The dishonesty of preaching theism

[Lacewing]

I put forth an idea (which I think is logical) that surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation.

I sort of agree, though my guess is that this has implications I wouldn't agree with. There are some really pathological humans out there. I don't believe they are intrusions from some toxic universe or something, but I am not sure what it means in any practical sense to think of them as divine and connected.

(Thank you for your response.)

Yes, this (that you pointed out above) is a hard one to understand.

Mental illness really corrupts/distorts people... maybe that is what's at work. Sort of like the way a part of one's body can become infected and diseased such that it introduces toxicity to the whole system... yet the infected part remains part of the body and is not separate.

All of life has toxic elements that are part of the greater system. So, what is their role? Are they just an unfortunate side-effect? Why would people be any different?

It makes sense to protect oneself from toxicity in whatever way is necessary. But it's quite a different matter to insist (as a lot of theism does) that we're not all part of a larger whole, and that there are separations. The primary purpose for doing this seems to be to control people by invalidating their divine nature and threatening their souls. Such a narrative could be seen as a form of mental illness -- and it is why I think theism has a great deal of toxicity mixed in with 'the good'. I wish theists could recognize this too, as it seems so dangerous for humankind.

[Iwannaplato]

(Thank you for your response.)

Yes, this (that you pointed out above) is a hard one to understand.

Mental illness really corrupts/distorts people... maybe that is what's at work. Sort of like the way a part of one's body can become infected and diseased such that it introduces toxicity to the whole system... yet the infected part remains part of the body and is not separate.

All of life has toxic elements that are part of the greater system. So, what is their role? Are they just an unfortunate side-effect? Why would people be any different?

It makes sense to protect oneself from toxicity in whatever way is necessary. But it's quite a different matter to insist (as a lot of theism does) that we're not all part of a larger whole, and that there are separations. The primary purpose for doing this seems to be to control people by invalidating their divine nature and threatening their souls. Such a narrative could be seen as a form of mental illness -- and it is why I think theism has a great deal of toxicity mixed in with 'the good'. I wish theists could recognize this too, as it seems so dangerous for humankind.

If I have a psychopath - and I don't really think of psychopathy as a mental illness - or a narcissist in my life, I don't feel like I ever need to think of them as divine. I am not asserting that they are outside this universe or not part of things. I just don't think it helps me in any way to think of them this way, as divine, or - not that you said this - really like me, deep down or something.

It has taken a lot of work for me not to consider them 'really like me deep down' and even from thinking of them as having much less wonderful sounding qualities than 'divine'.

If we look at some of the more pernicious forms of the Abrahamic religions, even there I don't think most would say that evil people are not part of the system. Or even, in Christianity, say, that at any time they can't turn to God and find forgiveness. So, in some way, even in Christianity there is this, deep down we are all the same idea, but some people keep chosing to keep their back turned toward God. (I'm not a Christian, by the way).

I am trying to triangulate here. I think these ideas in the abstract can be interpreted many ways.

I had a boss who lied, made up things I and a colleague didn't do, could never admit errors, made up reactions that other people in the job supposedly had had about us, which were not true and spoke in harsh and unempathetic ways. Other workers experienced much the same treatment. At the time I felt I could not leave the job due to a family member illness and huge medical bills, which this boss knew about. This person made many people miserable.

(I know you know such people exist. I am just trying to get concrete to see if this helps clarify our positions)

I don't think she is outside the universe or not human, since being human includes such incredible diversity. But I don't think we are really the same deep down. I think she is missing empathy. That she sees power struggle only where others see something more complex. I think she is qualitatively different from me. I don't really see bringing in the word divine. I think actually even fairly judgmental and awful in many ways theists, let's say a Christian, would have a more incluslive view of this person, at least in the abstract. IOW she could at any moment repent her sins and be saved and head to heaven. I think that's confused. There is something fundamentally different about her. I am not ruling out that over some huge period of time she might learn to behave better. But I think it may be possible that she simply cannot do this because of differences in her make up. Sort of like dolphins can't run marathons. I don't believe in Hell, and wouldn't wish anyone to be there. It's not about what I want done to her by some just deity. I don't want her to get secular severe punishments, though what I think should be natural social and professional consequences would be great - infortunately modern capitalism (and communism) often don't really have much of a problem with psychopath/narcissitic traits, as long as customers generally don't run into them.

So, what does the problematic theist do in relation to someone like this that we shouldn't do?
And would this be true if we are dealing with a Ted Bundy or Stalin or Hitler?

What is it one shouldn't do that is primarily done by theists?

It seems like non-theists put people in categories of being outside, beyond the pale. What is the difference with theists?

And just to be clear: I don't know for sure if my dolphin can't run marathons fits this particular boss of mine. Perhaps she could manage to become an empathetic person. I am fallible. But I do think there are people who are fundamentally different. Psychopathy is generally considered to be a genetic condition, for example.

[Harbal]

Okay. So, would you now like to take a closer LOOK AT the second clause of your sentence, and DISCUSS that?

The so-called 'second clause' you wrote was, "at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction", right?

If yes, then it is in relation to God, Itself, being fiction, right?

If yes, then as already pointed out we AGREE that absolutely NO one believes that a fictitious entity actually exists. But, if we CHANGE the definition for the word 'God', I KNOW 'at a deeper level of the human psyche they ALL KNOW that God exists'.

If you would like to LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this', then we can.

Obviously, anyone who knows an entity to be fictitious is highly unlikely to believe it has an actual existence. Am I right in supposing that this is what we agree on?

From my limited knowledge of human psychology, I understand that we (human beings) have a subconscious driver that is responsible for more of our conscious behaviour than we intuitively feel to be the case. I cannot discuss this in detail because I simply am not well enough informed. I was merely speculating that this subconscious element of the psyche (I hope that is the appropriate term, but am by no means sure that it is), which has more actual control than our consciousness, does not have any belief in a supernatural god, but -for what reason, I do not know- allows the consciousness to hold such a belief.

I'm sorry if this attempt at an explantion falls short of your exacting demands, Age, but I am making a genuine effort, so please don't give me a telling off.

[henry quirk]

all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation

I sit here no material or energetic umbilicals between me and any-one or -thing: how is there not separation?

Now, creative energy might refer to spirit, sumthin' apart from, different from, the material of atoms and heat. I believe, infer, spirit is real (that man is a composite of spirit and substance). But even so, there still appears, to me, no unifying connections between men or between man and nature/the world/God.

You are you, I am me, and God is Himself. We interact, exchange, but are separate from one another.

That's two cents from a deist.

[Lacewing]

there still appears, to me, no unifying connections between men or between man and nature/the world/God.

You are you, I am me, and God is Himself. We interact, exchange, but are separate from one another.

Fascinating.

There is an abundance of information and awareness that suggests otherwise, but of course you can believe whatever you want. This link is a very simple and brief description for considering how Spirituality, Philosophy, and Science Show That We Are All One.
https://www.learning-mind.com/everythin ... connected/ Anyone can explore these types of understandings further from countless sources if they want to.

Isn't it funny that you believe in God yet seem to have no concept of spiritual oneness or unity throughout all? While such oneness and unity has been completely apparent to me, yet I do not believe in a god.

To me, this further demonstrates God to be a product of man for validating separateness.

Does anyone else find this funny?

[Lacewing]

If I have a psychopath - and I don't really think of psychopathy as a mental illness - or a narcissist in my life, I don't feel like I ever need to think of them as divine. .../... I just don't think it helps me in any way to think of them this way, as divine

Well, it may be difficult to think of them that way... and it may be unnecessary... but it may be helpful to stand back and see from a broader perspective sometimes. For example, the Christian saying 'there but for the grace of God go I'. Or one of my favorite books suggests that when you see something dark and twisted, ask yourself "Well, what else did I think needed to be loved?"

I am not suggesting you run up to this person and hug them... nor put up with their shit. Rather, it's about our own state of mind -- and I think unity makes more things acceptable and understandable, perhaps, whereas separateness just divides and resists things further.

It has taken a lot of work for me not to consider them 'really like me deep down' and even from thinking of them as having much less wonderful sounding qualities than 'divine'.

The outward or surface character and energy can be many things, and perhaps that is the greatest way we vary from each other. And that is real... and we wrestle with each other over that. That character/energy/personality is surely our creation... and some creations are very toxic, even though it might be the combined result of all kinds of things we don't realize. I have compassion but I try to avoid toxic people. One of my employees had mental problems and it was a nightmare dealing with her. It's just not worth it being involved with such people... other than maybe to learn better how to avoid or master it.

I use the word 'divine' because I don't know what other word to use, since I think the word God is a concept loaded with mangled baggage.

even, in Christianity, say, that at any time they can't turn to God and find forgiveness. So, in some way, even in Christianity there is this, deep down we are all the same idea, but some people keep chosing to keep their back turned toward God. (I'm not a Christian, by the way).

This is true in some Christian circles... but there seems to be a lot of variances across Christianity. For example, large groups of extremist Christian voters demonize the 'other side', turning their politics into a biblical prophecy -- they are not seeing or inspiring unity, they are waging holy war.

I am trying to triangulate here. I think these ideas in the abstract can be interpreted many ways.

It's interesting. Yes, I agree.

she could at any moment repent her sins and be saved and head to heaven. I think that's confused.

I think that's a "Sales line" for the Christian brochure. "We offer a path to complete forgiveness for anything you have done -- join us."

There is something fundamentally different about her. I am not ruling out that over some huge period of time she might learn to behave better. But I think it may be possible that she simply cannot do this because of differences in her make up.

Yes. There are a lot of different energies at work and in play here it seems. Like some politicians. Talk about invaders trying to take over our planet! Where do these people come from? They even look weird... like they're simply taking on human form.

I think it's valuable to accept what people are showing you about themselves, and then protect yourself and move on as needed. It may seem strange, but I would say to them (in my head)... something like: 'Go be your version of the divine somewhere else.'

So, what does the problematic theist do in relation to someone like this that we shouldn't do?

It varies and the signals are mixed.

And would this be true if we are dealing with a Ted Bundy or Stalin or Hitler?

I think we learn how to play the game as well as possible for ourselves amongst all these characters/manifestations. We don't have to embrace other energies (the ability for extremism appears to be limitless). Still, I find it most helpful -- and it feels more true -- for my frame of mind to remember that all is of the same stuff and it's connected. It makes sense to me that we're all being affected all the time by other energies. If we think we're separate -- that there are no channels of transmission happening -- what might we not even realize is affecting us or is accessible?

Separatist thinking seems like a stagnant dead-end to me... and people from all walks of life are convinced of it.

In contrast, the free-flowing exchange of energy (and the recognition of it) can be very powerful. (Similar to how current technology continually expands.) I imagine it's possible for there to be waves of transformation in human development/resonance -- for better or worse -- on a level that we humans aren't usually aware of. The structuring of our world sort of prevents it.

Oops... I gotta go. Thanks for participating and inspiring this discussion further.

[henry quirk]

There is an abundance of information and awareness that suggests otherwise

Yes, there is an abundance of opinion and conjecture (I'm familiar with them...this an't my first pony ride), none of which dispute the fact you, over there, and me, over here, are not the same and are not connected in a material, energetic, or (I believe) spiritual way.

There are no umbilicals binding us together.

As for God? In my view He is the First Person. I'm not Him either, nor, as free will, am I bound to Hm.

you can believe whatever you want

Of course, as can you. This conversation, however, isn't about that. Upthread, you asserted surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation, then you challenged I would really like for some of the diehard theists to explain how this doesn't make sense?

I accepted the challenge (as a deist). I've demonstrated it doesn't make sense.

Now, you could claim what I see as separation is an illusion. If you do: I want evidence (not opinion or conjecture).

Or, you can withdraw the challenge saying, in my opinion, all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see.

But, if you're gonna hold to your assertion as fact, then expect some dispute.

[Lacewing]

Upthread, you asserted surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation, then you challenged I would really like for some of the diehard theists to explain how this doesn't make sense?

I accepted the challenge (as a deist). I've demonstrated it doesn't make sense.

How have you demonstrated it doesn't make sense? You simply said there are no umbilicals, and stated that you don't believe there is any connection.

Here's more (below) to consider in support of the concept that everything is connected. It's so natural... I don't know why anyone would be so resistant to such a concept... unless they think it threatens their individual ego and their yard.

https://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-m ... connected/

[Age]

Okay. So, would you now like to take a closer LOOK AT the second clause of your sentence, and DISCUSS that?

The so-called 'second clause' you wrote was, "at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction", right?

If yes, then it is in relation to God, Itself, being fiction, right?

If yes, then as already pointed out we AGREE that absolutely NO one believes that a fictitious entity actually exists. But, if we CHANGE the definition for the word 'God', I KNOW 'at a deeper level of the human psyche they ALL KNOW that God exists'.

If you would like to LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this', then we can.

Obviously, anyone who knows an entity to be fictitious is highly unlikely to believe it has an actual existence. Am I right in supposing that this is what we agree on?

In case you are still not yet aware I just AGREED with this in the part of what you just quoted of mine above here.

But what was, and STILL IS, up for discussion is THE DEFINITION for the word 'God'.

See, it is ONLY 'those' who DEFINE that word with and by a FICTITIOUS entity, who would, SUPPOSEDLY, KNOW that that entity is FICTITIOUS.

From my limited knowledge of human psychology, I understand that we (human beings) have a subconscious driver that is responsible for more of our conscious behaviour than we intuitively feel to be the case.

This is only because of the stage, or step, in the evolutionary 'ladder' that 'you' are at here,. 'you' are NOT at the stage, nor level, of KNOWING WHO, nor WHAT, 'I' am EXACTLY, YET. So, thee 'I' is NOT YET in FULL CONTROL, well over 'that body' anyway.

But are 'you' 'trying to' USE 'this' as some sort of EXCUSE for WHY 'you' have assigned a FICTITIOUS entity to the 'God' while "others" have NOT?

I cannot discuss this in detail because I simply am not well enough informed.

Okay. I fully understand. I also Truly THANK 'you' for a Truly Honest response here.

BUT, one can only BECOME MORE INFORMED if they LOOK INTO and DISCUSS 'things' MORE or FURTHER.

I was merely speculating that this subconscious element of the psyche (I hope that is the appropriate term, but am by no means sure that it is), which has more actual control than our consciousness, does not have any belief in a supernatural god, but -for what reason, I do not know- allows the consciousness to hold such a belief.

ALL of what 'you' just said and wrote here, which is just VERY convoluted and mixed up, can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY fixed up and Corrected, but as 'you' just POINTED OUT , OPENLY and Honestly I will add, 'you' are NOT YET ready to discuss 'this' any further.

I'm sorry if this attempt at an explantion falls short of your exacting demands, Age,

What did 'you' envision I was wanting 'you' to explain here, exactly?

I was just, more or less, POINTING OUT that what you were BELIEVING to be true here was just based solely on your OWN definition of A word ONLY and I was just ASKING if you would like to LOOK INTO 'this' FURTHER and DISCUSS 'this' MORE.

but I am making a genuine effort, so please don't give me a telling off.

I have NEVER given ANY one a so-called 'telling off' in this forum, but I am FULLY AWARE that some might perceive my words that way, as well as in many other Wrong ways too, I will add.

[henry quirk]

How have you demonstrated it doesn't make sense?

Lace, I'm here, you're there: we are obviously separate. No device devised by man can establish we are anything but separate. Spiritually, I can only say, I see, perceive, no unity. Let's test it: read my mind. If there is no separation it ought be possible.

As I say: this ain't my first pony ride. I'm familiar with the science, and the opinions on, the conjectures about, and flim-flammery concocted with, the science. Them links aren't the evidence you think they are.

I don't know why anyone would be so resistant to such a concept... unless they think it threatens their individual ego and their yard.

And I'm at a loss to understand why any one would be so eager to be subsumed in an overmind. I reckon it must have sumthin' to do with being a flimsy, weak person.

[Age]

Belief in a god is a personal matter. No one knows anything more than what feels true for them. To preach such a thing to other people as if it is an absolute truth/reality that other people should subscribe to, ends up requiring a great deal of manipulation and dishonesty (whether conscious or not) in forcing a particular pattern.

I think it is more common than this. That many of our philosophical positions here imply things about metaphysics, say, that are very hard to demonstrate to others. I don't think there's a problem with asserting one's position, even with certainty. I am not sure that's manipulation in and of itself. Problems come in, for me, after that. When one argues disingenuously, or tells someone that you've proven something you haven't - and here, regardless of the position.

I agree with you. My initial post for this thread was not clear enough for what I was trying to express. I tried to add more clarity with my post that followed that, in which I tried to better describe the kind of preaching that...

> suggests that the 'others' are not of God (or the divine) already... that they are separate
> suggests that the preachers uniquely and truly know God
> introduces all kinds of manmade distortions
> ignores the consideration that the divine is represented through all

Because I think such preaching is dishonest, and that it's despicable to try to convince people that they are excluded (or will be) from the divine.

Is PREACHING 'the divine is represented through all', to one who BELIEVES otherwise DISHONEST as well?

Or, does it only work ONE way here?

When 'you' PREACH that 'you' uniquely truly know A truth is this DISHONEST as well?

Or, does it only work ONE way here also?

When 'you' INTRODUCE all kinds of 'your' OWN made up DISTORTIONS is this DISHONEST as well?

Or, AGAIN, does it only work ONE way here?

Asserting one's own viewpoint is normal in a discussion forum, of course. I'm trying to pinpoint where (I think) a line gets crossed with theism... such as, when it is asserted that people are not spiritual or 'of the divine' if they do not subscribe to a particular brand of theism.

LOOK it is ALREADY OBVIOUS EXACTLY HOW your OWN views and perceptions OF "others" here have been OBTAINED FROM, EXACTLY, but can 'you' NOT YET REALLY SEE just HOW MUCH those past experiences are AFFECTING 'you' here?

It is difficult to have a discussion with anyone who takes such a position against another, as it appears they are only here to preach at others.

Which is EXACTLY WHY it is SO HARD and DIFFICULT to have a DISCUSSION here WITH 'you', "lacewing".

'you' keep preaching AT those who 'you' CLAIM to be PREACHING.

All over the place.

Well, I was trying to focus on the part I bolded... in which claims are made about one's soul. Perhaps my words 'mind control and programming' seem exaggerated, but I'm referring to the kind of theist attitude and message that insists one is bad unless and until that one adopts a certain brand of theism.

LOOK, OBVIOUSLY, what one does is 'bad', that is; UNTIL they are doing 'good'. This can NOT be DENIED. But, because of 'your' OWN past experiences 'you' just can NOT seem to get PAST and OVER 'this', and just MOVE ALONG.

Well, they want to. I think the idea of a thread is to set things going with an assertion of what is the case or what is not the case. From there people can do all sorts of tactical things that are disingenuous, assholish, confused, fallacious, distracting, off point, not really responsing and so on. To me the problem comes in when there is a systematic inability to have a dialogue, and in that case it doesn't matter what the position discussed is.

Yes, I agree with you. My question was meaning to ask why anyone should think that another needs to be connected to what they're already (logically) connected to?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of 'PREACHING', in one of its various many forms.

I think it is a false notion that we're separated from that which some believe created us and/or from that which divinely flows throughout all.

I am starting to really consider if this one is even AWARE that there are "others" who KNOW and BELIEVE that this so-called 'divine one' is a FICTITIOUS entity anyway?

Or, maybe it just Truly BELIEVES in its OWN made up VERSION, and so just PREACHERS 'that VERSION' as though it is the One and ONLY truth, exactly like ALL of the OTHER 'PREACHERS' do.

It is such a distorted story to suggest that we have a father-god to whom we must be introduced by humans. What kind of father is that... and where is our mother... maybe she could remind Dad who we are and talk to him on our behalf?

And 'your' OWN STORY is NOT DISTORTED in ANY way, shape, NOR form, correct "lacewing"?

Oh, and by the way, the way that this one WILL respond to my questions now, while it is IGNORING me COMPLETELY, would be the EXACT SAME way that it would have responded to my CHALLENGING QUESTIONS even if it ACTUALLY KNEW they existed.

I think it's better if all positions are pressed with the same rigor or better put it is understood that any position is open to being criticized, questions, pecked at, explored and is in need of justification.

I agree. Admittedly, it may be easier (and more fun) to pick apart absurd stories/claims that are full of inconsistencies and self-serving fantasy, and to notice the oddities of the characters who might peddle such things.

WHY would 'you' even want to notice, or focus, on the so-called 'oddities' of "OTHERS'? Especially considering the Fact that 'you' have NOT wanted to LOOK AT and FOCUS on 'your' OWN specific set of so-called 'oddities' "lacewing". 'you' are NO different here than ANY "other" one IS.

I put forth an idea (which I think is logical) that surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation.

'you' CAN put forth this idea of 'YOURS', but what 'you' CONSTANTLY SEEM TO BE MISSING is the Fact that 'this idea' COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS 'your' OTHER idea about there being, absolutely, 'NO one truth'.

I would really like for some of the diehard theists to explain how this doesn't make sense?

I just EXPLAINED to 'you' HOW 'that idea' does NOT make sense, AT ALL, when in consideration with 'your' OTHER idea, which you ALSO CLAIM to be A truth.

But this is NOT coming from a so-called 'die hard theist'.

Not that it would matter ANYWAY, BECAUSE 'you' ONLY LOOK AT and LISTEN TO what 'you' WANT TO SEE and HEAR. As 'you' are PROVING ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True here.

Further, for anyone who agrees with this idea, I would like to discuss what might be the implications of it?

I have TRIED TO. But, 'you', "lacewing", do NOT want to DISCUSS 'this".

AND, ONLY wanting to DISCUSS what 'you' BELIEVE is ALREADY true with "others" is WHY 'you' are the WAY that 'you' ARE "lacewing".

What might it reveal about life and ourselves? What might it make possible?

These 'things' have ALREADY BEEN WORKED OUT and thus are ALREADY KNOWN. And, the VERY REASON WHY 'you' have NOT REACHED 'HERE' YET IS because of 'your' VERY NARROWED and CLOSED WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things', which comes from 'your' ALREADY VERY NARROWED and CLOSED view/s of things, which 'you' are HOLDING ONTO and STUCK IN, ALREADY.

[Age]

I put forth an idea (which I think is logical) that surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation.

I sort of agree, though my guess is that this has implications I wouldn't agree with. There are some really pathological humans out there. I don't believe they are intrusions from some toxic universe or something, but I am not sure what it means in any practical sense to think of them as divine and connected.

(Thank you for your response.)

Yes, this (that you pointed out above) is a hard one to understand.

Mental illness really corrupts/distorts people...

Does ANY one of 'you', 'posters', here KNOW of ANY adult human being who does NOT have 'mental illness' in one form or another?

If yes, then will 'you' SHARE with 'us' who they are, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

maybe that is what's at work. Sort of like the way a part of one's body can become infected and diseased such that it introduces toxicity to the whole system... yet the infected part remains part of the body and is not separate.

Curing the DIS-EASE of 'mental illness', which ALL of 'you', adult human beings, HAVE OBTAINED, is just done in a DIFFERENT WAY from curing the OTHER diseases of the human body. But, and OBVIOUSLY, one has to ADMIT that they HAVE a 'mental illness' AND 'dis-ease' BEFORE 'it' could be fixed. EXACTLY like one HAS TO first ADMIT that they have 'a problem' BEFORE 'the problem' can be fixed.

All of life has toxic elements that are part of the greater system. So, what is their role? Are they just an unfortunate side-effect? Why would people be any different?

Well, WHEN, and IF, 'you' ever come down from 'your' HIGH HORSE here, as 'it' is sometimes referred to "lacewing", THEN we COULD DISCUSS 'things' FURTHER.

But UNTIL THEN 'you' are STUCK, EXACTLY WHERE 'you' WERE, back in the days when this WAS being written.

It makes sense to protect oneself from toxicity in whatever way is necessary.

LOL 'you' REALLY can NOT YET SEE that 'it' IS 'your' OWN self-made up ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that IS 'the TOXICITY', itself, right?

Or, do 'you' BELIEVE that 'your' OWN views, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTIONS are NOT wrong NOR false in ANY way, and so contain absolutely NO TOXICITY AT ALL EITHER?

But it's quite a different matter to insist (as a lot of theism does) that we're not all part of a larger whole, and that there are separations.

SO, are 'you' a PART OF 'that', which is A PART of the WHOLE, which, OBVIOUSLY, INCLUDES so-called 'theism' in ALL of 'its' forms? Or, are 'you' SEPARATED from 'that'?

The primary purpose for doing this seems to be to control people by invalidating their divine nature and threatening their souls.

If 'you' are going to USE the 'souls' word, and the 'their souls' term and phrase, then I suggest you come to LEARN and KNOW what 'you' ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY MEAN and ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, FIRST.

Such a narrative could be seen as a form of mental illness -- and it is why I think theism has a great deal of toxicity mixed in with 'the good'.

But ABSOLUTELY ALL of 'your' OWN narrative could NOT be seen as a form of 'mental illness', with a great deal of 'toxicity' mixed in with 'that', which is ACTUALLY 'good', and 'real', and 'true', correct?

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing 'you' WRITE and SAY here "lacewing" IS true, right, real, good, and correct, correct?

I wish theists could recognize this too, as it seems so dangerous for humankind.

If ONLY these people HAD LOOKED AT "themselves", BEFORE they even BEGAN to LOOK AT and JUDGE "others", then it would NOT have taken 'them' SO LONG to have got to WHERE 'we' ARE HERE-NOW.

[Age]

(Thank you for your response.)

Yes, this (that you pointed out above) is a hard one to understand.

Mental illness really corrupts/distorts people... maybe that is what's at work. Sort of like the way a part of one's body can become infected and diseased such that it introduces toxicity to the whole system... yet the infected part remains part of the body and is not separate.

All of life has toxic elements that are part of the greater system. So, what is their role? Are they just an unfortunate side-effect? Why would people be any different?

It makes sense to protect oneself from toxicity in whatever way is necessary. But it's quite a different matter to insist (as a lot of theism does) that we're not all part of a larger whole, and that there are separations. The primary purpose for doing this seems to be to control people by invalidating their divine nature and threatening their souls. Such a narrative could be seen as a form of mental illness -- and it is why I think theism has a great deal of toxicity mixed in with 'the good'. I wish theists could recognize this too, as it seems so dangerous for humankind.

If I have a psychopath - and I don't really think of psychopathy as a mental illness - or a narcissist in my life, I don't feel like I ever need to think of them as divine.

Here is, ANOTHER, PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW these people, back in the days when this was being written, would NOT LISTEN TO what the "other" was SAYING, and MEANING.

"lacewing" has NEVER SAID ANY one 'is divine', NOR that "lacewing" EVER thinks of ANY one 'as divine'. But this is 'what' "iwannaplato" HEARS and even SEES here, even though what was ACTUALLY SAID is written down in CLEAR PLAIN WORDS, for ALL of us to LOOK AT, SEE, and HEAR, by the way.

I am not asserting that they are outside this universe or not part of things. I just don't think it helps me in any way to think of them this way, as divine, or - not that you said this - really like me, deep down or something.

It has taken a lot of work for me not to consider them 'really like me deep down' and even from thinking of them as having much less wonderful sounding qualities than 'divine'.

If we look at some of the more pernicious forms of the Abrahamic religions, even there I don't think most would say that evil people are not part of the system.

BELIEVING or IMAGINING that there are 'evil people', in the world, is just ANOTHER EXAMPLE and ANOTHER FORM of 'MENTAL ILLNESS', itself.

Or even, in Christianity, say, that at any time they can't turn to God and find forgiveness. So, in some way, even in Christianity there is this, deep down we are all the same idea, but some people keep chosing to keep their back turned toward God. (I'm not a Christian, by the way).

I am trying to triangulate here. I think these ideas in the abstract can be interpreted many ways.

AND in FAR MORE WAYS that just the WAYS that were INTERPRETED in the days when this was being written.

I had a boss who lied, made up things I and a colleague didn't do, could never admit errors, made up reactions that other people in the job supposedly had had about us, which were not true and spoke in harsh and unempathetic ways. Other workers experienced much the same treatment. At the time I felt I could not leave the job due to a family member illness and huge medical bills, which this boss knew about. This person made many people miserable.

(I know you know such people exist. I am just trying to get concrete to see if this helps clarify our positions)

BUT 'your' TWO POSITIONS are AT OTHER ENDS OF THE SCALES, as some might say.

One is SAYING, and MEANING, 'the divine' is WITHIN ALL, WHEREAS 'you' are SAYING, and MEANING, that 'you' can NOT see some people 'as divine', itself.

Also, just having 'the (so-called) divine' WITHIN one does NOT make NOR mean that 'the one' is 'divine' NOR HAS TO be 'divine' AT ALL, either.

I don't think she is outside the universe or not human, since being human includes such incredible diversity. But I don't think we are really the same deep down.

LOL EVEN on the superficial and/or artificial level 'you' ARE BOTH 'human beings'. YET, with lol, this one does NOT even think that 'they' are REALLY 'the SAME', deep down. 'you', two, ONLY get MORE 'the SAME' the DEEPER DOWN we go in LOOKING and LEARNING here.

I think she is missing empathy.

LOL Talk about HYPOCRISY at its HIGHEST LEVEL here.

SEEING the "other" as NOT like 'you', and especially because it is the "other" who is MISSING 'empathy', IS having absolutely NO 'empathy' "yourself" here.

That she sees power struggle only where others see something more complex. I think she is qualitatively different from me. I don't really see bringing in the word divine. I think actually even fairly judgmental and awful in many ways theists, let's say a Christian, would have a more incluslive view of this person, at least in the abstract. IOW she could at any moment repent her sins and be saved and head to heaven. I think that's confused. There is something fundamentally different about her. I am not ruling out that over some huge period of time she might learn to behave better. But I think it may be possible that she simply cannot do this because of differences in her make up. Sort of like dolphins can't run marathons. I don't believe in Hell, and wouldn't wish anyone to be there.

YET here 'you' ARE causing AND creating a HELL-like existence, for "yourself" AND "others".

It's not about what I want done to her by some just deity. I don't want her to get secular severe punishments, though what I think should be natural social and professional consequences would be great - infortunately modern capitalism (and communism) often don't really have much of a problem with psychopath/narcissitic traits, as long as customers generally don't run into them.

So, what does the problematic theist do in relation to someone like this that we shouldn't do?
And would this be true if we are dealing with a Ted Bundy or Stalin or Hitler?

But it is BECAUSE of people like the ones here HOW and WHY those like "ted bundy", "joseph stalin", "adolf hitler", and the "other countless ones" COME-TO-BE.

What is it one shouldn't do that is primarily done by theists?

What is, supposedly and allegedly, 'primarily done' by so-called "theists"?

It seems like non-theists put people in categories of being outside, beyond the pale. What is the difference with theists?

And just to be clear: I don't know for sure if my dolphin can't run marathons fits this particular boss of mine.

NOT REALLY, because 'you' were referring to the 'mental and/or emotional' capabilities or responses of the EXACT SAME species of animal, but here 'you' are referring to the physical capabilities and/or responses, of the bodies, of VERY DIFFERENT animals.

Perhaps she could manage to become an empathetic person.

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER LEARN WHY that person is NOT as 'empathetic' as 'you' would like them to be or expect them to be, then 'you' WILL LEARN and SEE, EXACTLY, HOW and WHY 'you' are here a LESS 'empathetic' person that that one IS.

I am fallible.

WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, is this 'one' that is CLAIMING that 'it' is 'fallible' here?

But I do think there are people who are fundamentally different.

In what way/s EXACTLY?

Psychopathy is generally considered to be a genetic condition, for example.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What MORE could I SAY here, BESIDES one could NOT be MORE Wrong here, even if they WANTED TO BE.

[Age]

all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation

I sit here no material or energetic umbilicals between me and any-one or -thing: how is there not separation?

Now, creative energy might refer to spirit, sumthin' apart from, different from, the material of atoms and heat. I believe, infer, spirit is real (that man is a composite of spirit and substance). But even so, there still appears, to me, no unifying connections between men or between man and nature/the world/God.

You are you, I am me, and God is Himself. We interact, exchange, but are separate from one another.

That's two cents from a deist.

But what is 'it' that, supposedly and allegedly, SEPARATES ALL 'things' from ONE ANOTHER?

[Age]

there still appears, to me, no unifying connections between men or between man and nature/the world/God.

You are you, I am me, and God is Himself. We interact, exchange, but are separate from one another.

Fascinating.

There is an abundance of information and awareness that suggests otherwise, but of course you can believe whatever you want. This link is a very simple and brief description for considering how Spirituality, Philosophy, and Science Show That We Are All One.
https://www.learning-mind.com/everythin ... connected/ Anyone can explore these types of understandings further from countless sources if they want to.

Isn't it funny that you believe in God yet seem to have no concept of spiritual oneness or unity throughout all?

Is it NOT funny that you BELIEVE there is NO one truth yet seem to also BELIEVE of spiritual oneness or unity throughout ALL?

While such oneness and unity has been completely apparent to me, yet I do not believe in a god.

But you BELIEVE the word 'God' refers to some FICTITIOUS entity or some 'thing' that is NO real. So, if you DID BELIEVE IN a FICTITIOUS entity or NON REAL 'thing', then 'you' would ONLY be CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' ONCE MORE here.

To me, this further demonstrates God to be a product of man for validating separateness.

Does anyone else find this funny?

LOL I find just about EVERY thing in this forum EXTREMELY FUNNY and HILARIOUS to WATCH, and BEHOLD.

BUT, that WAS just HOW 'it' WAS, back in the days when this WAS being written. Back then people REALLY DID BELIEVE (in) the MOST ABSURDEST of 'things'.