You say:

I don't bastardize scripture, I interpret it quite fairly. — VagabondSpectre

Before:

It awakened a sense of thankfulness for not being governed by people who are willing to carry out abhorrent, wasteful, and violent actions (as depicted in the bible) in the name of god-love. — VagabondSpectre

Geez, that's fair. :-|

And these aren't my beliefs I'm injecting, they're Christian beliefs: — VagabondSpectre

So Christians believe in the smurfs? It was you who said... God is Gargamel and we're the surfs, right? You must be proud of your countries' education system.

In the old testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of sacrificial animals. In the new testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of Jesus. God explicitly requires blood (death/suffering) in order to forgive.... — VagabondSpectre

No, people want to see blood, not God. It seems that reconciliation with their conscience is only satisfied when they see death or violence of an innocent person since the injustice is shocking enough to make one conscious of the love for someone they have outside of themselves. Humans are not only innately evil but profoundly moronic and those pagan rituals they did were never warranted or requested, they were just transferred, a way of saying 'don't do such rituals to false idols but if you are stupid enough to do it, at least do it to the one true God'. You seem to be having trouble reading between the lines, probably because you have little historical knowledge; many Catholic traditions are extensions of Roman paganism, for instance.

The ritualized nature of this in Christianity resembles pagan blood magic. — VagabondSpectre

Christianity? Do you realise how many different religions fall under this umbrella? I mean, hasty generalisations are one thing, but to do it with such confidence is downright spooky.

The tale of the binding of Isaac disgusts me: "God says to sacrifice my son... GREAT IDEA GOD! And oh! God gave me a lamb at the last possible second to sacrifice instead! WHAT INFINITE WISDOM!!!". — VagabondSpectre

Calm down. *sigh, clearly things need to be spoon-fed to you. It is a story that has a point, the point being faith. Isaac wasn't actually murdered and he became a 'great people' as Abraham became the father of the monotheistic religions; individuals often represent broader subjects, a person represents a city or a country but clearly since you lack the wisdom, having this conversation with you is fast becoming tedious.

I've read the bible cover to cover and it didn't awaken my conscience through love. — VagabondSpectre

If the story of Isaac escaped you, I highly doubt you actually read it 'cover to cover' but to be fair, you probably did read the cover, as in, just the one word before screaming off naked into the wilderness saying 'this is wrong!'

So tell me exactly how it is that morality leads to religion? — VagabondSpectre

Go read Kant and then we'll talk.

I refuse to submit to religiously inspired love because if I do that then I'm at the mercy of all the ridiculous baggage that tends to come included in any actual religion. I love myself and my family well enough without religion, and I somewhat have love for humanity, and that's enough. I don't need what religion offers, so why should I bother? — VagabondSpectre

Since when is reading the scriptures following a religion? No one is asking you to follow a religion. I read the Qur'an, but I'm not a muslim. Morality comes first, but you will never reach moral consciousness without rational autonomy and the elimination of anything prejudicial including the cultural or social influences that render your interpretations flawed. You need to see the wisdom as a way of accessing and improving your moral consciousness by making it your active duty to improve yourself and not as a duty to gain the approval of people or leaders. If you actually care about your moral well-being, you would see the wisdom behind the language and the parables. Religion is corrupt and it controls and demands with codified processes that is an inescapable problem for autonomy, but it doesn't suddenly mean that what it may have originally espoused and the reasoning behind it's existence as also completely wrong. There is no need to burn the Bible.

Geez, that's fair. :-| — TimeLine

Some laws contained in the old testament are unequivocally barbaric. Do you disagree?

So Christians believe in the smurfs? It was you who said... God is Gargamel and we're the surfs, right? You must be proud of your countries' education system. — TimeLine

This was just a humorous analogy and not a statement of actual Christian belief. Did your education system not teach you about humor?

No, people want to see blood, not God. It seems that reconciliation with their conscience is only satisfied when they see death or violence of an innocent person since the injustice is shocking enough to make one conscious of the love for someone they have outside of themselves. Humans are not only innately evil but profoundly moronic and those pagan rituals they did were never warranted or requested, they were just transferred, a way of saying 'don't do such rituals to false idols but if you are stupid enough to do it, at least do it to the one true God'. You seem to be having trouble reading between the lines, probably because you have little historical knowledge; many Catholic traditions are extensions of Roman paganism, for instance. — TimeLine

Timeline, my whole point is that people, such as yourself, will happily sit around telling people what god wants and doesn't want. In this case the bible tells me that god needs blood to forgive, and you tell me that he doesn't, and that the bible is actually filled with arbitrary pagan rituals held-over from earlier times.

I might have trouble reading between the lines of the bible, but you have trouble reading the lines themselves: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace" Ephesians 7... "This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" Matthew 26:28"

Christianity? Do you realise how many different religions fall under this umbrella? I mean, hasty generalisations are one thing, but to do it with such confidence is downright spooky. — TimeLine

So a hasty generalization is a generalization that you make on the basis of too small a sample size. Since you seem to agree that Christianity resembles paganism, you've already agreed with my fair generalization. Misunderstanding fallacies is also spooky.

Calm down. *sigh, clearly things need to be spoon-fed to you. It is a story that has a point, the point being faith. Isaac wasn't actually murdered and he became a 'great people' as Abraham became the father of the monotheistic religions; individuals often represent broader subjects, a person represents a city or a country but clearly since you lack the wisdom, having this conversation with you is fast becoming tedious. — TimeLine

So then the story isn't about how we should be willing to faithfully obey god even if he commands you to murder your own child? It's really about becoming the father of religion and a great people? Oh. Makes complete unabridged sense.

You think defending religion from ridicule is tedious? Try composing effective ridicule for each of the hundreds of different religious approaches and interpretations that people haphazardly erect and ritualistically dance around.

If the story of Isaac escaped you, I highly doubt you actually read it 'cover to cover' but to be fair, you probably did read the cover, as in, just the one word before screaming off naked into the wilderness saying 'this is wrong!' — TimeLine

So the story of Isaac unambiguously depicts Abraham being willing to kill his son to prove his devotion to god. Your bit about "father of religion" or "great people" is your own happy abstraction from the actual scripture. Now I'm convinced you've never actually read the bible.

Go read Kant and then we'll talk. — TimeLine

How about you show you understand what you're talking about and show that it makes sense by submitting the argument I've requested you to submit. That's "talking". If you have no argument for your statement, then I'll casually brush it aside for the unsubstantiated postulate that it is.

Since when is reading the scriptures following a religion? No one is asking you to follow a religion. I read the Qur'an, but I'm not a muslim. Morality comes first, but you will never reach moral consciousness without rational autonomy and the elimination of anything prejudicial including the cultural or social influences that render your interpretations flawed. You need to see the wisdom as a way of accessing and improving your moral consciousness by making it your active duty to improve yourself and not as a duty to gain the approval of people or leaders. If you actually care about your moral well-being, you would see the wisdom behind the language and the parables. Religion is corrupt and it controls and demands with codified processes that is an inescapable problem for autonomy, but it doesn't suddenly mean that what it may have originally espoused and the reasoning behind it's existence as also completely wrong. There is no need to burn the Bible. — TimeLine

I refuse to submit to religiously inspired emotion; I've already told you I've read the entire bible. It's not "reading scripture" that I'm refusing to do, it's "submitting to religiously inspired emotion".

You might think it's wise to emotionally submit to the wisdom of the parables, just like how Abraham emotionally submitted to the will of god and was prepared to murder his own son, but that's not moral well-being. That's closer to Stockholm syndrome than it is moral enlightenment.

"Don't murder", "Don't steal", "Don't lie", these are absolute basic moral positions which we don't need scripture to figure out or have confidence in. If that's the moral boon of religion, we could instead just be taught this by a cartoon designed for toddlers. I've never advocated for the burning of any books, but I can see how my pointing out the stupidity and immorality contained in the bible might make you see it that way.

Among pentecostals, evangelicals, and fundamentalists, "a personal relationship with Jesus" means "accepting Jesus as your personal savior". "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" is a loaded formula, because it isn't precisely defined, and therefore you can't be sure whether your church peers are confident that you have REALLY committed yourself to "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" or not.

Pentecostalism is a fairly modern religious trend; it was always possible for someone to speak in tongues (like they did on the first Pentecost) but people hadn't been doing it a lot. Now, if you're at a pentecostal service, you can expect several people to speak in tongues and several others to interpret what they said.

Fundamentalism is a modern reactionary movement in response to modernity and the "new criticism" of the Bible, where scholars started finding various narrative strands in books like Genesis. The scholars came up with new, complicated dating systems which suggested that the Bible had a fairly complicated history. They reacted to Darwin's theories for the same reason -- Darwin's evolutionary theories pushed the time line back far, far beyond the 5,000 year old date for earth. Modernity in the 19th century, especially after the American Civil War, dramatically changed life has it had been known. Cars, electricity, radio, airplanes, telephones--all 19th century or early 20th century.

Evangelicalism has older roots, going back to Luther. But closer to our time, it was the Second Great Awakening in the late 1700s, early 1800s, where evangelicalism as a specialty emerged. Methodists are one of the largest heirs of the evangelical movement. It isn't so much about theology as it is style. "Revivals" were definitely a tool during the Second Great Awakening, and on into the early 20th century. Revivals were both religious and social events that people enjoyed attending.

Southern Baptists and allied groups are most focussed on getting people to "accept Jesus as their personal savior". Among Mainline protestants and Catholics (in as much as I understand all these groups) the act of baptism -- infant or adult -- is the event that binds one to Jesus. Yes, one should confess one's sins, one should strive to do better, but "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" isn't a formula so much as a general understanding.

This is how I understand the history of 3 modern religious movements, not a personal testimony.

Some laws contained in the old testament are unequivocally barbaric. Do you disagree? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but it is up to you to figure out the analogy behind it, how it corresponds both historically and culturally, its parabolic symbolism to broader concepts and that can only be done when you don't follow by refraining from conforming to anything material including other people and cultures; when you just read for the sake of learning. That is the point of reason and how to transcend to a rational, autonomous being, which is only possible without such attachments and yet, conscious of the fact that we need to attach ourselves to something in order to stimulate our capacity to progress epistemically, the point of wisdom is to attach yourself to God - the omnipresent, the greatest good, hence your conscience and why the Bible says God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth - and your attempt to reach him so to speak is your will to consistently progress towards reaching a better understanding of yourself. You can't do that if you follow people and that includes religion, which is what happens after morality before becoming corrupted.

Moral consciousness, your conscience, love, is what leads to authentic happiness and peace forever, 'eternally' rather than being temporarily yet consistently stimulated by base pleasures. When you see your own mistakes and seek to improve yourself - hence being honest - there is no greater happiness. But righteousness is not all fluffy bunny feet stuff, it isn't walking around talking and pretending your are a nice person when you produce and do absolutely nothing, or as Solomon says for the lips of an adulterous woman drop (as) an honeycomb, and her mouth [is] smoother than oil as liars sweet-talk their way by deceiving you into thinking they are good people via tact, but it is fighting injustice, stopping the pain and anguish that others experience as much as it is taking care of yourself and enjoying the feelings that autonomy produces.

That is the point, we are selective with what we choose to believe. Heidegger is a douche. Does it mean that everything that he writes is unworthy of study? If you choose to hate the bible because you have some vendetta against religion, no matter how much one can exemplify the benefits of the wisdom - that is, the stories used through parables to help you appreciate your own moral fibre - you will refuse to acknowledge it. If you are going to be selectively stubborn, fine, but the reality is that you are not interpreting the scriptures, you are only hating the interpretations made by others.

How about you show you understand what you're talking about and show that it makes sense by submitting the argument I've requested you to submit. That's "talking". If you have no argument for your statement, then I'll casually brush it aside for the unsubstantiated postulate that it is. — VagabondSpectre

I am. You not only prove that you know nothing about Kant but that you are also painfully trying to mimic my methods of expressing the disillusionment to your so-called argument. Now run along and get your own personality.

You might think it's wise to emotionally submit to the wisdom of the parables, just like how Abraham emotionally submitted to the will of god and was prepared to murder his own son, but that's not moral well-being. That's closer to Stockholm syndrome than it is moral enlightenment. — VagabondSpectre

Moron.

Yes, but it is up to you to figure out the analogy behind it, how it corresponds both historically and culturally, its parabolic symbolism to broader concepts and that can only be done when you don't follow by refraining from conforming to anything material including other people and cultures; when you just read for the sake of learning. That is the point of reason and how to transcend to a rational, autonomous being, which is only possible without such attachments and yet, conscious of the fact that we need to attach ourselves to something in order to stimulate our capacity to progress epistemically, the point of wisdom is to attach yourself to God - the omnipresent, the greatest good, hence your conscience and why the Bible says God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth - and your attempt to reach him so to speak is your will to consistently progress towards reaching a better understanding of yourself. You can't do that if you follow people and that includes religion, which is what happens after morality before becoming corrupted. — TimeLine

So what's the parable behind the binding of Issac? Oh yea that's right, total submission to god's will. Great moral fiber that.

P.S You're making claims like "you must be unattached to people and culture to be rational", and "god is a spirit of greatest good", but you have not in any way substantiated those claims with evidence or argument. What parabolic symbolism does the Issac story have.

Moral consciousness, your conscience, love, is what leads to authentic happiness and peace forever, 'eternally' rather than being temporarily yet consistently stimulated by base pleasures. When you see your own mistakes and seek to improve yourself - hence being honest - there is no greater happiness. But righteousness is not all fluffy bunny feet stuff, it isn't walking around talking and pretending your are a nice person when you produce and do absolutely nothing, or as Solomon says for the lips of an adulterous woman drop (as) an honeycomb, and her mouth [is] smoother than oil as liars sweet-talk their way by deceiving you into thinking they are good people via tact, but it is fighting injustice, stopping the pain and anguish that others experience as much as it is taking care of yourself and enjoying the feelings that autonomy produces — TimeLine

I don't understand how you start with asceticism and then explain that by preserving the base pleasures of others you will in fact discover more lasting pleasure. If it makes you happy to attempt altruism in this way, that's fine, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced; if base pleasures didn't exist or were not important, neither would be pain, anguish, or injustice for altruists to combat or take solace from doing so.

That is the point, we are selective with what we choose to believe. Heidegger is a douche. Does it mean that everything that he writes is unworthy of study? If you choose to hate the bible because you have some vendetta against religion, no matter how much one can exemplify the benefits of the wisdom - that is, the stories used through parables to help you appreciate your own moral fibre - you will refuse to acknowledge it. If you are going to be selectively stubborn, fine, but the reality is that you are not interpreting the scriptures, you are only hating the interpretations made by others. — TimeLine

Well I'm still waiting for you to explain the moral wisdom behind the binding of Issac. And I'm not exactly filled with hate so much as I am filled with ridicule. I don't hate religion or the bible, I hate certain ideas (I detest them as harmful or irrational or both); ideas which I ridicule. Ideas like : your refusal to strain meaning from these ancient and largely barbarous fairy tales is why you will never be rational, moral, or happy. When I was a child I might have responded to such a veiled threat by acquiescing to your world view, but now that I've actually experienced life I know it's only an inexperienced mind that could possibly assent to it, or else an unrobust one seeking emotional refuge.

I am. You not only prove that you know nothing about Kant but that you are also painfully trying to mimic my methods of expressing the disillusionment to your so-called argument. Now run along and get your own personality. — TimeLine

So you think that I'm trying to mimic your missing argument (which you're now telling me is that i have no argument) by asking you to submit your missing argument? What ironically foul school-yard circularity is this? Priceless:

You made a statement, "morality leads to religion". I said "why?". You said "go read Kant". and I said "how about you posit your own argument". I don't want, and refuse in principle, to waste any time trotting out and swatting down Kant so you can feel like you've contributed something to a debate. Kant isn't the one trying to tell me religious wisdom is the height of morality and reason, you are. So make with the reasoning already and spare the pleasant candor.

Moron. — TimeLine

Here's a paraphrasing of the series of vague statements you made which I reckon is your argument:

Religious wisdom allows you to transcend into a rational autonomous being by shedding material attachments in favor of attachment to god (omnipresent and greatest good), which crates moral conscience in worship of the spirit of god, which allows you to progress toward a better understanding of yourself, which is what leads to authentic eternal happiness and peace forever.

Ah yes, smell that opium: Eternal happiness through religious wisdom.

I take it you agree though. Being willing to kill your own son for love of god is in reality more akin to Stockholm syndrome than moral-well being. It's a typical cult trait to demand that every adherent value their commitment to the cause above and beyond their love for their own family. The bible contains verses which are no exception. Deal with it.

You made a statement, "religion leads to morality". — VagabondSpectre

I never said that. Hence the point of why it is impossible talking to you, just as much as it is impossible having a philosophical conversation with a drunkard. I said it is morality that leads to religion before it becomes corrupted by people, by codified rules and other institutional processes, infiltrated by the transferral of pagan rituals. But that has nothing to do with the bible. The statement that morality inevitably leads to religion is Kantian, hence the 'you know nothing about Kant' point.

Let me pace it down slower for you because clearly you are way too slow on the uptake. I agree that one should not follow a religion, but I don't agree that has anything to do with our ability to interpret the scriptures independent of religious influence. Jesus was a good guy. You are a moron.

You choose to read what you want, not what is actually being said and the language, tone, and attitude is so profoundly tiresome that I am almost confident that I could have a greater intellectual conversation with a bottle of tomato sauce.

You say:

I don't hate religion or the bible — VagabondSpectre

Before saying:

...these ancient and largely barbarous fairy tales — VagabondSpectre

That's just awkward. :-}

So you think that I'm trying to mimic your missing argument (which you're now telling me is that i have no argument) by asking you to submit your missing argument? — VagabondSpectre

Nope. Yet again, you fail to distinguish the difference between a hole in the ground and your nose.

When I was a child I might have responded to such a veiled threat by acquiescing to your world view, but now that I've actually experienced life I know it's only an inexperienced mind that could possibly assent to it, or else an unrobust one seeking emotional refuge. — VagabondSpectre

That explains a lot about why you are so angry. And one who has actually experienced life wouldn't chuck a childish fit and intentionally misinterpret what I say to suit his own ridiculous agenda.

I never said that. Hence the point of why it is impossible talking to you, just as much as it is impossible having a philosophical conversation with a drunkard. I said it is morality that leads to religion before it becomes corrupted by people, by codified rules and other institutional processes, infiltrated by the transferral of pagan rituals. But that has nothing to do with the bible. The statement that morality inevitably leads to religion is Kantian, hence the 'you know nothing about Kant' point. — TimeLine

It's impossible to talk to me because I committed a typographical error which you were able to notice?

Are you here to defend Kant or the "parabolic wisdom" in the scriptures? I'm still waiting for you to explain how my interpretation of the binding of Issac erred. Whether I know everything or nothing about Kant isn't what's being discussed and I refuse to chase your untamed geese. Explain to me what the moral wisdom in the Issac story is or at least trot out your own views.

Let me pace it down slower for you because clearly you are way too slow on the uptake. I agree that one should not follow a religion, but I don't agree that has anything to do with our ability to interpret the scriptures independent of religious influence. Jesus was a good guy. You are a moron. — TimeLine

If Jesus was such a good guy why does he intend to bring a sword to the world instead of peace? Why did he say the old testament law should still be followed? Why does he threaten non-believers or sinners (take your pick) with eternal damnation?

Please don't whip out some parabolic interpretation of hell to convince me that it's a helpful metaphor for self-disappointment or unhappiness or something equally silly. The religious ideas I address aren't the "hell is a metaphor" variety. If you want to feel like I'm attacking your personal Ideas, that's fine, but I'm attacking specific and mainstream interpretations of the Christian scripture.

If you don't want to follow a religion, why are you so prepared to fall on your quill in defense of "interpreting scripture independent of religious influence" in a positive way? Jesus was a good guy?

Is that your non-religious interpretation of Christianity? Is that your whole basis for objecting to my framing of old religious stories as substantively immoral?

You choose to read what you want, not what is actually being said and the language, tone, and attitude is so profoundly tiresome that I am almost confident that I could have a greater intellectual conversation with a bottle of tomato sauce — TimeLine

I read what's there, but you set your own standards: "God is the ultimate, the omnipresent, what we should aspire to by having faith in ourselves - that is, by not conforming or following by finding the will to autonomy and thinking for yourself"... So words like "suffer" is the unhappiness of being in a "hell" - a life lacking in moral consciousness - where the misery therewith is the "damnation" of never truly understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love.

I could probably (with some effort) try to navigate what you actually mean when you say things like "understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love" or God is aspired to through self-faith and not following or conforming, but why? If any of this has something to do with relevant interpretations of religious parables, do let me know. Your own personal Kantian Jesus is great - totally abstract love and a rejection of following and conforming to any morality but one's own rationally formed morality - but it's vastly removed from mainstream religion and the original point I happen to be ridiculing. Do you want me to go out of my way to start dissembling your (metaphysical?) belief systems and be your surrogate skeptic? Do you have any preference in humor? How dark do you like your satire?

If you're interested I have no qualms. Let's start with why you invoke god and religion in the first place: what benefit does that serve? If you want autonomy, then reason can give it to you in the same way it gives a good chess player autonomy in a chess game. If you want to promote love or a given moral value then just appeal to people's human emotions and explain to them how your moral positions (such as unconditional love for the other?) rationally promotes those values. Where and why does god need to come into the picture?

If you're not interested in making this a discussion about your personal moral or spiritual beliefs, then simply explain to me what the meaning of the binding of Issac parable is about...

You say:

I don't hate religion or the bible — VagabondSpectre


Before saying:

...these ancient and largely barbarous fairy tales — VagabondSpectre


That's just awkward. :-} — TimeLine

Just because I refer to something as a barbarous fairy tale doesn't mean I hate it. Hate is an emotional reaction, I'm making critical observations of scriptures and many of their mainstream interpretations.

Nope. Yet again, you fail to distinguish the difference between a hole in the ground and your nose. — TimeLine

I know you are but what am I? Teehee!

That explains a lot about why you are so angry. And one who has actually experienced life wouldn't chuck a childish fit and intentionally misinterpret what I say to suit his own ridiculous agenda. — TimeLine

My ridiculous agenda is to level criticism against a contemporary body of thought as it pertains to an ancient one. It's a very easy moral criticism to make in pointing out things like two she-bears mauling forty children to death because they ridiculed a bald man is a barbaric fairy-tale or that flooding the earth and drowning all humans because of sin is not only beyond fairy tale (yet people actually believe it) but is also morally repulsive in suggesting that death is what sinners deserve.

Listen, I know you don't like my irreverence, not too many people do, but I have the same right to it that you do to your reverence. What you call bastardization of Jesus' intentions I call what I was taught growing up. Like it or not pastors and preachers out there interpreting scripture at large do often make the interpretations which I'm specifically attacking. Hell as an existent place, Jesus as threatening to send you there, god as the one you should love above your own family, sinners who deserve to die: these are some of the actual ideas which I've attacked in this thread. Which of these do you think I've unfairly attacked?

What you call bastardization of Jesus' intentions I call what I was taught growing up. Like it or not pastors and preachers out there interpreting scripture at large do often make the interpretations which I'm specifically attacking. — VagabondSpectre

When people yell or raise their voice, they are either trying to beat the other person by being louder or they are subjectively fighting something unknown at conscious level. Calm down and be specific rather than make assumptions or generalisations. Say, the "Lutherans interpret such and such in this way" and others can easily respond to that.

When you eliminate the emotions, your disdain due to these former connections is gone and you can just read for the pure sake of reading, where you learn to make your own interpretations, rather than getting all pissed at what other people think. To do that requires one to become a rational, autonomous being. To be rational is someone with standards, the categorical imperative, the way in which you observe your own motivations and intentions and ensure objective clarity - autonomous - despite your feelings and emotions and the connections you have in both your past and present as you separate yourself and become the author of your own being or someone morally conscious where your sole motivation is to continuously will to improve yourself.

You are quite simply fighting because you haven't cut your umbilical cord.

I know you are but what am I? Teehee! — VagabondSpectre

:’( Boys everywhere. I want a King Solomon. And no, I don't mean the actual King Solomon considering you seem to take everything literally, but a man who has wisdom.

...but it's vastly removed from mainstream religion and the original point I happen to be ridiculing. — VagabondSpectre

I know. That is the point, it is my interpretation because I am completely removed from mainstream religion, I am completely removed from mainstream anything and in my own autonomy choose nothing but God and no, not a man on a cloud, not Jesus or the trinity, not whatever the heck people think, but reaching epistemically toward what is perfect. Through authenticity - that is, being downright honest to myself and eliminating all the illusions - my goals are ideals like virtue, righteousness, honesty, charity that I practice in real life in order to perfect. So, in Aristotelian terms I have transcended from the need for philia to the need for philesis by having a strong, emotional attachment not to people or institutions or communities, but solely towards the perfection of philia itself; thus my will or prohairesis is to only perfect love through my love of God which is, well everything and nothing.

So if you want me to discuss the story of Isaac from whatever Christian perspective, clearly by you saying:

The religious ideas I address aren't the "hell is a metaphor" variety. — VagabondSpectre

Sorry buddy, but I am afraid I will disappoint because my interpretation is to view these stories as symbolic and not literal. I couldn't give a toss about how other religions interpret biblical referents. But if you want to discuss biblical hermeneutics independent of religion, than I am all for it. So geographical locations are often symbolically expressed through individual representations.

The suggestion that Abraham is the father of the monotheistic religions implies that the lines of his progeny - Ishmael being a referent to Arabs or the Ishamaelites as their prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and thus Ishmael represents Islam. Isaac being a referent to Israelites as they are decendents of Jacob, changing to Israel and thus the Israelites are references to Judaism. Isaac, being birthed really late by promise to Sara who represents the mother of good in comparison to the troublesome Hagar (troublesome Muslims?) and the "mother" represents a community of people, the fruits of ones labour, and as such the community is the promised land suggested to the Israelites who will live on through faith in God. The binding is a process historically used when slaughtering a lamb and a lamb represents innocence.

When Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," he is not talking about him bringing violence but that if you follow his preaching about finding your conscience and being loving, you will be outcast, ostracised and despised by the 'herd' or by conformists of any kind. You will run the risk of being persecuted and indeed the first several hundred years after Jesus' death there were many that turned to this preaching that were killed and persecuted.

I write — TimeLine

I am telling you — TimeLine

I am — TimeLine

I am saying — TimeLine

I stand — TimeLine

that I said — TimeLine

I want — TimeLine

I don't mean — TimeLine

my interpretation — TimeLine

I am — TimeLine

I am — TimeLine

honest to myself — TimeLine

I practice — TimeLine

my will — TimeLine

want me — TimeLine

I am afraid I will disappoint — TimeLine

I couldn't give a toss — TimeLine

I have transcended — TimeLine

impossible to talk to you — TimeLine

you fail — TimeLine

>:O >:O >:O



Reloaded.

Jesus like Jesus, but I wanna know when Volume 2 of The Virtue of Selfishness is coming out. Definitely gonna get that :P

I couldn't give a toss
— TimeLine

I have transcended
— TimeLine

>:O

TimeLine hath reached the summit of Aussie assholery.

Haha, it was half expected that the other side of the extreme would prop up sometime. It is, nevertheless, rather unkind of you considering I am making it clear that it is about 'my' interpretation and though I understand that you prefer to be mindless enough to follow because it takes the responsibility away from you, your levels of maturity are exemplified here.

I almost prefer Vagabond, since it shows why he hates the religious so much as you lead by example.

And don't intentionally misrepresent what I say, its ugly of you. At least Augustino is trying to defend religious institutions by being selectively obnoxious.

The non-religious, the religious and the completely mindless twat hath arrived. — TimeLine

So...me, Agu, and you? >:O

And don't intentionally misrepresent what I say — TimeLine

Oh...

Foucault? Urg, if you don't have anything to say, then stay silent.

Faust makes sense all of a sudden.

"Methinks, a Million Fools in Choir are Raving and Will Never Tire."

Foucault? Urg, if you don't have anything to say, then stay silent. — TimeLine

?

Faust makes sense all of a sudden.

"Methinks, a Million Fools in Choir are Raving and Will Never Tire." — TimeLine

But do they sing as sweetly as you?

Hence the 'completely mindless twat' remark made specifically about you. You are a troll and I am done wasting my time with you.

Is everyone who disagrees with you a troll?

Where have you disagreed?

I presumed your angst toward me derived from my disagreeing with you in some thread a week or two back. Am I wrong? Or do you give everyone a razor's edge for no reason?

Angst towards you? I posted about making your own hermeneutic interpretations and making an effort to be rational and autonomous and you responded by calling me an arsehole and intentionally being selective with what I write as a fallacy to provoke. Projection much?

Efforts to be rational with you just end up with you berating the other person, lol. This is why Agustino was laughing at you.

No, Augustino was using the stock standard argumentum ad hominem by attacking me with the intention of dissuading the audience of my comments. You followed. No arguments where made at all. You are merely projecting what you are doing, which is berating me. That is called trolling.

No arguments where made at all. — TimeLine

What do arguments matter when you treat people the same with or without them?

You are merely projecting what you are doing, which is berating me. That is called trolling. — TimeLine

No, not quite. I'm not trolling until I post a star trek image, which subconsciously stirs Baden from his primordial sleep so that he can then delete it immediately >:O

No, not quite. I'm not trolling until I post a star trek image, which subconsciously stirs Baden from his primordial sleep so that he can then delete it immediately >:O — Heister Eggcart

So, you are doing this intentionally. You are bitter about a post being deleted by Baden and now you are taking it out on me. Get your thumb out of your mouth.

So, you are doing this intentionally. You are bitter about a post being deleted by Baden and now you are taking it out on me. Get your thumb out of your mouth. — TimeLine

Only if you get the 2x4 out your ass.

Only if you get the 2x4 out your ass. — Heister Eggcart

Clearly, this is pointless.

So, are we at the core of Jesus's teaching yet? (Compare and contrast.)

Turn the other cheek, even if they punch you in the face... :D

O:) (Y)

At least Augustino is trying to defend religious institutions by being selectively obnoxious. — TimeLine

No, Augustino was using the stock standard argumentum ad hominem by attacking me with the intention of dissuading the audience of my comments — TimeLine

Turn the other cheek, even if they punch you in the face... :D — TimeLine

you prefer to be mindless enough to follow because it takes the responsibility away from you, your levels of maturity are exemplified here. — TimeLine

Projection much? — TimeLine

You are a troll and I am done wasting my time with you. — TimeLine

Some people tell you exactly how you should think of them! >:O

you prefer to be mindless enough to follow because it takes the responsibility away from you, your levels of maturity are exemplified here. — TimeLine

Yes, I recognise my inferiority and therefore hand the burden of responsibility over to you. It is after all those who are superior who should carry a greater burden than those who are inferior and mindless.

And now, I need to pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar otherwise the Gestapo will act on their veiled threat. Filling in the right paperwork is often sufficient to escape their wrath (though not without causing annoyance). A pity that the legalists have always dealt with the letter of the law, but not also with its spirit.

What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view. — Bitter Crank

The absolute core is Love.

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him,Which is the first commandment of all?

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

"Asceticism" (if by this one means restraining greed, lust, selfishness and the like) is part of Love. Morality and virtue are also parts of Love. And yes, Jesus also didn't preach legalism - that's what the Sabbath being made for man means.