What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Pistolero]

1- There is no evil.

2- I find feminine conflict to be different from the masculine.
Females use subversion to destroy their adversaries in reputation.
Her weapons are always words.
Their animosity is often concealed beneath platitudes and feigned good will.

This is the Jewish method....linguistic subversion.

[Belinda]

1- There is no evil.

2- I find feminine conflict to be different from the masculine.
Females use subversion to destroy their adversaries in reputation.
Her weapons are always words.
Their animosity is often concealed beneath platitudes and feigned good will.

This is the Jewish method....linguistic subversion.

No evil, Pistolero? Not even in Mordor?

Yours truly is not the sort of female whose animosity is "often concealed beneath platitudes and feigned good will" .

I was angry with my friend;
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I waterd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears:
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night.
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine.

And into my garden stole,
When the night had veild the pole;
In the morning glad I see;
My foe outstretched beneath the tree. (William Blake)

[Belinda]

I Had not noticed Jesus getting grandiose. Can you quote ?

I am x 7? The only way to the Father is through me?

Obviously 'this one' has no idea nor clue, yet, of what the words, 'The only way to the Father is through 'me',' actually means and is referring to, exactly.

Age, do you mean that "the only way to the Father is through me?" is that nobody can envisage God or understand God unless God is mediated through another human ?

[Pistolero]

All value-judgements, dear, are in reference to an objective, which is often idealized.
Like your Christian conception of 'good.'
For such as you, the abstract ideal is metaphysical, making your conception of 'evil' the physical that prevents it from being realized.

There is, no objectively evil.....and Tolkien was a christian, who wrote his novel in distinctly black/white dualities.
His novels are for the child in us all.
But women never grow our of adolescence.

As for your claims...they are how you subjectively udnerstand yourself.
It might be true, but an exception does not negate the rule. They affirm it.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I Had not noticed Jesus getting grandiose. Can you quote ?

I am x 7? The only way to the Father is through me?

Yes. One does wonder which utterances in the Gospels are actually said by Jesus, and which by later commentators.

70% of claims attributed to him are in John, i.e. the writings of the school of John, 60 years after they were set. The rest were attributed half way back. I give good will to all. I find it interesting, Belinda, that your modern sensibilities pull back at the claims. I do not. I don't believe them for one moment. But he did. His suicide by cop was grandiose. And it worked. Two thousand years later and a billion and more of us believe. Including some of the nicest, smartest people I know. Nicer and smarter than me by a country mile for sure. The same goes for Muslims and Hindus. So the bar, in terms of belief, of believing, is very low for half of humanity at least. The rest have less organised, folk belief of one kind or another.

He was brilliant across the broad, deep spectrum, confluence of cultures in Judea at the time. His intellect, his verbal intelligence, moral intelligence, emotional intelligence tower above any around that time. He believed what his mother had told him. He saw himself in the TaNaKh. He was utterly compelling to his followers. To their deaths.

Either that, or his creators were.

PS I thought, for believers, the Holy Ghost preserved the integrity of the scriptures?

[Age]

I am x 7? The only way to the Father is through me?

Obviously 'this one' has no idea nor clue, yet, of what the words, 'The only way to the Father is through 'me',' actually means and is referring to, exactly.

Age, do you mean that "the only way to the Father is through me?" is that nobody can envisage God or understand God unless God is mediated through another human ?

Not necessarily so.

Who and what the 'God' word is referring to, exactly, and fully, can be envisioned, as well as understood and known, by "ones' own 'self'. However, all concepts, understanding, and conscious knowing, which one has, has comes from and through the experiences with other human beings.

Also, when what the word, "jesus", is referring to, exactly, and fully, is understood and known, then knowing what the words, 'The only way to the Father is through 'me',' actually mean and are referring to, exactly, will also be fully understood and known, as well.

See, 'jesus' is the child, of God, and it is only through 'children' how one finds 'the(ir)way' to God, 'the Father'.

All if this will become much clearer and self-evident as 'we' progress along, here.

[Perspective]

…But women never grow our of adolescence…

Men too.
Most people (about 70% in a study) go along with peer pressure, as adolescents do. This, I find, disturbing - an ugly truth.

Group thought (whether it be theist, atheist, wearing masks to stop supposedly deadly common cold/coronavirus), is like religious loyalty. James Fowler theorized that people go along with such group thought or move past it, as presented by 6 “faith stages.” Stage 2 & 3 (where most people remain) are reached in childhood & adolescence.

Fowler’s faith stages are on the left:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/b4/28 ... bc77d7.jpg

What do you think about herd mentality & these faith stages?

[Pistolero]

What do you think about herd mentality & these faith stages?

If it isn't controlled by one side it will be controlled by the other.
Herd psychology has been around since the dawn of civilizations.

Reminds me of the psychological stages of development, from infancy to adulthood.

Genetics determines on what stage you will settle - your psychological constitution is a decisive factor.
Adolescence is the most difficult because it is when individuals realize that they cannot be themselves, and that they will have to repress most of who they are, to become integrated into society.
Of course, how much will be repressed is determined by your intelligence. Simpletons have little to repress, and so easily adopt any identity given to them by society. They don't feel repressed by political-correctness, for example, because their beliefs are regurgitations of what is popular.

[ThinkOfOne]

I Had not noticed Jesus getting grandiose. Can you quote ?

I am x 7? The only way to the Father is through me?

Yes. One does wonder which utterances in the Gospels are actually said by Jesus, and which by later commentators.

Jesus repeatedly emphasized the point that He spoke in parables. That is, He used figurative language. Despite this, the vast majority, if not all, Christians take statements such ""I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me" literally and out of context because they believe it justifies them in claiming an ultimate exclusivity which was not His intent at all. An exclusivity which is built upon some variation of the concept of substitutionary atonement: "An individual must believe that Jesus paid for their sins". A concept that is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. Despite all this, they fervently believe that it is true because it is self-serving to do so.

For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Christians are the modern-day Pharisees: Thinking themselves righteous when they are the "white-washed tombs", if not "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus sternly warned against.

[Belinda]

I am x 7? The only way to the Father is through me?

Yes. One does wonder which utterances in the Gospels are actually said by Jesus, and which by later commentators.

70% of claims attributed to him are in John, i.e. the writings of the school of John, 60 years after they were set. The rest were attributed half way back. I give good will to all. I find it interesting, Belinda, that your modern sensibilities pull back at the claims. I do not. I don't believe them for one moment. But he did. His suicide by cop was grandiose. And it worked. Two thousand years later and a billion and more of us believe. Including some of the nicest, smartest people I know. Nicer and smarter than me by a country mile for sure. The same goes for Muslims and Hindus. So the bar, in terms of belief, of believing, is very low for half of humanity at least. The rest have less organised, folk belief of one kind or another.

He was brilliant across the broad, deep spectrum, confluence of cultures in Judea at the time. His intellect, his verbal intelligence, moral intelligence, emotional intelligence tower above any around that time. He believed what his mother had told him. He saw himself in the TaNaKh. He was utterly compelling to his followers. To their deaths.

Either that, or his creators were.

PS I thought, for believers, the Holy Ghost preserved the integrity of the scriptures?

I dispute your usage of ' grandiose'. My idea of Jesus is mainly as a practically-involved freedom fighter against the Romans on behalf of the Jews. One would not call a European , in the underground resistance against the Nazis , "grandiose" when they were caught and shot by the Gestapo.

The interpretation of Jesus as fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah is one not of a saviour only from sins but of a political leader too. I claim this because ' christ 'i.e 'messiah 'is together political /spiritual leader . The Romans had a god/king in the Roman emperor and had to stifle any competitor for that status.

Saul of Tarsus was not Jesus of Nazareth.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Yes. One does wonder which utterances in the Gospels are actually said by Jesus, and which by later commentators.

70% of claims attributed to him are in John, i.e. the writings of the school of John, 60 years after they were set. The rest were attributed half way back. I give good will to all. I find it interesting, Belinda, that your modern sensibilities pull back at the claims. I do not. I don't believe them for one moment. But he did. His suicide by cop was grandiose. And it worked. Two thousand years later and a billion and more of us believe. Including some of the nicest, smartest people I know. Nicer and smarter than me by a country mile for sure. The same goes for Muslims and Hindus. So the bar, in terms of belief, of believing, is very low for half of humanity at least. The rest have less organised, folk belief of one kind or another.

He was brilliant across the broad, deep spectrum, confluence of cultures in Judea at the time. His intellect, his verbal intelligence, moral intelligence, emotional intelligence tower above any around that time. He believed what his mother had told him. He saw himself in the TaNaKh. He was utterly compelling to his followers. To their deaths.

Either that, or his creators were.

PS I thought, for believers, the Holy Ghost preserved the integrity of the scriptures?

I dispute your usage of ' grandiose'. My idea of Jesus is mainly as a practically-involved freedom fighter against the Romans on behalf of the Jews. One would not call a European , in the underground resistance against the Nazis , "grandiose" when they were caught and shot by the Gestapo.

The interpretation of Jesus as fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah is one not of a saviour only from sins but of a political leader too. I claim this because ' christ 'i.e 'messiah 'is together political /spiritual leader . The Romans had a god/king in the Roman emperor and had to stifle any competitor for that status.

Saul of Tarsus was not Jesus of Nazareth.

Yours is a modern back-projected rationalization. So you don't believe the NT claims about him or/and their preservation by the Holy Spirit?

[Belinda]

I am x 7? The only way to the Father is through me?

Yes. One does wonder which utterances in the Gospels are actually said by Jesus, and which by later commentators.

Jesus repeatedly emphasized the point that He spoke in parables. That is, He used figurative language. Despite this, the vast majority, if not all, Christians take statements such ""I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me" literally and out of context because they believe it justifies them in claiming an ultimate exclusivity which was not His intent at all. An exclusivity which is built upon some variation of the concept of substitutionary atonement: "An individual must believe that Jesus paid for their sins". A concept that is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. Despite all this, they fervently believe that it is true because it is self-serving to do so.

For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Christians are the modern-day Pharisees: Thinking themselves righteous when they are the "white-washed tombs", if not "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus sternly warned against.

I have difficulty with substitutionary atonement. It reminds one of human sacrifice. Moses understood enough of God to not sacrifice a human being as atonement, and that was progress. The Christian doctrine of the Atonement makes sense to me only if all human grief and pain is taken to be Christ.

[Greatest I am]

Do you ever think there are some people who know more than you?

Many know more than I.

I know decent morals and the Christian morality sucks.

Note that Christians do not argue morals. They lose and need to rely on inquisitions to grow.

[Greatest I am]

The Christian doctrine of the Atonement makes sense to me only if all human grief and pain is taken to be Christ.

Then he also gets our rewards for our sins.

Grief, pain, failure. These are all necessary to normal mental, development.

They motivate us to excellence.

"Sin: The Path to Excellence"
Sin has long been associated with moral failure, but what if we reframe it? I see sin as something essential to human growth—a necessary part of striving for excellence.
At its core, sin simply means “missing the mark.” It’s not about wickedness but about falling short of an ideal. Christianity and even Gnostic traditions acknowledge this idea in different ways. The concept of felix culpa—the “happy fault”—suggests that sin is necessary for God’s plan. Whether or not one believes in the supernatural, the wisdom of this idea is clear: missing the mark is a natural part of aiming for something greater.
To evolve, both as individuals and as a species, we must take risks and inevitably fall short. This process—of setting goals, failing, and trying again—is what drives progress. Every moment of “sin” is evidence that we’re pushing ourselves beyond our comfort zones and striving toward our best possible selves. This is what we do, consciously or unconsciously, at every point in our lives.
Even competition, often seen as divisive, is tied to this idea. Competition highlights our shortcomings, creating a contrast between where we are and where we want to be. It creates leaders, innovators, and excellence by encouraging us to improve. Of course, competition produces losers, and those losses can feel like failures or even evoke the idea of "evil." But in truth, every loss is an opportunity—a moment to learn, adapt, and grow stronger.
This is why I celebrate sin—not as a call to moral failure but as an embrace of imperfection and growth. Without sin, without missing the mark, we would have no benchmarks for greatness. There would be no leaders to inspire us, no innovators to challenge us, and no progress to drive humanity forward.
I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I see wisdom in the way ancient scribes wove this idea into their teachings. Sin, in its truest sense, is not something to avoid but something to engage with thoughtfully. It is the evidence of our striving, our courage to try, and our commitment to evolve.
So, I invite you: aim high. Take your shot. Miss the mark. Become a sinner in the best way possible. In doing so, you’ll not only create a better version of yourself but also contribute to the collective excellence of humanity.

[Perspective]

What do you think about herd mentality & these faith stages?

If it isn't controlled by one side it will be controlled by the other.
Herd psychology has been around since the dawn of civilizations.

Reminds me of the psychological stages of development, from infancy to adulthood.

Genetics determines on what stage you will settle - your psychological constitution is a decisive factor.
Adolescence is the most difficult because it is when individuals realize that they cannot be themselves, and that they will have to repress most of who they are, to become integrated into society.
Of course, how much will be repressed is determined by your intelligence. Simpletons have little to repress, and so easily adopt any identity given to them by society. They don't feel repressed by political-correctness, for example, because their beliefs are regurgitations of what is popular.

Interesting. I hadn’t considered adolescence as a time of repression but I can see that. “Simpletons,” may be the majority who repeatedly resisted growing pains, so are still in childish stages. Children need to go along with parents to survive… & some feel the need to go along with herd mentalities. It’s the easiest path of least resistance - thus, highway to hell.

Why do you think genetics determines what stage you will settle? A gene cannot be expressed without environmental factors, especially psychologically.