and charge your light saber and take the fight to the enemy. The last line from Yoda says it all.

That is your answer? A sounds bite, from Yoda? If you can't take this discussion the least bit serious then you sir are not worth the time...

I was quite serious.

You just chose to do not.

Regards
DL

My attempt is to no longer see labels but the individual. Are you asking me personally or in general , I can only speak for myself and my path,I will never speak for others but I will acknowledge their existence and some play a more roll in my own time..path.
I learn and seek to allow me to know of other views possible. For me this helps me see a much greater picture than myself. I see more " stories" involved. More to just what I origannly saw. A better picture for a better result. For me.... Being able to see hurt that is evident and not my doing some times helps me decide my actions in dealing with things, I have a very applicable faith in my mindfullness in my meditations has become real life practice. I try not to give u a ...your right ever or a your wrong ever, not my cup of tea ... Not my place to say . your choices matter to you, no one else. Mine matter little to u. Yet here we are. I'm glad u have found a place like this. To me... We are equal in the fact that the human potential, the ability to do anything lay in every one of us. You my friend are to me learned and have done some studying. The purpose for this place is to build, not tare down. I am no saint, but there are many who believe the same. Please know we are many from diffrent times places country's and continents. We will all never see eyento eye. Count on it, human present human problems, but I do so hope you do stick around. May the Living Force be with you find or what ever you choose to call it may you find it in your search. Hope we can helps some how, hope I can.

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Gisteron wrote: ...
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?

You seem to recognize that, as I say it, we are all in this together, alone.

That is what is expressed by the Gnostic Christian Jesus, and what I believe was his good news message, as a sage, and not a miracle working God, but as a true man who had attained Gnosis.
...

As you can see, I wasn't asking what your holy book said on the matter. I was asking what about your ideology is any good and by what standard is it better to follow it than not to follow it. I didn't only say that I was alone in this, I also said that I am for this reason having to think on my own. You on the other hand are throwing scripture and Watts at me, displaying the very same weakness I criticized about ideologies in the first place.

Socrates did not use math to explain concepts of morality.

When you find a holy book or law book using math to determine morality or law, then perhaps we can continue our discussion.

I see what you put as a cop out.

We were talking of a moral concept and most moral are subjective and thus cannot be dithered out with math.

You misunderstand. I was not addressing the moral value of either form of the Golden Rule. I was only implying that the two forms are not equivalent. That was what you disagreed with, and that is not a moral statement, but a logical truth claim. My only point was that they are not the same, and I can prove that they aren't in at least three different ways one of which you just dismissed for no reason. My point was not that one was better or worse than the other, and frankly I don't think either of them are any good, and depending on how you define evil, I'd call both of them so.
Oh, and what some ancient character did or didn't do or say is irrelevant. My case falls or stands on its own merits, not on the basis of how many others made it before me.

I gave a nice small yet concise argument. Refute it or thanks for the chat.

Yes, and that is what I addressed. Your argument was fallacious in multiple ways. But for clarity's sake, I shall address it:

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.

I agree. If it is hateful to you that your property be violated, the negative form of the Golden Rule instructs you to not violate other people's property. So far so good...

f 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.

Wrong. The positive form tells you that you should do unto others what you would want done unto you. If you want to be stolen from, you are free to steal from others. But if you don't, this rule tells you nothing. This is the case where the antecedent is FALSE, and ex falso quod libet. If it is not the case that you want something done to you, the positive form of the Golden Rule does not command you to do it to others, but only the negative form prohibits it.

Likewise, if something is not hateful to you, the negative form does not command you to do it to everyone else. Otherwise we'd have to gift everyone a bucket of gold just because it isn't hateful to us. Judging this non-neutral example by the positive form, by the way, we'd find that we should - just another example of why the Golden Rule is so impractical.

The positive form tells us what we should do, the negative tells us what we shouldn't do. There is also a non-empty set of of morally accessable situations that is covered by neither. They are not equivalent, neither follows from the other and I had already proven it unequivocally in my previous post which you dismissed as if it were beneath you.

carlos.martinez3 wrote: My attempt is to no longer see labels but the individual. Are you asking me personally or in general , I can only speak for myself and my path,I will never speak for others but I will acknowledge their existence and some play a more roll in my own time..path.
I learn and seek to allow me to know of other views possible. For me this helps me see a much greater picture than myself. I see more " stories" involved. More to just what I origannly saw. A better picture for a better result. For me.... Being able to see hurt that is evident and not my doing some times helps me decide my actions in dealing with things, I have a very applicable faith in my mindfullness in my meditations has become real life practice. I try not to give u a ...your right ever or a your wrong ever, not my cup of tea ... Not my place to say . your choices matter to you, no one else. Mine matter little to u. Yet here we are. I'm glad u have found a place like this. To me... We are equal in the fact that the human potential, the ability to do anything lay in every one of us. You my friend are to me learned and have done some studying. The purpose for this place is to build, not tare down. I am no saint, but there are many who believe the same. Please know we are many from diffrent times places country's and continents. We will all never see eyento eye. Count on it, human present human problems, but I do so hope you do stick around. May the Living Force be with you find or what ever you choose to call it may you find it in your search. Hope we can helps some how, hope I can.

Thanks for this.

My search has already been rewarded by apotheosis and it is what drove me to stop watching and start acting. If you think demographically, you will know that, like a domino effect, quite a bit can happen if you move the right domino.

Regards
DL

Gisteron wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Gisteron wrote: ...
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?

You seem to recognize that, as I say it, we are all in this together, alone.

That is what is expressed by the Gnostic Christian Jesus, and what I believe was his good news message, as a sage, and not a miracle working God, but as a true man who had attained Gnosis.
...

As you can see, I wasn't asking what your holy book said on the matter. I was asking what about your ideology is any good and by what standard is it better to follow it than not to follow it. I didn't only say that I was alone in this, I also said that I am for this reason having to think on my own. You on the other hand are throwing scripture and Watts at me, displaying the very same weakness I criticized about ideologies in the first place.

Socrates did not use math to explain concepts of morality.

When you find a holy book or law book using math to determine morality or law, then perhaps we can continue our discussion.

I see what you put as a cop out.

We were talking of a moral concept and most moral are subjective and thus cannot be dithered out with math.

You misunderstand. I was not addressing the moral value of either form of the Golden Rule. I was only implying that the two forms are not equivalent. That was what you disagreed with, and that is not a moral statement, but a logical truth claim. My only point was that they are not the same, and I can prove that they aren't in at least three different ways one of which you just dismissed for no reason. My point was not that one was better or worse than the other, and frankly I don't think either of them are any good, and depending on how you define evil, I'd call both of them so.
Oh, and what some ancient character did or didn't do or say is irrelevant. My case falls or stands on its own merits, not on the basis of how many others made it before me.

I gave a nice small yet concise argument. Refute it or thanks for the chat.

Yes, and that is what I addressed. Your argument was fallacious in multiple ways. But for clarity's sake, I shall address it:

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.

I agree. If it is hateful to you that your property be violated, the negative form of the Golden Rule instructs you to not violate other people's property. So far so good...

f 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.

Wrong. The positive form tells you that you should do unto others what you would want done unto you. If you want to be stolen from, you are free to steal from others. But if you don't, this rule tells you nothing. This is the case where the antecedent is FALSE, and ex falso quod libet. If it is not the case that you want something done to you, the positive form of the Golden Rule does not command you to do it to others, but only the negative form prohibits it.

Likewise, if something is not hateful to you, the negative form does not command you to do it to everyone else. Otherwise we'd have to gift everyone a bucket of gold just because it isn't hateful to us. Judging this non-neutral example by the positive form, by the way, we'd find that we should - just another example of why the Golden Rule is so impractical.

The positive form tells us what we should do, the negative tells us what we shouldn't do. There is also a non-empty set of of morally accessable situations that is covered by neither. They are not equivalent, neither follows from the other and I had already proven it unequivocally in my previous post which you dismissed as if it were beneath you.

Interesting that you base your argument on the insane notion that some would like to have their goods stolen. The point and tenet was written for normal people and not S & Ms.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I saw this though.

"My point was not that one was better or worse than the other, and frankly I don't think either of them are any good, and depending on how you define evil, I'd call both of them so."

If the Golden rule is evil to you, a minority position, not that that automatically makes someone wrong on any issue, what would you state as your first moral tenet?

I hope it is not just another way to express reciprocity. Some sociologists are using the term "Harm/Care", but I see that also as reciprocity.

Regards
DL

Interesting that you base your argument on the insane notion that some would like to have their goods stolen.

That is a lie.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

No, we really don't have to. You are wrong about the two forms of the Golden Rule being the same, I have proven that twice now, and you ignored it both times and are now just lying about what I said. I don't think we are on anything like equal footing here, and I do not need to back down and settle at all, because I'm not the one being demonstrably wrong or dishonest here. You are.

If the Golden rule is evil to you, a minority position, not that that automatically makes someone wrong on any issue, what would you state as your first moral tenet?

I did not say it was evil to me. I said that it depends on how we define evil. Something you could have read before quoting it for everybody to see how you didn't read it. The same quote also states that I was nor arguing the moral value of the Golden Rule, but rather, as I already proved, that the negative and positive form are not equal as you insist they are without any argument whatsoever.
But to answer your question, I don't have "moral tenets", because I think it that trying to have short and overly simplistic answers to highly complicated questions is silly and dangerous. That's why the Golden Rule doesn't impress me, because it is yet another attempt to just that.
I know it is shocking to you that my disagreement with you is not ideological in nature, but as you pretended to acknowledge and understand before, I'm no ideologue, so you cannot sway me by comparison of our ideologies. Instead you'll have to come up with valid and sound arguments.

So, what about your ideology makes it better to have it than not to have it? Don't get me wrong, I've asked this twice already and you didn't respond, so I'm not asking expecting an answer at this point at all. Rather, I'm just making sure everybody else sees how swiftly you keep shifting the goal post and ignoring or lying about any and all actual argument or challenge like only an ideologue would need to.

Gisteron wrote:

]I did not say it was evil to me. I said that it depends on how we define evil. to.

"My point was not that one was better or worse than the other, and frankly I don't think either of them are any good, and depending on how you define evil, I'd call both of them so."

I think we are done with this issue as you are not wanting to own your words.

This issue is dead to me now so please respect that.

Regards
DL

Gisteron wrote:

So, what about your ideology makes it better to have it than not to have it? Don't get me wrong, I've asked this twice already and you didn't respond, so I'm not asking expecting an answer at this point at all. Rather, I'm just making sure everybody else sees how swiftly you keep shifting the goal post and ignoring or lying about any and all actual argument or challenge like only an ideologue would need to.

Do not turn into an a hole with personal garbage.

To begin an answer to your question, I gave you a reply here which I do not think you addressed.

26 Nov 2016 00:57 #265977

Regards
DL

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I did not say it was evil to me. I said that it depends on how we define evil.

"My point was not that one was better or worse than the other, and frankly I don't think either of them are any good, and depending on how you define evil, I'd call both of them so."

I think we are done with this issue as you are not wanting to own your words.

It's not my fault that you cannot read. And no, I'm not done with you lying about what I said until you cease doing so. I choose every word I say with care (which is why I know what a converse is and why it is not equivalent to its root), and I own having said each of them, even long after my mind changes.

This issue is dead to me now so please respect that.

Well, you brought it up, so you get to call when it's over, I suppose. Is there any issue that isn't dead to you yet? How about the Jewish ideological supremacy? Or perhaps the worthiness of Gnostic Christianity? Literally, do you still care to discuss anything you brought up at all? Or was I correct with my initial assumption that you are here solely to preach?

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Gisteron wrote: So, what about your ideology makes it better to have it than not to have it? Don't get me wrong, I've asked this twice already and you didn't respond, so I'm not asking expecting an answer at this point at all. Rather, I'm just making sure everybody else sees how swiftly you keep shifting the goal post and ignoring or lying about any and all actual argument or challenge like only an ideologue would need to.

Do not turn into an a hole with personal garbage.

To begin an answer to your question, I gave you a reply here which I do not think you addressed.

#265977

I'm quite happy to be called an asshole by someone as a "punishment" for making this personal, the irony of it alone is well worth it.
I think I did address post #265977 early in my post #266012. I pointed out how in post #265977 you ignored my question from post #265952 (which I quoted in isolation for your review) completely and instead chose to preach to me what was completely irrelevant to the question and unimportant to the position it came from. I also reiterated the question a second time in the hopes of getting an answer the second time around. In the light of your ignoring that reply, I posed the question a third time in post #266020 as quoted above which you took as an opportunity to lie about the history of this thread while it is still there for everyone to review. Judging by how much you love those rules of reciprocity one might almost think that you are inviting me to lie about what you said, too. But I shall not, not because I feel any will to be kind to you, but because I am not leaving within the week like I predict you are going to, so I would actually have something to lose by being dishonest in public. Fortunately by this point I won't be disgracing myself any further by engaging than I already have, because the way I see it there aren't any more depths left for me to stoop to.

Thanks for the post.

Regards
DL