Consider someone declares they are God and that this statement is the absolute/fundamental truth or "the word". They then offer you a trinary choice — Benj96

Where in the Scriptures does someone declare this?

There are those who claim that such a person exists. Big difference.

Anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread.
6m — Janus

However, one can only decide for themselves whether they wish to spread it. And if they do share it, they too can be ignored or actively chastised/put down/oppressed.

I fail to see how they decide for "everyone" beyond themselves specifically, the only thing they decide is who they tell in their immediate circle. After all they're only responsible for their own actions.

One cannot predict the reception of a message by others.

And if one cannot predict the choices of others, the cannot decide the choices of others. They can merely offer them.

I fail to see how they decide for "everyone" beyond themselves specifically, the only thing they decide is who they tell in their immediate circle. After all they're only responsible for their own actions. — Benj96

I see evangelism as being essential to Christianity. "The Word" is understood to be the word of God, and it is believed that those who accept it will be saved and those who don't will be damned. So those who accept the Word accept that it is the ultimate truth for all, and that the "good news" should be spread so that everyone has access to it.

Where in the Scriptures does someone declare this? — Paine

Well just to note a few: in Christianity, Jesus declares he is the son of God (has a direct relationship) and is interpreted as the earthly embodiment of said entity. In Islam, Muhammmed declares himself a voice of God- channeling the word.

The dilemma of the OP however is somewhat universal based on Human nature, and could be applied to several historical instances with the same overriding result - a refuge in obscurity or overt proclamations followed by subsequent martyrdom

I see evangelism as being essential to Christianity. "The Word" is understood to be the word of God, and it is believed that those who accept it will be saved and those who don't will be damned. So those who accept the Word accept that it is the ultimate truth for all, and that the "good news" should be spread so that everyone has access to it. — Janus

My interpretation of this is that whoever is "saved" or "damned" is up to their own conscience/moral compass. Guilt and shame is a powerful and self-inflicted force.

Witnessing someone championing human rights and being mercilessly tortured for their outspoken and brave defence of the people against those with a more perverse agenda might evoke guilt and shame in those that didn't feel they did enough to stand by what they felt was inherently right - regardless of whether their hesitation was out of fear / self preservation or whatever.

In this sense, when one is exposed to the "word" so to speak they become their own judge and executioner, based on their inner conflict and sense of morality rather than some almighty non-earthly father/judge.

For me it's human nature, it's own ideals, and its own resulting consequences. Nothing more nothing less..

The use of the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man" have different roles in the writings before the Christian era. Something to be pursued in a different conversation, perhaps.

Putting aside the various folk who presume to speak for God, that is different from a human being saying: "I am God." If that rebuttal is of no interest to you, the difference is very important to other people.

Good points.

Putting aside the various folk who presume to speak for God, that is different from a human being saying: "I am God." — Paine

They are very different, you're correct.

In one case we have those "allegedly" speaking on behalf of a God with no evidence. On the other hand you have the one saying "they are God" and the embodiment of the evidence. "You see me don't you?"

Then people say "Prove it." They say, well, those that believe me without need for proof will garner me the limelight. The rest will attack me relentlessly, and I'll be murdered despite only proposing we treat one another as equals, but I'm happy to succumb to the viscious abuse of the worst of you to instill some semblance of the message that we need to do better by one another.

Witnessing the person being bullied to death by the world then serves to echo their point, right? I mean, that's surely fuel for self reflection one would imagine, and if it isn't - then it speaks volumes of the lack of empathy.

Imagine someone saying "let's be nice" and being beaten bloodied for the very popularity of that sentiment because it threatens the most hostile/selfish people out there. Would you not feel bad for them?

There's not many things I would consider godly, but such an act is certainly and undeniably selfless in my eyes.

What you say here is not relevant to the point. It is always humans that decide whether something is the "word of God", as opposed to being something that just personally inspires them.

What you say here is not relevant to the point. It is always humans that decide whether something is the "word of God", as opposed to being something that just personally inspires them. — Janus

Sure, humans decide what is deemed "Word of God". Is that neccessarily opposed to what inspires them? Why so? Must they be in opposition, at odds?

If someone was willing to put their own wellbeing on the line to spread knowledge/truth, cooperation and foster good intentions, and gave you a choice to agree with this agenda, ignore it or oppose it, what would you choose?

The original OP outlines the 3 options and the consequences for your consideration.

Are you withdrawing the claim that first person claims to be God (other than God) can be found in the Scriptures?

[parenthesis added]

Sure, humans decide what is deemed "Word of God". Is that neccessarily opposed to what inspires them? Why so? Must they be in opposition, at odds? — Benj96

"As opposed" in the way I used it means "as distinct from" not "opposed to". Its common parlance. If something inspires me, I do not have to conclude that it therefore must inspire others.

If someone was willing to put their own wellbeing on the line to spread knowledge/truth and foster good intentions, and gave you a choice to agree with this agenda, ignore it or oppose it, what would you choose? — Benj96

That a simplistic picture in my view. If the person was merely saying "we should be good to one another" then that would be hard to argue with. But its not as simple as that when it comes to religion.

Are you withdrawing the claim that first person claims to be God can be found in the Scriptures? — Paine

No I'm not withdrawing it. Proceed as you will.

Quote the sources.

That a simplistic picture in my view. If the person was merely saying "we should be good to one another" then that would be hard to argue with. But its not as simple as that when it comes to religion. — Janus

Indeed - there's still those matters of foreskin, the rights of women, abortion, etc, etc. How do we rule out a god (if one exists) who is also an intolerant pissant? What if the truth is horrible?

That a simplistic picture in my view. If the person was merely saying "we should be good to one another" then that would be hard to argue with. But its not as simple as that when it comes to religion. — Janus

How complex do you want morality to be? Would you like it obscure, esoteric, out of reach, unintuitive?

I think you'll find most religions are -at their core - when removing all the arbitrary fluff/tripe and dogma, about doing right by one another. That is hard to argue,.unless you lack any regard/empathy for people- in which case I'm sure one could conjure all sorts of rationalisation for not doing right by one another.

Indeed - there's still those matters of foreskin, the rights of women, abortion, etc, etc. How do we rule out a god (if one exists) who is also an intolerant pissant? What if the truth is horrible? — Tom Storm

I would imagine the truth would be horrible for those that can't stand it. I imagine they would be the intolerant pissants in this case.

Matters like abortion, women's rights etc are all important and need due discussion but have little to do with the core of what was set out in the OP.

How do we rule out a god (if one exists) who is also an intolerant pissant? What if the truth is horrible? — Tom Storm

You mean the God of the Old Testament? The Gnostics believed that God was a flawed, self-important lesser deity. On the other hand, I think each, the approval and the disapproval of Yahweh, are just one story among meany others. Humans seem to need to select one story and declare it the literal truth. What if it's stories all the way down?

Then we don't have to rule out a god or any particular god, and nor do we have to rule one in. We just need to recognize they are all just stories, and that no one knows the absolute truth or for that matter any truth beyond what is observed and what is tautologously so.

How complex do you want morality to be? Would you like it obscure, esoteric, out of reach, unintuitive?

I think you'll find most religions are -at their core - when removing all the arbitrary fluff/tripe and dogma, about doing right by one another. — Benj96

I don't believe morality is either complex or dependent on religion. At least when it comes to the most significant moral issues. Those regarding theft, assault, rape, murder, child abuse and so on. Morality grows out of pragmatic social necessity.

So, I see the religious aspects as being unnecessary to morality, rationally speaking. Although it could be argued that they are emotionally or psychologically necessary for some people.

I would imagine the truth would be horrible for those that can't stand it. I imagine they would be the intolerant pissants in this case. — Benj96

That's' a very limited account. What if god is a mafia thug like Yahweh? He is evil. The truth may be horrible because it is horrible and we are correct not to stand for it. We can definitively visualize a version of reality where if there is a god that god is nefarious.

Well,

Matters like abortion, women's rights etc are all important and need due discussion but have little to do with the core of what was set out in the OP. — Benj96

You are trying to limit your accoutn so that the flaws dontl show. You have mentioned 'the truth'. The question remains what is the nature of this truth? If it advocates for slavery and genocide and violates the rights of minorities and women, then this truth is problematic and quite possibly evil.

The context is everything in this thought experiment. As they say, the devil is in the detail. :wink:

You mean the God of the Old Testament? — Janus

Sure, that one is clearly a prick. But we can imagine any god being a nasty piece of work. It does not follow that if there is a god and that god holds the truth that this truth is ipso facto beneficial. This is only the case if you play the definitional game wherein you decide that god is identical with goodness. Which invariably makes anything god does good because he did it. Whether he's drowning all the men, women and children on the planet, or allowing AIDS to tear through the gay community.

I don't believe morality is either complex or dependent on religion. At least when it comes to the most significant moral issues. Those regarding theft, assault, rape, murder, child abuse and so on. Morality grows out of pragmatic social necessity. — Janus

Indeed. And as a social species, where strength comes through community, it would be difficult for us to survive without codes of conduct like this.

t does not follow that if there is a god and that god holds the truth that this truth is ipso facto beneficial. — Tom Storm

Yes, that's true. But this would only be a problem if we could somehow infallibly know the awful truth and would then be left with the choice of either rejecting the demand for worship and accepting whatever punishment that would entail or accepting the unacceptable out of the desire to avoid punishment.

Whether he's drowning all the men, women and children on the planet, — Tom Storm

The gall of that God. How would you have handled that one? How long do humans get to live in your universe? Go ahead, tell God how it should be done. I can give my version next. Love this game. (I've actually given considerable thought to this one.)

You make me laugh.

You are trying to limit your account so that the flaws dont show — Tom Storm

I'm not trying to limit it. It is vague /generalised already. What highly specified dogma have I asserted other than that if a fundamental truth exists and is embodied, it will be persecuted and attempts to destroy it will likely be made even when there are alternative approaches available.

If it advocates for slavery and genocide and violates the rights of minorities and women, then this truth is problematic and quite possibly evil. — Tom Storm

It doesn't. The truth is just facts/knowledge, telling it is education and honesty. Concealing it is deceit/lying. And ignoring it is ignorant. Simple.

Knowledge by itself doesn't commit any crimes. It just is. It exists despite what is done with it -much like money does. What people use knowledge for (intention) is when the truth can be used for malice (eg the truth of nuclear fission being used to create the atomic bomb). No one is going to argue the truth about nuclear physics is evil just because of atomic bombs. The truth didn't do that. People did that using it (through intention).

Remember truth has a knowledge aspect and an ethical aspect. Creating a bomb is using knowledge of truth without acknowledging the ethical implications (the truth of harm/devastation) that comes with the bomb.

The context is everything in this thought experiment. As they say, the devil is in the detail. — Tom Storm

You're absolutely right. However context is different for everyone because language is interpretative and abstract concepts like "God" are heavily loaded.

I have contextualised the OP as best and as succinctly as I can and yet here we are talking about abortion, slavery and women's rights. You dont like organised religions. I get it. Neither do I. Theyre riddled with corruptions. But im qualifying a God concept in a very simple and straight forward way with very rational and predictable consequences and cite that it reflects a very small portion of scriptures -not the entirety of scripture.

Otherwise, please highlight where these words: abortion, slavery, women's rights etc appeared in the OP. I'll be waiting.

Morality grows out of pragmatic social necessity. — Janus

No it doesn't. It may be pragmatic to be an oppressive fascist dictator as its a very effective way of exerting your will and getting things done. Doesn't mean that it's moral despite how effective it might be on paper.

Morality is not about pragmatism, its about empathy. Its being able to "walk in the shoes" of another and see why your actions may harm them.

That's the difference between taking power by force (pragmatic but not ethical) and asking for power (more cumbersome but ethical).

If you are given the option to do anything with absolutely no consequences: You can go about it morally or practically. Practically one can steal. You wont be penalised in this case after all. Morally, one can reason as to why there would be greater overall benefit if they oversee the resource.

So, I see the religious aspects as being unnecessary to morality, rationally speaking — Janus

Religions are what happen when a significant truth is appointed deep and enduring value to a group such that a lifestyle and culture grows around it. They're not neccessary, sure, but they're are the name of the phenomenon that grows around fairly universal, wise and ethical (therefore agreeable) insights.

Scientific method is another dogma that grew around around truth - that what is stable/consistent, repeatable and can be tested/is observable, is likely to endure as such (be objective) reliable/useful/informative.

It's not called a religion because by its exploration of truth is narrowed or focused toward the object. Religions on the other hand permit a subjective or personifiable aspect of truth (its anthropomorphism into the concept of a "God").

*Also note that science is ideally steered by ethics. So even though its not a religion it is essentially "contemplate and expose the truth without doing harm" - a close parallel to religious dogma -but the methodology/parameters are set differently.

It does not follow that if there is a god and that god holds the truth that this truth is ipso facto beneficial — Tom Storm

Of course it doesn't. If they hold the truth then you don't know it. If they tell you, then you know it, and can use it for your own devices - beneficial/harmless or harmful. It's only beneficial if chosen to be so. But those that make the choice are culpable for the consequences as they are aware (truth-knowers).

Otherwise, please highlight where these words: abortion, slavery, women's rights etc appeared in the OP. I'll be waiting. — Benj96

Of course you didn't. You seem determined to not understand the point.

I am saying that truth may be deliberately and carefully rejected by people because it is assessed as appalling.

One such account of 'truth' allegedly from god is The Bible with its evil stories and directives (slavery, genocide, etc).

This goes to my point about an Option 4 - that people may reject truth in full knowledge of what they are rejecting. You don't seem to understand this point and keep banging on about ignorance.

But this point would work just as well with The Koran or any other holy book full of despicable information, generally held to be truth directly from god.

You cannot assume that a god represents goodness. The so called truth may well be despicable. Which is how many view the alleged truth contained in the Koran or the Bible.

No it doesn't. It may be pragmatic to be an oppressive fascist dictator as its a very effective way of exerting your will and getting things done. Doesn't mean that it's moral despite how effective it might be on paper.

Morality is not about pragmatism, its about empathy. Its being able to "walk in the shoes" of another and see why your actions may harm them. — Benj96

I wasn't talking about what is pragmatic for individuals, but for societies. I think you'll find that theft, rape, assault and murder are illegal even in fascist dictatorships. The fact that those in power can sometimes get away with these acts doesn't change the fact that they are generally unacceptable to people. Imagine a society in which there was no punishment, other than other individuals taking revenge, for those who committed such acts. It would be anything but a harmonious society. There is honour even among thieves

Religions are what happen when a significant truth is appointed deep and enduring value to a group such that a lifestyle and culture grows around it. — Benj96

Religions only flourish when they satisfy, or seem to satisfy, social needs. Of course, that includes the need for the authorities to exercise their power. How long do you think a religion that promoted free-for-all theft, deception of others, assault, rape and murder would last?

.