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

Greatest-I-am wrote: The positive form is instructive.
I think that if you know what to do to others, then you would automatically know what not to do to others.

The negative form is prohibitive.
I think that if you know what not to do to others, you should automatically what to do to them.

If you agree then you see that either form is identical to the other in terms of instruction which is what I originally stated in my reply.

Sure, if I agreed, I'd agree. But I don't. If I tell you a number is not 19, that doesn't mean it is 76. Likewise, if I tell you a number is greater than 4 that doesn't mean that it isn't 9. An instruction to do one thing is not a prohibition against another. Likewise a prohibition to do one thing is not an instruction (or even permission) to do another. Now, if the Golden Rule said "Do everything to others that you would do to yourself, and do nothing else to them", or if it said "Do nothing to others what you wouldn't have done unto you, but do to them everything else", those two would be effectively equivalent. But the versions of the Golden Rule we know are neither, and I'd frankly think of them as even less moral if they were.

Gisteron wrote: Eh, the "Dickheaded Liar" thing is no less rude by any means, if we are going to make rudeness important at all.

But with that, and in light of what OB said, too, I'd also remark that I do not think GIa is trolling.
However, given that he posted this also on an art sharing community , a drug harm reduction and self-help community (which, if I may be so opinionated, I find a rather distasteful choice of place to bring religion to), and a Total War gaming community independently and around the same time (though he has been a member of all three for years now, and mostly preaching much of the same, at least on DeviantArt), I am getting to doubt just how interested he is in discussing this as opposed to just spreading his message.

I do think Greatest-I-am/Gnostic Bishop is at least representing his genuine position, even if I wouldn't dare assume that he sincerely seeks to think about it or anyone else's, here or elsewhere.

My agenda first and foremost is to seek good minds so that I might lose an argument and actually learn something.

As you might know, like here, good minds are hard to find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be

My agenda, because I see religions as the cause of much evil, is to try to show people that respecting religions that do not deserve it is not the moral thing to do.

Both Christianity and Islam have grown their religions by the sword instead of good deeds and are homophobic and misogynous cults and are the main focus for my hate of evil religions.

If you do not know when and how to hate, you will not know when or how to love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M5Zdn4

In short, I am here to learn, teach, and preach about Gnostic Christianity as it is the only worthy ideology that I have found to date.

Regards
DL

Gisteron wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote: The positive form is instructive.
I think that if you know what to do to others, then you would automatically know what not to do to others.

The negative form is prohibitive.
I think that if you know what not to do to others, you should automatically what to do to them.

If you agree then you see that either form is identical to the other in terms of instruction which is what I originally stated in my reply.

Sure, if I agreed, I'd agree. But I don't. If I tell you a number is not 19, that doesn't mean it is 76. Likewise, if I tell you a number is greater than 4 that doesn't mean that it isn't 9. An instruction to do one thing is not a prohibition against another. Likewise a prohibition to do one thing is not an instruction (or even permission) to do another. Now, if the Golden Rule said "Do everything to others that you would do to yourself, and do nothing else to them", or if it said "Do nothing to others what you wouldn't have done unto you, but do to them everything else", those two would be effectively equivalent. But the versions of the Golden Rule we know are neither, and I'd frankly think of them as even less moral if they were.

We were not talking of issues with numbers but with reciprocity taught or learned from a positive or negative side.

You did not like the negative and preferred the positive.

If the issue at hand is, should I steal from someone, and the negatively given Golden Rule says --- That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. --- it tells me since I would hate to have my goods stolen, that I should not do it because it is hateful to me.

If the issue at hand is, should I steal from someone, and the positively given Golden Rule says --- Do unto others what you want done to you. --- it tells me, since I know that I would hate to have my goods stolen, that I should not do it because it is hateful to me or what I would not want done to me.

The two Golden Rules impart the same information so if you are going to say that one is better than the other, you will have to come up with a better argument delivered in about the same way.

Pick your issue and do not gum it up with, like your numbers, a thousand of variables as then the message gets lost.

Regards
DL

So I'm myself one of those who feels like aside from some primitive tribal urges there is no reason why one would have to commit oneself to an ideology in the first place. The creating an in-group and an out-group never doesn't grow into a complex where you think the in-group is superior to the out-group by some unspecified metric. It doesn't stay healthy for long.
I may not enjoy a community of people using the same label to describe themselves, and I am perhaps the kind of person who can just get by alone for a while, to some extent. At any rate, what I gain by this... solitude, for lack of a better term, is that I never get to be misrepresented by someone claiming to be like me. I also never get to represent anyone who isn't me. I never get to take shortcuts in thinking or in judgement, because I have no dogma that would take those burdens away from me. I am never wrong because an ideology commanded me to be, rather all my mistakes are my own to bear, and my own to correct. This responsibility is something I think central to the human condition and I cannot help but think less of anyone who recognizing this still chooses instead the easy path of having something else make the decisions for them.

So with this short insight into where I'm coming from...
What about Gnostic Christianity makes it "worthy" an ideology, and worthy of what at that? I'm not asking for another sermon on its superiority to Christianity or Islam and I'm frankly not comfortable being pushed to defend either of those. Without comparing your ideology to anything else, what about it itself is any good? By what standard is having it better than not having it?

Hate is a very strange thing in most people only know what they have first hand experiansed and what they have been taught. Some times it is an exact replica of love. Sides , are our own choosing. In my study in try to find the selfless. In my path the goal of the selfless is my common harmony. Our family idea is that if greed can be tamed we are for the better. I know...we are not all equal, some way shape or form I have seen past the ," equal" idea and noticed every one IS difrent. No one individual is ever the same as their problems are not the same so the solution if needed isn't as well. To say one is better than the other is to add a label that can be ... Used difrently. When speaking of ideology there is a few who surface for face value. Agreed some are more orginised . Here in this place we are given a gift of Jedi ism. The ability to be anything all the time. We can , if we choose , re write our own ideology . I have , my examples of father and lover and faithful have not come from my raise or reading but on a actual use of the syncritiism given in our faith here. I will never argue one side for or against , not my cup of tea, butni will say this , here in this Temple , more can exist at the same time, its encouraged to ... Some common idiology says the opposite. What are you doing with it? What is the result of it? I had to ask myself many times those same questions. Here I am . my box is always open . happy seeking friend , Carlos

Greatest-I-am wrote: My agenda, because I see religions as the cause of much evil, is to try to show people that respecting religions that do not deserve it is not the moral thing to do.

Both Christianity and Islam have grown their religions by the sword instead of good deeds and are homophobic and misogynous cults and are the main focus for my hate of evil religions.

If you do not know when and how to hate, you will not know when or how to love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M.dn4

In short, I am here to learn, teach, and preach about Gnostic Christianity as it is the only worthy ideology that I have found to date.

Regards
DL

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

You have stated that your purpose here was to find intelligent individuals who might prove you wrong. I find that a little difficult to digest and believe, pardon me for being a bit of a skeptic, but I don't think you'll settle for anything other than people agreeing with you, and even thats up for question.

It's sad, that "this" is your focus here, and by the sound if it from what I'm reading in Gisterons post, your life outside the TOTJO as well. Life is short, find something that gives you purpose, and run with it. I hope you decide to stay, you appear decent at providing an arguement, perhaps you'll find something here that resonates within you...

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote: The positive form is instructive.
I think that if you know what to do to others, then you would automatically know what not to do to others.

The negative form is prohibitive.
I think that if you know what not to do to others, you should automatically what to do to them.

If you agree then you see that either form is identical to the other in terms of instruction which is what I originally stated in my reply.

Sure, if I agreed, I'd agree. But I don't. If I tell you a number is not 19, that doesn't mean it is 76. Likewise, if I tell you a number is greater than 4 that doesn't mean that it isn't 9. An instruction to do one thing is not a prohibition against another. Likewise a prohibition to do one thing is not an instruction (or even permission) to do another. Now, if the Golden Rule said "Do everything to others that you would do to yourself, and do nothing else to them", or if it said "Do nothing to others what you wouldn't have done unto you, but do to them everything else", those two would be effectively equivalent. But the versions of the Golden Rule we know are neither, and I'd frankly think of them as even less moral if they were.

We were not talking of issues with numbers but with reciprocity taught or learned from a positive or negative side.

You did not like the negative and preferred the positive.

If the issue at hand is, should I steal from someone, and the negatively given Golden Rule says --- That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. --- it tells me since I would hate to have my goods stolen, that I should not do it because it is hateful to me.

If the issue at hand is, should I steal from someone, and the positively given Golden Rule says --- Do unto others what you want done to you. --- it tells me, since I know that I would hate to have my goods stolen, that I should not do it because it is hateful to me or what I would not want done to me.

The two Golden Rules impart the same information so if you are going to say that one is better than the other, you will have to come up with a better argument delivered in about the same way.

Pick your issue and do not gum it up with, like your numbers, a thousand of variables as then the message gets lost.

I shall refrain from using analogies for illustrative purposes in the future, seeing as you seem unable to understand them.

The positive form of the Golden rule says:
"If you want something done to you, then do it unto others."
The negative form states:
"If you don't want something done to you, then do not do it unto others."

Now, we can abstract this to use a natural calculus of logic. Let P be "you want something done unto you" and let Q be "do that thing unto others." Let furthermore !x mean "not x".
The statements are thus
A = P -> Q for the positive form, and
B = !P -> !Q for the negative.
The arrow denotes a logical implication. x -> y is equivalent to !x OR y where OR is a logical function of two variables that returns FALSE only if both inputs are FALSE. Thus the implication returns FALSE if and only if the antecedent is TRUE and the consequent is FALSE.
Now, in order to not have to introduce deductive rules, I'll illustrate the inequity of the two forms of the Golden Rule using a truth table:

P	Q	A	B
Code: FALSE	Code: FALSE	Code: TRUE	Code: TRUE
Code: FALSE	Code: TRUE	Code: TRUE	Code: FALSE
Code: TRUE	Code: FALSE	Code: FALSE	Code: TRUE
Code: TRUE	Code: TRUE	Code: TRUE	Code: TRUE

Incidentally, B is called the converse of A in this case, and to conclude it from A is a formal logical fallacy called "converse error" or - if we apply De Morgan's Law - "affirming the consequent". That's right. The mistake you are making is so ancient and so common, it has its own name. As you can see by the values for A and B not being equal in every line, they are not equivalent and definitions alone are enough to prove it.

Now, this is just elementary propositional logic. I have taken a class on modal logic, too, where operators like "it is permitted" and "it is obligatory" are introduced and where you learn that a prohibition against an action is not a permission of another and a command to an action is not a prohibition of another. So if you want, we can go down that road, too. These things are logical theorems. They are some of the very few statements we can and do know with full, unabridged certainty. They are no matter of debate or of opinion... Frankly, you aren't doing yourself any favours challenging them with nothing but your own intuition, much less while simultaneously making snarky borderline condescending assessments of other people's intelligence here...

Gisteron wrote: So I'm myself one of those who feels like aside from some primitive tribal urges there is no reason why one would have to commit oneself to an ideology in the first place. The creating an in-group and an out-group never doesn't grow into a complex where you think the in-group is superior to the out-group by some unspecified metric. It doesn't stay healthy for long.
I may not enjoy a community of people using the same label to describe themselves, and I am perhaps the kind of person who can just get by alone for a while, to some extent. At any rate, what I gain by this... solitude, for lack of a better term, is that I never get to be misrepresented by someone claiming to be like me. I also never get to represent anyone who isn't me. I never get to take shortcuts in thinking or in judgement, because I have no dogma that would take those burdens away from me. I am never wrong because an ideology commanded me to be, rather all my mistakes are my own to bear, and my own to correct. This responsibility is something I think central to the human condition and I cannot help but think less of anyone who recognizing this still chooses instead the easy path of having something else make the decisions for them.

So with this short insight into where I'm coming from...
What about Gnostic Christianity makes it "worthy" an ideology, and worthy of what at that? I'm not asking for another sermon on its superiority to Christianity or Islam and I'm frankly not comfortable being pushed to defend either of those. Without comparing your ideology to anything else, what about it itself is any good? By what standard is having it better than not having it?

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

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

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

carlos.martinez3 wrote: Hate is a very strange thing in most people only know what they have first hand experiansed and what they have been taught. Some times it is an exact replica of love. Sides , are our own choosing. In my study in try to find the selfless. In my path the goal of the selfless is my common harmony. Our family idea is that if greed can be tamed we are for the better. I know...we are not all equal, some way shape or form I have seen past the ," equal" idea and noticed every one IS difrent. No one individual is ever the same as their problems are not the same so the solution if needed isn't as well. To say one is better than the other is to add a label that can be ... Used difrently. When speaking of ideology there is a few who surface for face value. Agreed some are more orginised . Here in this place we are given a gift of Jedi ism. The ability to be anything all the time. We can , if we choose , re write our own ideology . I have , my examples of father and lover and faithful have not come from my raise or reading but on a actual use of the syncritiism given in our faith here. I will never argue one side for or against , not my cup of tea, butni will say this , here in this Temple , more can exist at the same time, its encouraged to ... Some common idiology says the opposite. What are you doing with it? What is the result of it? I had to ask myself many times those same questions. Here I am . my box is always open . happy seeking friend , Carlos

Thanks.

This is laudable for developing the self. But if Jedi ism is only concerned for the self, and ignores what the Dark Side does, then Jedi ism is not worthy of spit.

We are, as I stated above, all in this together, alone.

For the dark Side to grow and engulf all the oneness you seek, all good Jedi need do is nothing.

Jesus said he came to bring the sword and not peace.

Jedi ism is a religion. The Jedi sword is built for war, not peace. And the Jedi mind should have the same purpose and war with words when it can and by real force when required.

If Jedi Jesus were here, he would wage a verbal war against the immoral ideologies that plague mankind, and if that was not enough, he would act.

Jesus is an archetypal good man. If Jedi cannot be seen as just as good then, then the enemies of Jedi ism have won the real war.

If the Dark Side cannot be brought to a better way of thinking, and recognizing that the first duty of a free man is to insure that all people share in that freedom, and Jedi do nothing, then as I said, Jedi is not worth spit as it and its members have forgotten their first duty to mankind.

Regards
DL

quote="Zenchi" post=265955][

quote="Greatest-I-am" post=265945]My agenda, because I see religions as the cause of much evil, is to try to show people that respecting religions that do not deserve it is not the moral thing to do.

Both Christianity and Islam have grown their religions by the sword instead of good deeds and are homophobic and misogynous cults and are the main focus for my hate of evil religions.

If you do not know when and how to hate, you will not know when or how to love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M.dn4

In short, I am here to learn, teach, and preach about Gnostic Christianity as it is the only worthy ideology that I have found to date.

Regards
DL

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No

You have stated that your purpose here was to find intelligent individuals who might prove you wrong. I find that a little difficult to digest and believe, pardon me for being a bit of a skeptic,

I like fellow skeptics. But why are you skeptic? Have you not recognized that learning something new by having your mind changed is one of the greatest pleasures in life?

If I win an argument, I learn nothing. No pleasure for me. All the pleasure goes to the loser if he is astute enough to recognize his loss.

I try to line up my thinking before entering a topic and am quite sure of my position and arrogantly push on. I would not want to be seen as soft or unsure. The utter destruction of that logic trail, if I lose, which is not often enough, is the next best thing to sex.

but I don't think you'll settle for anything other than people agreeing with you, and even thats up for question.

Correct. Agree or give a good enough argument to change my mind. I want to learn and reap the pleasure, or teach and give pleasure.

It's sad, that "this" is your focus here, and by the sound if it from what I'm reading in Gisterons post, your life outside the TOTJO as well.

If you are sad for me, then you do not yet understand me.

Life is short, find something that gives you purpose, and run with it.

In terms of religious discourse, I think reducing the harm done to others is a worthy purpose.

I hope you decide to stay, you appear decent at providing an arguement, perhaps you'll find something here that resonates within you...

[/quote]

So far so good. My level of input will be gaged by how many religionists are here and want to take me on.

If theist here are afraid to try to teach me or correct what they would see as my poor thinking, they show how soft they are in their ideology.

For all I know, there are no theists here.

If that is so, then consider my challenge to them to be put to you and your ideology as well as the Jedi ideology, which I know little of, but think I can best with my Gnostic Christian ideology.

Regards
DL