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...