Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

1. You should probably state exactly what you think the Golden Rule is.

Reply to Greatest I am (Original post)

Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:01 PM

Dec 2016

There are several variations on it, each with slightly (or considerably) different meanings.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

236 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule. [View all] Greatest I am Dec 2016 OP

You should probably state exactly what you think the Golden Rule is. trotsky Dec 2016 #1

Here, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #18

That's probably the most common, but there is a problem with it. trotsky Dec 2016 #19

Oh OK! hrmjustin Dec 2016 #2

This thread is the equivalent of running around a room while your underwear is burning. rug Dec 2016 #14

Well this room is usually entertaining. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #33

Epicurus asked: The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #3

If you believe in the God of the Abrahmaic tradition, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #6

No it doesn't. trotsky Dec 2016 #9

Well, do you not believe in free will? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #10

"Free will" vs. "pre-destination" is such a simplistic, binary view. trotsky Dec 2016 #15

I believe that all sentient beings have free will. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #22

My answer is that it's too complex of a question for such a simplistic answer. trotsky Dec 2016 #52

If I were currently living in heaven I would certainly answer it. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #58

Let's put it this way, then. trotsky Dec 2016 #62

One assumes so. If the soul is a reflection/aspect of intelligence........ guillaumeb Dec 2016 #65

Well then, you've answered the question. trotsky Dec 2016 #71

Again, you are asking me to speculate on something I have never experienced. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #73

I'm just asking what you believe. Just to understand what you think "free will" means. trotsky Dec 2016 #87

You are mixing many things. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #91

You're the one who believes in all this stuff. trotsky Dec 2016 #95

I also find some of your responses to be "fascinating". guillaumeb Dec 2016 #99

No, I'm not interested in your red herring to distract and wiggle out of the contradiction. trotsky Dec 2016 #108

My challenge to you is to post my alleged "contradictions". guillaumeb Dec 2016 #118

I just did. trotsky Dec 2016 #126

Your ability to dismiss what you disagree with is great. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #131

Well yeah, when you help me so effectively. trotsky Dec 2016 #134

Bitter and losing are the terms that apparently help you. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #137

Just as insulting others and making false accusations apparently help you. trotsky Dec 2016 #141

I clicked, hoping for a list of my many contradictions, and found a repeat. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #142

You've made your choice. The attacks continue. trotsky Dec 2016 #143

Ah, a clue. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #145

You mischaracterized my post (which wasn't even my words), and attacked a straw man instead. trotsky Dec 2016 #146

You decided to post it. You could have qualified it with a comment, if you had wished to do so. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #147

I see absolutely no reason to respond to any of your distractions. trotsky Dec 2016 #149

See post #150. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #151

Irrelevant. trotsky Dec 2016 #154

Oh, and another thing you're dead WRONG about. trotsky Dec 2016 #148

If memory serves, 47% of Catholics supported Clinton. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #150

Catholics voted for Trump, 52-47. trotsky Dec 2016 #152

The spin or parsing is all yours. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #155

I can't put it any clearer than this: trotsky Dec 2016 #157

Again, it is not clear and the lack of clarity is yours. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #159

While I don't agree with Trotsky Dorian Gray Dec 2016 #207

I am presenting my view of what the numbers represent. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #209

The difference was significant enough for Trump to win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #167

And did Trump win these states solely because of the Catholic vote? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #171

It's a significant difference from the overall vote, and you asked for an explanation muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #175

Significant is your term. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #181

No, you introduced 'significant' in #150 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #182

First, my apologies for attribution. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #183

Yes, all those groups are significant in his win (nt) muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #185

I forgot to add: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #188

It's not just about the acts of sentient beings, though muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #16

And how does this relate to sentient beings having free will? eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #26

I'm talking about what's in the OP muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #28

The charges rely on a human vision of what a Creator "must" be. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #29

That's a get-out that would work for religions that don't claim humans were made muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #31

"Made in the image" refers to sentience, not physical appearance. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #37

Yes, that's my point; free will is about sentience, and a religion that believes muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #41

Sentience is self awareness. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #42

Why indeed? The religions that claim humans are made in the image of 'God' muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #44

Not likely. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #45

So you see 'the Creator' as different from Jesus - Jesus exemplified following the Golden Rule muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #47

The Jesus/Creator/Spirit question is a different issue. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #59

Again, this is not just about 'free will' - it's about human and animal suffering muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #61

Let us examine this a little: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #64

Do you think that eliminating smallpox got rid of free will? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #67

If one believes that the Creator created, and allowed that creation to continue, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #68

But the Abrahamic religions don't believe the Creator just allowed everything to continue muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #69

Inspiration is indeed the word. Or revelation if you prefer. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #70

"Allowing for free will has nothing to do with caring about what was created" - that's the point muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #72

My talk of free will is simply discussion of what free will entails. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #74

Sigh. Theodicy never gets seriously addressed by believers. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #76

I will not address it because nothing is proven here.It is a statement of belief. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #78

For someone unwilling to address theodicy, you've spent a hell of a long time on a thread about it muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #79

Not exactly: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #80

Here's where you said that: muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #81

Actually what you presented does not suppport your claim. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #82

"God created man in his own image", and as you said, that's about sentience muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #83

Evil is a social construct, not a condition. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #84

The question is whether 'God' is evil muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #85

The function of the Creator, or one of the possible functions, is to create. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #89

It's not about 'curing evil'. It's not about 'evil' as a social construct. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #90

And human standards of "evil" and "good" are variable. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #93

'Calamities', 'misfortunes', 'bad things' - yes, I think they come under 'mala' muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #94

"try to follow the example of Jesus" trotsky Dec 2016 #53

Sometimes I do take offense when people claim that I am saying the opposite of what I said. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #97

Thank you for illustrating again exactly what kind of Christian you are. trotsky Dec 2016 #109

And thank YOU for illustrating the kind of person that YOU are. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #119

Yeah, the kind who requests an apology from someone who has made a false accusation. trotsky Dec 2016 #127

Given the number of times you have "restated" my actual positions, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #132

Making Jesus proud! n/t trotsky Dec 2016 #135

Making deGrasse Tyson proud. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #138

The biblical God made us imperfect Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #17

More problematically... trotsky Dec 2016 #20

The Creator created. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #43

So what's the use of free will? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #110

You freely chose to type those words. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #120

Or? Always do the right thing automatically Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #194

If there were only one definition of "the right thing" for every potential action, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #197

But surely a God could show us the best thing? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #200

A question: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #203

So God doesn't help us Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #205

I believe that the Creator created. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #208

I'm not arguing there is no free will Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #211

Are you arguing for immortality? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #212

Should we be grateful for a free will, if it ... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #214

Arguing for a lack of free will? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #215

As an undesirable logical outcome of Christian thinking Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #216

A logical outcome of Christian thinking? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #218

Many Christian preachers do become moralistic, robotic dogmatists Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #220

Many is not all, or even most, but yes, many are dogmatists. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #222

I stopped all oaths Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #224

What is the purpose of repetition of a phrase/prayer/word sequence? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #226

It's mind deadening. Which is comforting in the same way Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #228

Is meditation mnd deadening, or is it a relaxation technique guillaumeb Dec 2016 #230

The type of meditation known as rational "thinking" is extremely useful. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #234

Rational thinking is a judgemental term. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #235

When God sent an evil spirit to destroy someone... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #23

Are you a Biblical literalist or a believer in the Bible as metaphor? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #27

Metaphorically, symbolically, evidentially? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #48

Again, you are judging a Creator by your human standards. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #55

God's standards and worldview suck then. EvilAL Dec 2016 #88

Pure projection. As well to say that because the Creator created roses that the thorns are evidence guillaumeb Dec 2016 #92

But if God does many, many things that seem evil? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #98

One key word is "seem". guillaumeb Dec 2016 #102

So your Christianity abandons the Bible Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #111

Like most modern Christians, trotsky Dec 2016 #115

Your second sentence confirms my point about evil being a social construct. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #121

Everything you have said in this thread has been "simply your opinion." trotsky Dec 2016 #130

Again, feel free to point out what you find confusing, or contradictory. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #133

Again, I already did. trotsky Dec 2016 #136

A weak try. But I understand. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #139

How is that projection? EvilAL Dec 2016 #164

I can only answer with my beliefs. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #169

It's odd we are allowed to err, in order to grow Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #206

If you were perfect, there could be no growth. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #210

So God is bad, since he can't improve, or grow larger. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #217

Bad is a social construct. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #219

So neither can we call God "good." Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #221

Perhaps another Creator could. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #223

So they're irrelevant to each other Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #225

If you believe that one created the other not really irrelevant. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #227

It might be incontrovertible to logic Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #229

To paraphrase Pilate, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #231

Logic is best defined as formal logic Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #232

Sometimes people use the word "logic" guillaumeb Dec 2016 #233

Dawkins says free will is an illusion. Nt DeadEyeDyck Dec 2016 #34

Dawkins might be deceiving himself. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #39

Tell that to Rush. Dorian Gray Dec 2016 #86

Free will? -- We have no choice!! immoderate Dec 2016 #105

Would you choose otherwise to be a puppet? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #106

You were predestined to say that. immoderate Dec 2016 #107

I am not a believer in predestination. It conflicts with the idea of free will. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #123

And if you didn't have free will, would you know it? immoderate Dec 2016 #166

Are we simply playing a part directed by a non-human director? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #170

If any of those scenarios are true, we wouldn't know it. Dreams, delusions are there... immoderate Dec 2016 #172

One way to approach things. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #173

...for each individual, as long as it doesn't impose on others. immoderate Dec 2016 #174

Grow or die? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #180

C'mon now. immoderate Dec 2016 #184

Now we return to the question of atheism. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #186

So you believe in every unproven supernatural entity? immoderate Dec 2016 #189

No, I said that I believe that there are many paths. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #190

What water does is observable. immoderate Dec 2016 #191

Belief. Make believe refers to the act of deliberately pretending to believe. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #192

Sure. Beliefs are involuntary. I understand. immoderate Dec 2016 #193

I disagree. I feel that believing or not-believing is a deliberate act. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #196

There's a middle ground between being a puppet, and having perfect free will. trotsky Dec 2016 #116

There is no "god" as perceived by theists J_William_Ryan Dec 2016 #4

There is proof in the scientific sense, and proof in the personal sense. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #5

What's the difference, exactly? Ron Obvious Dec 2016 #7

Proof in the scientific sense is one thing. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #8

OK, fair enough, but I'd say you're abusing the language. Ron Obvious Dec 2016 #11

The problem with this particular format of write/wait/respond is that of nuance. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #24

But "faith if it has no works is dead." So real faith produces physical works. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #32

No, faith without works is generally interpreted to mean guillaumeb Dec 2016 #38

Including physically helping poor people (James 2.14-26). Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #49

I feel you are confusing issues. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #56

Yes, if you support something with your mouth, but not deeds? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #96

Humans generally do anthropomorphize when speaking about an unknown entity. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #101

If your god can't really be spoken of in human terms... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #112

Our terms represent our attempts to understand the nature of a deity. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #122

Then something useful CAN be said about God? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #195

Anything that humans say represent what humans feel is true. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #198

So your defense of "faith" say, Is unreliable.... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #201

I am not defending faith. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #204

You 1) seem to have an emotional attachment to faith Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #213

That's not the universal biblical or dictionary definition of faith Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #21

I disagree. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #25

It means that your religious definition of proof as in part faith... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #30

Non-overlapping magisteria. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #36

Non-overlapping magesteria? Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #46

we are talking about scientific proof versus religious faith. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #54

I know very well what we're talking about. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #63

Agreed. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #66

I'm focusing on your notion of faith as "proof": Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #50

Faith needs no science. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #57

Faith needs no science. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #100

No, religion might reference the physical world, and recognize certain things about that world, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #103

Much of religion rejects, even "hates," the whole "world." Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #113

There is no overlap that I can see. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #124

"science is not necessary to have faith" trotsky Dec 2016 #117

Can you prove something is beautiful? DeadEyeDyck Dec 2016 #35

Define beauty in such a way that every person agrees to the meaning. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #40

First I'll need incontrovertible proof of the existence of God. Iggo Dec 2016 #12

God is not evil. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #13

Santa is also evil. And the Tooth-Fairy is evil. And the real monster is Dr. Frankenstein himself. DetlefK Dec 2016 #51

Well now, nil desperandum Dec 2016 #60

The god of the Bible is a vengeful and jealous god Angry Dragon Dec 2016 #75

From the Gnostic perspective ymetca Dec 2016 #77

What god? Guess what, there isn't one! n/t RKP5637 Dec 2016 #104

This certainly turned out to be an interesting thread! hrmjustin Dec 2016 #114

Well nil desperandum Dec 2016 #125

These are questions that have been asked for a long time and will continue to be. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #128

Indeed.... nil desperandum Dec 2016 #129

Interesting is one way to describe it. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #140

I don't think you've bothered reading the OP muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #144

A baseless claim. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #158

Yet you think that can be summed up as "this proves there is no Creator" muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #162

The "God is evil by reason of non-interention" argument falls under the whole concept. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #168

Well these questions bring up a lot of emotions and feelings and some people hrmjustin Dec 2016 #156

God is not evil. HassleCat Dec 2016 #153

Or maybe God.... Aviation Pro Dec 2016 #160

Weird post RelativelyJones Dec 2016 #161

How can you get away with saying "God" is male when I get fried for calling Pamela Taylor rzemanfl Dec 2016 #163

George Carlin would agree with you nycbos Dec 2016 #165

Numero uno-who the hell is DL? As a mere mortal, I pose this question. If mankind has been cornball 24 Dec 2016 #176

Check your reasoning. Humans go back about 100-200,000 years. immoderate Dec 2016 #177

Homo group-2 million years. Check your facts. cornball 24 Dec 2016 #178

Sorry, off by an order. My error. immoderate Dec 2016 #179

Define "smarter" Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #187

Comparative degree of "smart". Thanks for sharing your hygienic routine. Our progenitors cornball 24 Dec 2016 #199

I could go on. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #202

God can't be evil Bradical79 Dec 2016 #236