Be you a Christian or not, could I have your overall thoughts and judgement of Yahweh/Jesus based on if you see him living by the Golden Rule? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yahweh and Jesus were different characters, so I don't see why they should be considered the same Defendant in this trial you've proposed. It could be that Jesus did live by the golden rule, but not Yahweh (or vice versa).

Anyhow, I think the general argument among believers is that Yahweh (assuming you are referring to the god of the Old Testament, although there is some textual support that El and Yahweh were different gods that later merged into one) is necessarily all good, so whatever he did that you might think was crazy, it's just due to your limited understanding of what good he was bringing about.

"Does Yahweh/Jesus live by the Golden Rule?"

Since you're asking about characters in a book, why not read the book to find out? Because any departure from that is a discussion on the level of whether Aquaman can beat Spiderman.

Since you're asking about characters in a book, why not read the book to find out? Because any departure from that is a discussion on the level of whether Aquaman can beat Spiderman. — tim wood

I think we all understood the method by which the OP should be answered, which is to reference the book referenced. The question is why you haven't.

Be you a Christian or not, could I have your overall thoughts and judgement of Yahweh/Jesus based on if you see him living by the Golden Rule? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Did you read this?

Let me put a reply I put at my other thread.

-------------

You guys have scared all the theists away.

Know that I post this type of question here looking for decent apologetics or arguments that I can use in my work of discrediting what I see as a harmful religion. I know my enemy and want to use the bible and how it represents a vile god that theists promote as good.

I hope I get some of those arguments.

If either of you wish to provide your best to the exact question, please do.

I feel ,it my duty to be anti religion and seek ammo. If you are capable, please show me the best tou have.

Bashing is good, but sound arguments are better and this is supposed to be where philosophers hang out and not just bashers.

Thanks.

Regards
DL

Most Christians seem to think so as they say that Yahweh/Jesus can do no evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I can't speak for most, or indeed any Christians as such, but this much seems unbiblical already. The way I heard it, the devil thought it worth having a three way tempt of Jesus in the desert. And he resisted. He could have done evil, but he didn't.

But if I was going to be a Christian, I wouldn't be engaging with this sort of question at all. There is an idea of Jesus as the ideal of humanity. So I might believe in that, and be immune from the facticity of biblical verbiage. Jesus the magic man is boring. But Jesus the idea, Jesus the direction, Jesus the imaginary friend, is another matter.

As to stroke-Yahweh, frankly who cares? A trumped up mouse god hiding in a secret box.

Does Yahweh/Jesus live by the Golden Rule?

Most Christians seem to think so as they say that Yahweh/Jesus can do no evil.

We could look at all the commandments and laws but that might have us taking off in too many directions so I thought the Golden Rule might be a good starting point as it encompasses many of the commandments.

Most, I hope, start their moral thinking by some variant of the Golden Rule, a reciprocity rule, so I think we can all relate to some degree in judging Yahweh/Jesus.

Christians are told in scriptures to judge all things. Most Christians have judged Yahweh/Jesus and I wondered if others had as well.

Be you a Christian or not, could I have your overall thoughts and judgement of Yahweh/Jesus based on if you see him living by the Golden Rule?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The root of the Golden Rule is empathy for it enjoins us to treat others based on how we would feel if so treated. To say God doesn't live by the golden rule would mean, given the atrocious amount of pain in our world, that either God lacks empathy or God has, as per George B. Shaw, different "tastes". Since both possibilities are unacceptable to the faithful it implies that god does live by the golden rule. However, if God does live by the Golden Rule and he's in the driver's seat regarding all the goings on in the world then, there shouldn't as much pain and sorrow as there is in our world but...there is. It then follows that God isn't in control of the situation and one way that can happen is if we all have free will. :smile:

The way I heard it, the devil thought it worth having a three way tempt of Jesus in the desert. — unenlightened

True, and that bolsters the Christian belief that he does no evil. You seem to use that to refute the does no evil meme.

But Jesus the idea, Jesus the direction, Jesus the imaginary friend, is another matter. — unenlightened

Indeed. That is why the question asks if he lives by the Golden Rule that he preached.

Care to opine on this as it is what the O.P. is all about?

Regards
DL

The root of the Golden Rule is empathy — TheMadFool

I saw nothing to argue in your views.

I see this quote as close but not quite getting to the root.

I think we are pushed by our selfish gene which creates our empathy and altruism.

A small point but biologists seen to see the selfish gene creating all our reactions.

Regards
DL

Care to opine on this as it is what the O.P. is all about? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not really, because as you have made clear that you are concerned with matters of text and matters of fact, I have nothing to say about these aspects. Was there ever a boy who cried wolf, and exactly how many times did he cry it? I don't know or care. Is honesty the foundation of communication and community? That, I care about.

A small point but biologists seen to see the selfish gene creating all our reactions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

A small point but the author of The Selfish Gene himself admits in his preface, that the idea is an analogy; that in fact genes have no self and no interests; they are not equipped to care or know whether they survive or not. They are bits of chemical. As a science bible, it is just as liable to misinterpretation by literalists as the other bible.

the question asks if he lives by the Golden Rule that he preached. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

And my answer is that the story doesn't work if he is a hypocrite, so the story is that he isn't. It is as if I confessed to a belief in justice, and you showed me that judges are sometimes unjust. "Of course they are, that's why we need to believe in justice. If justice always prevailed, belief would have no function."

Ok. I agree.

Regards
DL

I saw nothing to argue in your views.

I see this quote as close but not quite getting to the root.

I think we are pushed by our selfish gene which creates our empathy and altruism.

A small point but biologists seen to see the selfish gene creating all our reactions.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The notion of a selfish gene is unsettling. Is altruism an illusion created by our genes whose only objective is to self-servingly replicate itself at the earliest opportunity?

To answer that question, firstly, understand that it's impossible that some personal benefit will accrue no matter what you do. Since ought implies a can and it's impossible that one gains nothing, it follows that one is not obliged to prevent benefitting oneself. Requiring altruism to be such that one doesn't benefit at all is asking for the impossible. Ergo, if altruism is to be a meaningful notion, it should overlook unavoidable personal gain.

What then is meaningful altruism? It's to benefit others, some unavoidable personal gain notwithstanding. One can't help profiting from one's own actions but what is different in altruism is that others are also benefited.

Selfishness isn't the same; after there's only one person who benefits from it, to wit oneself.

Coming to the notion of selfish genes, if it's a good scientific theory then it shouldn't be able to explain everything, especially if the things being explained differ significantly. Altruism and selfishness as I've described them are essentially poles apart and the selfish gene theory should provide an explanation for only one but not both. As Karl Popper once said, "a theory that explains everything explains nothing". Ergo, since it's more plausible that the selfish gene idea explain selfishness, it must follow that altruism can't be explained by it.

then it shouldn't be able to explain everything — TheMadFool

Pfffft.

Life's first priority is to seek thet it's best end for itself.

More life as life's first concern is a selfish situation, without which the fittest could never emerge.

Give me and all of us selfish, --- or give us extinction.

Selfish is what makes us so nice to each other. Too nice perhaps.

The notion of a selfish gene is unsettling. — TheMadFool

Selflessness is anti-love. You want those you love to know that they come first on your loved list.

True love first, lip service love later.

Our selfish gene defaults to cooperation. That is our good side.

We are killing the planet with love for ourselves and each other. Quite the paradox.

Regards
DL

Are you certain you mean "Yahweh" in your title, DL?

I've seen Jesus spelled as Yeshua...but "Yahweh" is the name of Abraham's god.

Pfffft. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well, firstly this is a reply to an old post of mine and so I don't recall where we left the discussion hanging. Secondly, if memory serves, you mentioned the selfish gene, probably to make the point that we're all selfish and that altruism is an illusion. My reply to that is

1. Altruism is meaningful and not an illusion and is contradictory to selfishness

2. The selfish gene theory is believed to explain both selfishness and altruism. This is an inconsistency isn't it?

I've seen Jesus spelled as Yeshua...but "Yahweh" is the name of Abraham's god. — Frank Apisa

The apostles creed make the monotheistic Christian religion only having one head.

Christians stupidly try to put 3 in one and that is what I am working with.

Regards
DL

1. Altruism is meaningful and not an illusion and is contradictory to selfishness

2. The selfish gene theory is believed to explain both selfishness and altruism. This is an inconsistency isn't it? — TheMadFool

No it is not.

Our selfish gene will do whatever it selfishly want to maintain life.

Our selfish gene defaults to cooperation, as that is the best survival strategy, and it includes altruism and empathy towards others.

Ifr selfish, I will try to make friends, given that we are all tribal by nature, and that means being nice to others which is when our altruism and empathy come out.

Regards
DL

No it is not.

Our selfish gene will do whatever it selfishly want to maintain life.

Our selfish gene defaults to cooperation, as that is the best survival strategy, and it includes altruism and empathy towards others.

Ifr selfish, I will try to make friends, given that we are all tribal by nature, and that means being nice to others which is when our altruism and empathy come out.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You should read this:selfish gene

No part of our genes survive beyond a certain number of generations.

If reproduction is about selfish genes then, these genes must persist through generations which they do not.

I must object to you using the word 'gnostic' in your name and stating the inflammatory kind of things you do. It makes it very difficult for people like me who actually are gnostics. If you have any respect for yourself, you shoud respect other people's opinions. Otherwise, its clear you dont respect yourself either, and have a real problem. I suggest not talking on this forum again and seeing a psychotherapist.

If reproduction is about selfish genes then, these genes must persist through generations which they do not. — TheMadFool

Reproducing is a part of selfishness, sure, but survival comes first and given that there are old around, the DNA lasts long enough.

Regards
DL

I suggest not talking on this forum again and seeing a psychotherapist. — ernestm

I suggest you bite me.

Regards
DL

The way I heard it, the devil thought it worth having a three way tempt of Jesus in the desert. And he resisted. He could have done evil, but he didn't. — unenlightened

I think the temptations were cleverer in this case. It is debatable whether turning stones into bread is actually evil. And you would know, from my own stance, that the story actually means Jesus was considering staying there and farming rather than continuing on the mission he had committed to. The actual answer on the stones into bread is interesting too, because it does not say doing so is evil either, but the point was more that he resisted the temptation and followed the word the god, which is kind of cute really ) Thtas what I think for what its worth.

Reproducing is a part of selfishness, sure, but survival comes first and given that there are old around, the DNA lasts long enough.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So now you're changing your tune, from selfish genes to DNA. But I'm afraid even that doesn't persist long enough to aid your stance on altruism vs selfishness. The atoms that make up DNA change from parent to offspring.

If anything persists it's the information content of DNA but that too, if Darwin got it right, changes, evolves. Nothing persists for long enough for there to be a self that could be selfish. This remind me of memes - DNA/genes are information and so are memes in physical form [@Pinprick @i like sushi].

You might then speak of life itself - life information[in DNA] persists so long as major extinction level events don't occur - and then come to the conclusion that life is selfish but there's something terribly wrong with such a view for just as it doesn't make sense for just one person marooned on a deserted island to act selfish towards anybody[he/she is alone], it doesn't make sense for life to act selfish towards the nonliving.

it doesn't make sense for life to act selfish towards the nonliving. — TheMadFool

I agree.

Who did such a stupid thing?

As to DNA. They are what genes are made of so there was no changing goal posts.

The information encoded in it, to you, does not last long yet science has shown that it goes from generation to generation, and in some instances, skips a generation, to pop up in the next.

You have not kept up my friend.

But that aside, if you do not see the great instincts we have with our selfishness, what do you think our prime directive from our instincts are, if not be selfish?

Regards
DL

I agree.

Who did such a stupid thing?

As to DNA. They are what genes are made of so there was no changing goal posts.

The information encoded in it, to you, does not last long yet science has shown that it goes from generation to generation, and in some instances, skips a generation, to pop up in the next.

You have not kept up my friend.

But that aside, if you do not see the great instincts we have with our selfishness, what do you think our prime directive from our instincts are, if not be selfish?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well, what you're describing is the behavior of phenotype - the expression of the genotype. I'm talking about the genotype - the information for life - and the molecules encoding that information don't persist through generations - there simply is nothing that persists to which we may impute selfishness.

there simply is nothing that persists to which we may impute selfishness. — TheMadFool

Yet we are all born with that instinct.

So you have no other suggestion as to our prime directive, and will ignore the perfect logic that our DNA gives us to survive as a selfish prime directive.

You are a science denier without even a substitute theory. You have hit a blank wall and just keep on doing the same thing.

Regards
DL

Yet we are all born with that instinct.

So you have no other suggestion as to our prime directive, and will ignore the perfect logic that our DNA gives us to survive as a selfish prime directive.

You are a science denier without even a substitute theory. You have hit a blank wall and just keep on doing the same thing.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Firstly, I accept selfishness exists as part of our nature. No one can deny that. However, altruism is as real too.

Selfishness = self
Altruism = self + others

There's a difference, no? Altruism is real, no?

There's a difference, no? Altruism is real, no? — TheMadFool

There is a difference and both are real.

Here is the sequence.

Selfishness is served by our altruism and empathy towards others.

Altruism and empathy are tools that we use to insure that our selfish desire to live is served before all other considerations.

Life wants to live, --- not that life or our instincts can think, --- and then live as well as possible.

That is why we use tools like empathy and altruism. We are successful to where we now threaten our own extinction, because we are too nice to each other.

We have become soft and that is destroying us. We have to start to be harder on each other so as to improve on what we are doing to our eco system.

Regards
DL

Hi Tim )

Actually it wouldn't help, because I looked into this so-called 'golden rule' thing, and I can't find any evidence it existed at the time of Jehovah and Jesus, lol. There is a long bizarre article claiming it did on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and I heard people say it was from 500BC. But the encyclopedia has no references to actual texts to prove it, and I never even knew one even try to produce a reference anywhere else, but it has appeared in my Facebook feed occasionally from the Gaia ex-hippie no-longer-barefoot-wtih-Birckenstocks-from-divorce stoned-again-and-now-what community.

And even if there is a reference produced now, popped up from somewhere, it's probably fake and should be thoroughly vetted with deep suspicion. It appears it is another effort to discredit Jesus, this time by claiming he took his teachings from some other fictitious person again, without ever actually saying who, and there's a variety of such frauds perpetrated against him, and this one is the claim he stole his teachings from someone else.

I dont know where the 500BC came from, thats even 200 years before Buddha, lol.

There were some other golden things. There was a golden age, quite famous through literature for about 1200 years, described in Hesiod, ca 700BC,

And there was a golden harmony talked about by the Huang Lao in attempt to 'improve' of Confucius' harmony of the spheres, by adding the necessity of an emperor to oversea the perfect order, kind of a good deal for the emperor, didnt appear to help anyone else.


Glad to oblige, thanks for the invitation

Actually it wouldn't help, because I looked into this so-called 'golden rule' thing, and I can't find any evidence it existed at the time of Jehovah and Jesus, lol. — ernestm

Matt. 22: 37-19? In any case you have something you call "the golden rule." As for whether Jesus's actions comport with that is a research problem the answer to which found in the aforementioned book and to my knowledge no other.