The God-Awful Truth?

[Fairy]

I doubt there's much point in me "repenting". I haven't the slightest idea how to "repent" and I'll only do the same sins again and again so it seems kind of pointless. Guess I'll be going to hell.

Do you consider yourself to be a good person, Gary?

Not really. I don't do much of anything particularly wonderful. Mostly, I'm just dead weight. My highest achievement is taking up space and turning resources into waste products. But maybe I'm about on par with most, I don't know.

I believe most people have multi-faceted faces. You can never tell what they are going to do from one moment to the next. Half the time they are lying to you. There are many sides to the human being. Namely, the most common two, being the dark and the light, the bad and the good, and then there's all the mysteriously hidden grey areas lurking somewhere in-between those two main polarities. . Most people if they are truly open and honest with themselves have a tendency to be Bipolar.

People who are in love with someone else, can just as easily kill the one they love. It's quite scary really. You never really know who you are mixing with when it comes to being with other people.

I very much relate to that statement you made earlier; the one where you said you do not date because you would rather spare other people the agony of being with you, I really do get that. To me, it's a miracle how even two people ever manage to live in happiness and harmony together as intimate soul mates. How that is possible at all, is beyond my understanding. Especially since we are all, each and every one of us, a unique never to be repeated entity, living in our own private impenetrable bubble like spheres, that is unlike anyone else's private bubble.

[godelian]

The supposedly overall 'moral' rules of Islam are more evil than being morally good to humanity.

The moral rules of Islam are a given, documented definition for good and evil.

Even ChatGPT knows the details of this definition perfectly fine and is able to rigorously reason within its confines. ChatGPT appears to the outside world as some kind of model Muslim.

If the definition proposed by Islam is supposedly evil, according to what alternative definition would that be?

You do not mention such alternative definition. This is exactly the point at which your word salad becomes stupid.

If you prefer an alternative definition for good and evil, that would be perfectly fine. If you state that Islam is not compatible with your preferred alternative, that would also be absolutely fine.

For example, Jews prefer their own Jewish law as their moral theory. This is perfectly fine. The prophet of Islam even adjudicated a Jewish court case on the basis of Jewish law:

https://salafipublications.com/sps/smm/ ... pterID=690

Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) who had committed adultery. Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery?

So, if a Jew says that he prefers Jewish law to Islamic law, that is perfectly workable. As long as the moral theory is sufficiently documented and closed under logical consequence, it can be used as a moral theory.

What you are doing, however, is nonsensical.

Why would someone else accept your otherwise unspecified and undocumented alternative definition as the absolute benchmark for good and evil?

Why would we give your undocumented invention that kind of status?

What you are doing, is complete bullshit.

If you cannot document your preferred alternative, then first learn how to read and write! Seriously, what are you even talking about?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The supposedly overall 'moral' rules of Islam are more evil than being morally good to humanity.

The moral rules of Islam are a given, documented definition for good and evil.

Even ChatGPT knows the details of this definition perfectly fine and is able to rigorously reason within its confines. ChatGPT appears to the outside world as some kind of model Muslim.

If the definition proposed by Islam is supposedly evil, according to what alternative definition would that be?

You do not mention such alternative definition. This is exactly the point at which your word salad becomes stupid.

If you prefer an alternative definition for good and evil, that would be perfectly fine. If you state that Islam is not compatible with your preferred alternative, that would also be absolutely fine.

For example, Jews prefer their own Jewish law as their moral theory. This is perfectly fine. The prophet of Islam even adjudicated a Jewish court case on the basis of Jewish law:

https://salafipublications.com/sps/smm/ ... pterID=690

Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) who had committed adultery. Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery?

So, if a Jew says that he prefers Jewish law to Islamic law, that is perfectly workable. As long as the moral theory is sufficiently documented and closed under logical consequence, it can be used as a moral theory.

What you are doing, however, is nonsensical.

Why would someone else accept your otherwise unspecified and undocumented alternative definition as the absolute benchmark for good and evil?

Why would we give your undocumented invention that kind of status?

What you are doing, is complete bullshit.

If you cannot document your preferred alternative, then first learn how to read and write! Seriously, what are you even talking about?

I have given examples of why the supposedly moral rules of Islam are more to 'evil' than being good as in morality-proper.

For example Q5:33 permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest fasad [threat to the religion, e.g. blasphemy, drawing of cartoons and even disbelieving -kufr].

The alternative definition.
What is morality-proper as inferred from empirically evident human activities since it first emerged is,
morality-proper is the management of evil to facilitate the spontaneous emergence of its related good.

What is evil is that which is net-negative to the well-being of the individual[s] and cumulatively that of humanity.

One of the most critical element of evil is 'killing of humans by humans' as in murder, mass murder, genocides, and the like.
As such, morality-proper will have the moral maxim [ideal, standard] of,
'no human ought to kill humans!'

Islam do not promote morality-proper but merely pseudo-morality as evident with this:
Q5:33 permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest fasad [threat to the religion, e.g. blasphemy, drawing of cartoons and even disbelieving -kufr].
There are loads of other verses which permit believers to kill human under various supposed valid conditions, which are easily abused.

In contrast note Christianity overriding pacifist moral maxim which qualify as an element within morality proper; i.e.
'love all, even enemies' give the other cheek and the like which are the ideal standard all Christians must comply with.
This is an "idiot-proofing" standard that there is no way anyone can claim to kill humans in the name of Christ, God or Christianity per se.

If any Christians happened to kill humans, they have sinned in according to the moral rules and it is up to God to forgive if they ever deserved it.
On the other hand, if Muslims killed humans which they interpret as according to what is permitted, they are rewarded tenfold. How can this be morality-proper?
This is evident by the 46,520 fatal incidents since 911 committed by Muslims in the name of the religion and God.

As I had mentioned a '1000' times and you also noted, the majority of humans do not arbitrarily go about killing humans. This is can be inferred they have natural moral inhibitors within an inherent moral function not to kill humans for some good reasons.
This is the alternative definition of morality-proper in contrast to Islam's moral rules.

Whatever is supposedly "moral" within Islam is applicable only to believers and not to non-believers [kafirun, fasiqun, zalimum, Mushrikun, apes, pigs,] who are heavily condemned as evil within the Quran.
Where any thing good [rare] is related to non-believers these earlier Meccan verses are abrogated in the later Medinian verses.

Question:
In the recent New Orleans Terror attack where 14 innocents were killed and many insured, will the Muslim attacker be punished or rewarded by Allah?
That Muslim would likely be influenced by Q5:33 because the Kafirs had committed fasad of some degrees, thus deserved to be killed and he will get his 10fold rewards in heaven with eternal life.

[godelian]

I have given examples of why the supposedly moral rules of Islam are more to 'evil' than being good as in morality-proper.
The alternative definition.
What is morality-proper as inferred from empirically evident human activities since it first emerged is,
morality-proper is the management of evil to facilitate the spontaneous emergence of its related good.
This is the alternative definition of morality-proper in contrast to Islam's moral rules.

Your word salad about a "morality-proper" is not an alternative definition for good an evil. I already gave the example of Jewish law. That is a legitimate alternative definition. Your newly-invented rant on "morality-proper" is not such alternative definition. Where has your self-invented "morality-proper" been published, if even? Any link for that? Does ChatGPT acknowledge your so-called "morality-proper"? Is ChatGPT willing to produce jurisprudential advice on that basis?

Your views on the matter are incredibly arrogant! You happily superpose your own inventions above Jewish law and Islamic law. Why would anybody have any respect for that?

[LuckyR]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone. It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

Don't feel bad. Since there are around 18,000 known gods and other entities that humans have ever worshipped, there is a very low chance of anyone choosing the correct one, even assuming there is a correct one.

[Age]

Maybe there is a God.

Do you, REALLY, want to KNOW if there is A God, or not?

If yes, then I can inform you of what the answer is, EXACTLY.

And maybe God is the God of the Bible.

And, what is the God of the bible, exactly?

If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone.

Well that is ABSOLUTELY GREAT that you will NOT be a 'reverent follower' of ANOTHER one.

What is ABSOLUTELY IDEAL is that 'you' follow, reverently, ONLY One, and One ONLY. And that One is the 'I', WITHIN 'you'.

It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

It does NOT come naturally to ANY one to reverently follow ANOTHER one. To do so would be UNNATURAL.

[Age]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone. It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

Isn't Christianity about Repentance, Atonement, and learning from your Sins???

Do you believe God would punish you for your Ignorance? I always presumed that He wanted humanity to learn and become wiser...yes?

WHY do you PRESUME that God is a "he"?

If you KEEP and HOLD ONTO this PRESUMPTION, then are 'you' learning and becoming wiser?

If no, then are you doing what God WANTS?

[Age]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone. It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

Isn't Christianity about Repentance, Atonement, and learning from your Sins???

Do you believe God would punish you for your Ignorance? I always presumed that He wanted humanity to learn and become wiser...yes?

I doubt there's much point in me "repenting". I haven't the slightest idea how to "repent" and I'll only do the same sins again and again so it seems kind of pointless. Guess I'll be going to hell.

To 'repent' you only have to feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing AND to never do the same wrongdoing just seek out how, and just, CHANGE, for the better.

By the way, once you learn and know what the 'sin' word is ACTUALLY referring to, EXACTLY, then, and only then, can you NEVER 'sin' again.

[Age]

I doubt there's much point in me "repenting". I haven't the slightest idea how to "repent" and I'll only do the same sins again and again so it seems kind of pointless. Guess I'll be going to hell.

You need to turn that frown, upside-down Gary.

NO one 'has to do' what you TELL them they HAVE TO DO.

I know it's hard, and not easy to do. But you've got to uplift yourself out of whatever Depression and Despair has eaten the majority of your life.

WHY do you CLAIM that "gary childress" HAS GOT TO do 'this'?

Who are 'you' to TELL others what they HAVE TO DO, or NOT DO?

While alive, there's always at least a little bit of time left, to right the ship. Spend whatever's left on something Meaningful.

What a Truly STUPID thing to TELL someone ELSE WHAT TO DO. What happens if 'the other' sees NO 'meaning' ANYWHERE?

And, what 'ship' are you even on about, here?

[Age]

I doubt there's much point in me "repenting". I haven't the slightest idea how to "repent" and I'll only do the same sins again and again so it seems kind of pointless. Guess I'll be going to hell.

You need to turn that frown, upside-down Gary. I know it's hard, and not easy to do. But you've got to uplift yourself out of whatever Depression and Despair has eaten the majority of your life. While alive, there's always at least a little bit of time left, to right the ship. Spend whatever's left on something Meaningful.

I appreciate the sentiment, however, there's nothing left of my life to be "meaningful". I'm too far gone. Fuck it. Really, all that comes to my mind right now is giving God the middle finger. For some reason, it feels better than repenting.

1. 'you' do NOT have a mind'.

2. God could NOT care less if you spread one finger out or not.

God JUST WAITS, for 'those' who Truly want to help "themselves".

[Age]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone. It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

The Camino de Santiago -- the most famous of all European medieval pilgrimages -- ends at the Santiago de Compostela. The pilgrimage commemorates St. James, the apostle who preached in Spain. When the Christians were forced back into the Northwest corner of Spain by the Muslem hordes, the Muslem armies carried with them the arm of Mohammed, a magical charm leading to victory after victory. Fortunately (or, perhaps, slyly) the Christian generals discovered the bones of St. James, which counteracted the magical arm and allowed the Christian forces to repel the invaders. Hence the pilgrimage.

When I went to the mass at the Cathedral -- famous for its giant pendulum swinging burning incense to hide the odor of the unbathed pilgrims --the sermon was given by some Catholic potentate wearing a funny hat.

"I'd like to welcome the pilgrims," he said (in Spanish). "Many of you have walked a thousand kilometers. You have had many reasons for going on this pilgrimage. Perhaps some of you wanted the exercise. Some thought you would lose weight. Others thought it would be an adventure, or that you might meet interesting people along the way. Some few, I suppose, thought the pilgrimage might help you find God."

"For those last, I'm here to tell you that you cannot find God. He has to find you."

Best sermon I ever heard (although I haven't heard many).

But God does NOT 'have to find' 'you' BECAUSE God KNOWS who, what, and WHERE 'you' are, ALWAYS.

And, God is ALWAYS GUIDING ALL of 'you' TO God, and TO 'the way' of life, and living, that 'we' ALL WANT, and DESIRE. you adult human beings, however, were just TAUGHT TO NOT LISTEN.

And WHEN you Truly START TO, then you WILL SEE God has ALWAYS been REVEALING Its-Self to ALL of you, ALWAYS.

God JUST WAITS, UNTIL 'you' have been PREPARED, and thus are READY to have God be REVEALED, FULLY.

[Age]

I doubt there's much point in me "repenting". I haven't the slightest idea how to "repent" and I'll only do the same sins again and again so it seems kind of pointless. Guess I'll be going to hell.

Do you consider yourself to be a good person, Gary?

Not really. I don't do much of anything particularly wonderful.

TO BE a so-called 'good person', you do NOT have to do ANY thing 'wonderful'.

The Universe IS 'full of wonder', and thus IS 'wonderful'. you people, however, although ALSO 'wonderful' NONE OF you are neither 'good' NOR 'bad' people. All of you adults, however, DO 'good', AND, 'bad' or 'Wrong', things.

Mostly, I'm just dead weight.

TO who and/or what, exactly?

My highest achievement is taking up space and turning resources into waste products.

'you', literally, do NOT take up ANY ACTUAL 'space'. The 'body', however, which 'you' are IN, although may well be 'turning resources into waste products'. HOWEVER, those 'waste products' are NECESSARY for the ONGOING survival, on earth. As it IS the 'carbon dioxide', which gets released from 'that body', that CAUSES and CREATES plants and trees TO GROW, which is NECESSARY for human life. The other 'waste products' FROM 'that body' can also be used to FERTILIZE the soil, which ALSO stimulates and HELPS the GROWTH of plants and trees, which ARE NECESSARY FOR human life.

'That body' does NOT produce 'waste products', like, plastics, pollution, nor poisons, like what is CAUSED FROM and BY the creation of products produced MOSTLY FOR monetary gains, by some.

Animal bodies, like plant bodies, are BOTH of their 'waste products' are NECESSARY for the 'OTHERS' CONTINUAL EXISTENCE.

So, by just breathing 'you', and 'that body' IS DOING GOOD.

But maybe I'm about on par with most, I don't know.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have given examples of why the supposedly moral rules of Islam are more to 'evil' than being good as in morality-proper.
The alternative definition.
What is morality-proper as inferred from empirically evident human activities since it first emerged is,
morality-proper is the management of evil to facilitate the spontaneous emergence of its related good.
This is the alternative definition of morality-proper in contrast to Islam's moral rules.

Your word salad about a "morality-proper" is not an alternative definition for good an evil. I already gave the example of Jewish law. That is a legitimate alternative definition. Your newly-invented rant on "morality-proper" is not such alternative definition. Where has your self-invented "morality-proper" been published, if even? Any link for that? Does ChatGPT acknowledge your so-called "morality-proper"? Is ChatGPT willing to produce jurisprudential advice on that basis?

Your views on the matter are incredibly arrogant! You happily superpose your own inventions above Jewish law and Islamic law. Why would anybody have any respect for that?

Your knowledge database is very shallow and narrow plus you are very dogmatic with the primitive and barbaric rules that you have adopted.
Are you aware of "Divine Command Theory" [morality] and its criticisms.
https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/
While "Divine Command Theory" has some use in the present 'barbaric' state it has loads of limitations and negatives, thus not suitable for the future where evil threats are greater.
Besides,
It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3] -it is fake, and illusion and delusional.
viewtopic.php?t=43342

What I am proposing is something like Moral Naturalism but with more depth.
Moral Naturalism has been extensively discussed within the philosophy community.

Moral naturalism is the view that moral facts are stance-independent, natural facts.
To say that moral facts are natural facts, then, is to say that moral facts are part of the naturalistic picture of the world that is revealed by empirical science.
Moral naturalism is opposed to moral supernaturalism, which holds that moral facts are a kind of supernatural (typically, divine) facts.
For the naturalist, moral facts are the kinds of facts that can be investigated by (broadly) scientific methods.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

Science has been focusing on the physical world since the last 500 years and had made tremendous progress for humanity.

Since the last 50 years science has given attention to moral facts [there are loads of research on this] with a trend of positives and just a with natural science, science will contribute greatly to morality in the future.
You need to read widely on this subject.
You can refer to ChatGpt on this.

[Age]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed.

The problem is not the God of the Bible, but the Church. These people repurpose the God of the Bible into a tool that the clergy benefits from by exploiting the believers. Christianity is fundamentally a clerical religion, shaped to the benefit of the clergy. All other religions are actually fine.

I mean, I'll never "submit" to God.

NO one can ACTUALLY 'submit' to some thing while they NEVER ACTUALLY KNOW what 'that thing' even is, EXACTLY.

I'm too stubborn and pig headed.

So, are you SAYING and CLAIMING, here, that even if you KNEW who and what God IS, EXACTLY, and that 'that Thing' was to be Truly ADMIRED and WANT TO BE FOLLOWED, then 'you' would, STILL, NOT 'submit' TO 'It'?

So I'm probably screwed by just about every religion on Earth, except maybe the Buddhists. Maybe I should become one of those.

Have 'you' EVER CONSIDERED JUST BEING 'you', and/or "your" 'self' ALONE?

WHY 'be-come' some 'thing' ELSE?

In fact WHY even CONSIDER 'be-coming' some 'thing' ELSE?

From the perspective of 'I', from WITHIN 'that body', WHY NOT JUST BE 'Me'?

[Age]

I mean, I'll never "submit" to God. I'm too stubborn and pig headed.

There are moral rules. You undoubtedly already submit to them. I don't think that you go around, for example, randomly killing people.

But 'that' is NOT a 'moral rule'. 'That' is just A 'moral Lore', which IS EMBEDDED WITHIN the VERY NATURE of BE-ING A 'human being'.

'Rules' and/or 'laws' are MADE UP BY 'you', human beings. 'Lore' IS NOT.

According to Islamic doctrine, these rules are essentially built into your biological firmware. So, in some way, they are simply part of your fundamental nature.

The problem is that a corrupt society continuously tries to replace your biologically preprogrammed rules by their own corrupted version because doing so, benefits the ruling mafia.

And, considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that "islam", like EVERY other human MADE UP 'theology', is just ANOTHER part of THE 'corrupt society', which ALL of you human beings are living IN 'now', when this is being written.

"islam", like "christianity", like "jewism", like EVERY other CORRUPT VERSION of the ACTUAL Truth, are MADE UP FOR, and TO, BENEFIT SOME, ONLY, and NOT ALL.

If there is no process of reminding you of the true moral rules,

HOW COULD ANY one, like 'you' "godelian", be REMINDING "gary childress" of the so-called 'true moral rules' WHEN 'you', NOR ANY one else, does NOT even KNOW what IS ACTUALLY Right, and Wrong, in Life.

And, to PROVE THIS POINT, I INVITE ABSOLUTELY ANY one to WRITE DOWN, here, the 'true moral rules', and/or, what IS ACTUALLY RIGHT, and Wrong, in Life.

And, I will even PROVIDE A HINT, 'it' is MUCH SIMPLER and MUCH EASIER than ANY of you, here, have EVEN YET IMAGINED.

then the propaganda by the ruling mafia will manage to gradually replace them. That is why there is a need for counter-propaganda.

Talk about PRESENTING ANOTHER PRIME example of 'TRYING TO' 'justify' the UNJUSTIFIABLE.

The more that the ruling mafia objects to a particular religion, the more likely that it is truthful.

That is how I came to appreciate Islam. The more that the ruling mafia in the West dislikes Islam, the more that I like it. It acts a big middle finger to the ruling mafia.

So, FOLLOWING on from this so-called 'logic', here, WHEN the more "islam" dislikes another, particular, religion, then the more likely 'that other religion' IS TRUTHFUL, correct?

If no, then WHY does this "logic" only work ONE WAY?

Also, I just have to replace the word "islam" with the words, 'the ruling mafia', then 'all of this' gets TURNED AROUND, COMPLETELY.

'These people', back when this was being written, REALLY COULD NOT RECOGNIZE and SEE WHEN, and WHERE, they HAD BEEN INDOCTRINATED, FOOLED, TRICKED, and/or DECEIVED.

True opposition does not consist in just letting the ruling mafia have their way or just letting their propaganda take over.

Which is WHY there is SO MUCH OPPOSITION to the 'ruling mafia' called "islam". The OPPOSITION does NOT want and will NOT let their propaganda take over.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET WHY there is SO MUCH OPPOSITION to the 'ruling mafia' called "christianity", and "jews". The OPPOSITION does NOT want and will NOT let 'their propaganda' take over, AS WELL.

Which, if some of you have NOT YET NOTICED is WHY you have been IN OPPOSITION and FIGHTING 'each other' FOR CENTURIES and even MILLENNIUMS. you are ALL IN OPPOSITION of NOTHING MORE than just 'each other's' MADE UP False BELIEFS, and RULES.

True opposition is about seeking to adopt exactly those beliefs that the ruling mafia does not like, exactly because they do not like them.

And, OBVIOUSLY, the 'ruling mafia' in some countries IS "islam", itself. So, it is BEST that the True OPPOSITION REALLY DOES KEEP SEEKING TO ADOPT, EXACTLY, those BELIEFS that the 'ruling "islam" mafia' does NOT like, right?

And, here is the VERY STRUCTURE of DIFFERENT 'religious' AND 'political' systems. 'They' EACH ONLY TAKE ON A 'belief' BECAUSE 'the other' DOES NOT LIKE 'those BELIEFS'.

LOL And it IS 'adult human beings' who think, and some even BELIEVE, that it is 'them' who are the MOST INTELLIGENT animals on the planet.

Their WHOLE 'political and religious systems' are BASED ON CHOOSING, and HOLDING, A BELIEF, just BECAUSE the 'other side' does NOT LIKE 'THAT BELIEF'.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET they have been INDOCTRINATED, since childhood, to FIGHT FOR, even to the death, 'THEIR BELIEFS'. LOL Even in their so-called "education system" they are TAUGHT TO CHOOSE and PICK "a side" and ARGUE OVER "a side", which they even gave 'this way' of ARGUING OVER some thing', the name DEBATE. 'This way' of 'communicating' was, in fact, INDOCTRINATED INTO the younger generation and TAUGHT to be a, LAUGHINGLY, HEALTHY WAY to converse AND discuss.