Christianity

[henry quirk]

The Xtians are using the biblical human psyop as a weapon against ordinary loving compassionate people who do good, just out of the wisdom of their own hearts, and not what some Holy Book has dictated to them.

Can you gimme a specific example of the Book bein' used as a weapon against ordinary loving compassionate people who do good? I'm not Christian, so mebbe there's sumthin' I'm missin'.


That is my argument about the religious preachers. Preaching the idea that people are born sinners is evil.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of The Fall either. But I'm also no fan of the notion that the wisdom of man's heart is, in fact, wise.

We have certain intuitions about ourselves and our fellows. Those backed or undergirded by conscience invariably turn up as right. Those extending only from man's wisdom or reason invariably turn up as wrong.

As I reckon it, the Book acts as codification of conscience. Study it carefully and a person finds it aligns with what what he already knows. Seems to me, the largest objections against the Book (and conscience) come from *folks who bridle at the idea there's an older wisdom, a pre-dating wisdom (call it God, Creator, or Watermelon [it makes me no never-mind]) that, when it conflicts with their own notions, they take as The Great Party Pooper in the Sky.

As for the religious preachers, preaching the idea that people are born sinners: some overstep, sure. But is the car automatically a lemon cuz the salesman is a dick? Of course not.

I imagine God is less than pleased with some of His showroom reps.

And: I think there's a difference between the preacher who grinds his congregation into the dirt with unrelenting talk of unworthiness, and the preacher who sez, in effect, Jesus is your completion, without Him, you are incomplete, and incomplete you will falter.

*I'm not, by the way, sayin' you, DAM, fall into that camp.

[henry quirk]

It may perhaps seem as if I am making light of an answer, but it does occur to me to attempt to point out that in contrast to an Eternal Hell, the God who has made the rules that will inevitably get broken, should design a sort of paradigm where those errant souls go from one situation after another of living the consequences of their choices until finally (one imagines this is possible) they *get it* and decide to make different choices.

As I understand it, not all sins lead to the pit. Steal a candy bar and never repent or make it right, you'll go to a penalty box for awhile before gettin' ushered into Heaven. Kill a man for no damn reason, and never repent or make it right, and you'll burn, but good.

I'm not Christian so I don't know the intricacies of Judgement.

[henry quirk]

There must always be -- mustn't there? -- a way out.

Well, among Christians, there is a way out (before you die and actually go to the pit) : repentance.

[henry quirk]

It seems more logical, and more likely, that the God of all souls always gets his man.

I'd say the God of all souls always gets the man who willingly delivers himself.

Free will is a bitch.

We get to choose to rise or fall.

We choose to abide reason alone, or appetite, or whim.

Or: we choose to pay attention to God, by way of what He's inscribed in us (conscience).

[Dontaskme]

The Xtians are using the biblical human psyop as a weapon against ordinary loving compassionate people who do good, just out of the wisdom of their own hearts, and not what some Holy Book has dictated to them.

Can you gimme a specific example of the Book bein' used as a weapon against ordinary loving compassionate people who do good? I'm not Christian, so mebbe there's sumthin' I'm missin'.


That is my argument about the religious preachers. Preaching the idea that people are born sinners is evil.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of The Fall either. But I'm also no fan of the notion that the wisdom of man's heart is, in fact, wise.

We have certain intuitions about ourselves and our fellows. Those backed or undergirded by conscience invariably turn up as right. Those extending only from man's wisdom or reason invariably turn up as wrong.

As I reckon it, the Book acts as codification of conscience. Study it carefully and a person finds it aligns with what what he already knows. Seems to me, the largest objections against the Book (and conscience) come from *folks who bridle at the idea there's an older wisdom, a pre-dating wisdom (call it God, Creator, or Watermelon [it makes me no never-mind]) that, when it conflicts with their own notions, they take as The Great Party Pooper in the Sky.

As for the religious preachers, preaching the idea that people are born sinners: some overstep, sure. But is the car automatically a lemon cuz the salesman is a dick? Of course not.

I imagine God is less than pleased with some of His showroom reps.

And: I think there's a difference between the preacher who grinds his congregation into the dirt with unrelenting talk of unworthiness, and the preacher who sez, in effect, Jesus is your completion, without Him, you are incomplete, and incomplete you will falter.

*I'm not, by the way, sayin' you, DAM, fall into that camp.

Look, let me put it this way...this is what I am trying to say....We do not need to be informed by other authors of what we already know in our own heart to be true.

That's what this man-made holy instruction book is all about, it's about informing us of what we already know, but a book is always about history...it's never about realtime present moment.

Right now in realtime present, we already know that pain is bad and that inflicting what we already know is bad onto another person, is intently inflicting evil.

Think of this another way... a child learns by itself that when another child hits him hard across the face, that it will cause pain and distress, so the child that has been hit, would already know that if he did the same back to the child that hit him, he would know that he has intently commited harm on another against their will and consent.

That action and reaction is just a common basic natural physical mechanical law of physics and chemistry no doubt...it's not some weird far out law pre-prepared for us by some entity that existed before we ever showed up on the scene, known as some supreme invisible spirit God...do you see what I am trying to say, if not ,never mind, I do try, but then people will only understand what they want to understand.

Also, going back to the point about the daddy of the child informing the child of wrong doing before he learns the action himself, that's fine, and the right thing to do...but then for the child to then later find out that there is this God as well as his own daddy who says the same thing his daddy said....don't you see what that means, it means that there are now two informing authorities ...there's the childs biological daddy, and then there's this other thing called God ...now how is a child meant to make sense of that...is all I'm arguing.



.

[Dontaskme]

Not talking to you, DAM. Can't deal with the drama.

What you really can't deal with is knowing there are smarter people than you around.

The problem for many philosophers is that they like to believe they are the smarter one over the other they are in debate with, and that their biggest fear is being made to look inferior by someone who is seen to be a threat to their own belief, and so they are afraid of looking dumb as opposed to being smart...that's all that's happening here, just own the fact that when two philosophers debate it's just a frigging game to see who can out-wit or win the other philosopher over to their side of the argument.

You take yourself way too seriously IC

[henry quirk]

do you see what I am trying to say(?)

Sure. Bottomline, you say there is no God. Moreover, you say there's no need for God.

[Dontaskme]

do you see what I am trying to say(?)

Sure. Bottomline, you say there is no God. Moreover, you say there's no need for God.

I'm saying, there is no need for pure being, to have a name tag attached to it in order to be.

Actions are automatic reflexive jerk responses, no thinking agency is needed for this function, it's automatic.

[henry quirk]

I'm saying, there is no need for pure being, to have a name tag attached to it in order to be.

Actions are automatic reflexive jerk responses, no thinking agency is needed for this function, it's automatic.

Yeah, like I said, you say there is no *God. Moreover, you say there's no need for God.




*a person

[Dontaskme]

I'm saying, there is no need for pure being, to have a name tag attached to it in order to be.

Actions are automatic reflexive jerk responses, no thinking agency is needed for this function, it's automatic.

Yeah, like I said, you say there is no *God. Moreover, you say there's no need for God.




*a person

The universe has no need to be, only persons do. The universe is already a singularity, it does not need another individual to make it complete. As you have suggested.

[henry quirk]

I'm saying, there is no need for pure being, to have a name tag attached to it in order to be.

Actions are automatic reflexive jerk responses, no thinking agency is needed for this function, it's automatic.

Yeah, like I said, you say there is no *God. Moreover, you say there's no need for God.




*a person

The universe has no need to be, only persons do. The universe is already a singularity, it does not need another individual to make it complete. *As you have suggested.

*I don't think I suggested any of that (you did)...the universe is a Creation...its Creator (a person) acted with purpose (mebbe sumthin' as simple as an artist's desire to create, mebbe sumthin' more)

[Dontaskme]

You are already the KNOWN universe.

You cannot know you know. You don't need to carry that extra burden of knowing.

Knowledge can only ever point to the KNOWN....never the knower...simply because you are the knowing that cannot be known.

You are never not here.

This is nondual esoteric understanding, the supreme self-realisation that cannot be refuted or negated.


.

[Dontaskme]

I'm saying, there is no need for pure being, to have a name tag attached to it in order to be.

Actions are automatic reflexive jerk responses, no thinking agency is needed for this function, it's automatic.

Yeah, like I said, you say there is no *God. Moreover, you say there's no need for God.




*a person

The universe has no need to be, only persons do. The universe is already a singularity, it does not need another individual to make it complete. *As you have suggested.

*I don't think I suggested any of that (you did)...the universe is a Creation...its Creator (a person) acted with purpose (mebbe sumthin' as simple as an artist's desire to create, mebbe sumthin' more)

FFS Henry, you said up thread...'' Jesus is your completion, without Him, you are incomplete''

I'm saying the opposite, that the universe is already a complete singularity, it has no need for extra baggage.

Any extra baggage is already all inclusive of the singularity. The universe does not require you to show up to your own show. Walk ins are not necessary, no one walks into this world as a person, you come out of what is already wholly complete.

Anyways, I'm glad you are talking to me again Henry, thanks for that.

I'm going to bed now. See you tomorrow.

[henry quirk]

FFS Henry, you said up thread...'' Jesus is your completion, without Him, you are incomplete''

I'm saying the opposite, that the universe is already a complete singularity, it has no need for extra baggage.

Yeah, I know. Unless I read you wrong, you said I suggested...

The universe has no need to be, only persons do. The universe is already a singularity, it does not need another individual to make it complete.

...which I didn't. If I misunderstood, it's my bad.

[Dontaskme]

FFS Henry, you said up thread...'' Jesus is your completion, without Him, you are incomplete''

I'm saying the opposite, that the universe is already a complete singularity, it has no need for extra baggage.

Yeah, I know. Unless I read you wrong, you said I suggested...

The universe has no need to be, only persons do. The universe is already a singularity, it does not need another individual to make it complete.

...which I didn't. If I misunderstood, it's my bad.

Bye the way, before I go Henry...it would be helpful if you could use proper quote boxes, it's an automatic function the forum provides at just the simple click of the mouse. You're responses otherwise read as a bit of a jumbled up mess, no offence. Is there any reason why you do not use proper quote boxes? is it something to do with the computer you use?


Anyways, I'm off to get some zzzz's....I'm an early bird to bed, early bird to rise, up at 4:30 am every morning.

I like chatting with you Henry. Bye for now.