The proof of the extent that the influences of a God and an Afterlife—being held as unquestionably true—have had for evil throughout history.

Socrates, The Story of Jonah, and Jesus.

A lot of this I learned and thought out through reading Tolstoy’s hard work in his non-fictions: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God is Within You

“Socrates believed that his mission from a God (the one that supposedly spoke through the oracle at Delphi) was to examine his fellow citizens and persuade (teach) them that the most important good for a human being was the health of the soul. Wealth, he insisted, does not bring about human excellence or virtue, but virtue makes wealth and everything else good for human beings (Apology 30b).” https://iep.utm.edu/socrates/#:~:text=He believed that his mission,human beings (Apology 30b). The story of Jonah in the bible (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah 1&version=NIV) teaches that the knowledge of the value of virtue, selflessness and goodness needs to be taught; it’s a knowledge that needs to gained. Because like it teaches at the very end of the story: some people don’t even have the ability to “tell their right hand from their left” (Autism Spectrum Disorder for example). Or in other words: ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability; nobody can know until they know. The now pejorative term is neither an insult, nor is it insulting; it’s nothing more than an adjective to explain my, yours, or anythings lack of knowledge to anything in particular. All hate and evil can be catorgorized as this inevitable lack of knowledge—thus, warranting any degree of it infinite forgiveness, because again: you don’t know until you know, this would of course include the lack of knowledge to the value of virtue that leads to hate, evil, and iniquity. Socrates on ignorance and evil: https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/apology/idea-nature-of-evil/

Jesus referenced the story of Jonah twice in The Gospels, both times being challenged to show a sign of his divinity: 4 "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” - Matt 16:4 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16&version=ESV

Jesus would always refer to God as “Father” because that’s how he was taught about what this God consists of, as having a parents kind of love for you—rememeber the very beginning of The Gospels, where he becomes lost and is found at a temple as a child? And is taught of God as being his “Father;” if you had a child and they committed suicide, would you want them to burn eternally in a lake of fire for it? Of course not. And Jesus didn’t know who his real father was correct? Interesting right? Ultimately what I’m trying to say is that everything we know of God now has came from a collection of blind men, telling other blind men that what they have to say should be held as unquestionably true via the influences of the idea of a God and an Afterlife (of a “heaven”). Everything after Jesus—Paul’s letters, The Gospels to a degree, The Nicene Creed, The Book of Revelation, the idea that a God of love unconditionally would bother with conditions like having to believe Jesus was divine or any of the seemingly infinite amount of external conditions that need to be met to call yourself a “true Christian.” Despite Jesus calling the Pharisees hypocrites every chance he could get and when his disciples told him of some external thing that they needed (bread in the circumstance linked) he would dismiss it as completely unnecessary: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16:5-20&version=NIV

Jesus calling out Pharisees: 8"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers (to “our father”). 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." - Matt 23:8 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean." - Matt 23:25 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 23&version=NIV

Now lets take a look at one of my favorite things Jesus said, on the the Sermon On the Mount (debately, the most publicized point of his teaching, thus, the most accurate in my opinion) that lead to another connection between what Socrates did and had to say, and Jesus (keep in mind the extent Greek influence made its way throughout Jerusalem and the surrounding areas at this point in time):

“Socrates believed that the most important pursuit in life was to constantly examine one’s beliefs and actions through critical thinking,” (lest you find yourself throwing the supposed messiah up on a cross—like the Pharisees, or persecuting early followers of Jesus’ teaching convinced its right, true, and just—like Paul, or in a war between nations, or collectively hating someone or something, etc.) “and he would not back down from this practice even when it made others uncomfortable.” https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/no-apologies/#:~:text=The Examined Life,still less likely to believe.

Oaths 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g]

Anything more then yes or no regarding the influences that come from the idea of a heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (people and what they’re presently sharing in), only comes from a worry, a need, a fear for oneself: a selfishness. Questions like that only come from our sense of selfishness, and only lead to division, i.e., religion or even more theoretical sciences and philosophy; this is why it’s so important to always consider anything man made as questionably true, opposed to unquestionably true, and that it’s no longer up for question, or whats called: infalliable (no longer capable of error). Questions like what does a God or Afterlife consist of or how exactly did the universe begin, pale in comparison to the truth that is our capacity for selflessness not only individually, but especially, collectively; God or not.

It’s only what a man thinks that can truly defile it: “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” - Matt 15:11 "Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” - Matt 15:17 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 15&version=NIV It’s “oath-taking,” so to speak, that leads to slander and the collective hate that’s bred from it—racism, hate between cities or their high school sports teams, hate in general if you think about it enough, quarrel at all between nations and any potential war between them, and the list goes on. We’re all humans; one race, brothers and sisters. The worst thing to come from “oath-taking” in my opinion is the hinderance of foreign influences or new knowledge and an open mind along with it. Because it’s this that determines the capacity and how detailed ones imagination is, and it’s imagination that serves as the basis of our ability to empathize, thus, love.

Interesting how neither Jesus or Socrates wrote anything down, and both even went as far as giving their lives dying a martyr trying to teach what they had to say.

“The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most.” - Socrates

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

How typical of Man to consider murder something a Saint would do, and murder as justice.

Edit: Saints are known and martyred for their selflessness and self‐sacrifice. The church is as man made as the Saints, hence all the bad history both share to whatever degree. (I’m not religious, but I do believe in a creator of some kind).

Peacemaking is peacemaking; love is love; we shouldn’t dismiss all the good someone does just because what their shirt connotates. 2+2 is still 4 whether its Hitler or Jesus saying it. Returning good for evil done is more logical whether it’s Hitler or Jesus going about it.

Our ability to love and be selfless in contrast to anything else, correct?

Love.

Can you explain the last bit a little more? What do you mean by “centering love?” And if I’m understanding you correctly (I don’t think I am, not because I think you’re wrong but because I think I’m stupid lol) you’re saying that we would exclude people with these conditions? Why? Wouldn’t our knowledge of love (selflessness) only lead to more of an understanding of variables like these? Thus more of a lack of fear and less of an anger or hate for them? I hesitate to respond without knowing exactly what you meant (I fear I’m only making a fool of myself by doing so) so disregard this last bit if it’s not lining up with what you intended by it.

And thanks so much again for taking to the time! It’s a relief finally talking to someone other than someone blinded by their belief about this stuff, despite it potentially discrediting what I have to say—I’m here not for myself, and certainly not for any amount of vanity for the sake of myself, but for nothing but the truth, and being wrong only leads one more to exactly that: the truth.

So I’d love to hear your argument as to why morality is a spook. Like Nietzsche suggested im assuming? You’re full on suggesting that it’s not real? I like to chalk stuff like this up to nothing but words of the fortunate. My refute would simply be: you go to war, come back and tell me morality isn’t real (Socrates and Leo Tolstoy were war veterans). I like to bring up this story I heard a while back as well, in short: a mother from a third world country is forced to watch as her children are butchered in front of her, then their remains stuffed into an oven, cooked, and this poor woman (I hope your doing nothing but imagining yourself as her in her situation at this point by the way) is forced to eat them, yep, she’s forced to eat the remains of her cooked, chopped up, dead children. Idk man. You look Martin Luther King Jr. in the eyes (hell, even Abraham Lincoln) and tell him morality isn’t real; that the extent racism and segregation was practiced isn’t bad, and it’s not good either, it’s just, idk, nothing you’re saying? I honestly haven’t bothered learning Nietzsche’s argument towards it, I guess I’m guilty of close-mindedness in this account, I’ve always felt as though the very idea of it not being real as an absolute absurdity, like saying we don’t need air to breathe or 2+2 is 3.

Well, I wouldn’t say I’m boiling it down to exclusively sense perception necessarily; the whole chain of influence thing is nothing but the end result of me thinking all about where things like morality and desire come from exactly (if morality is the basis of things, would there be a basis to morality? And i just kept going), I’d be the first to admit it’s inaccuracy, if any. And I feel as though giving even a crude representation of the basis of things is enough to get my point accross regarding imagination and that love is the greatest teacher, and especially that desire in general stems from nothing but our sense organs reacting to our environment, and the extent of how concious we are of it happening. My intent is more to shed a little light on the barbarianism of things like our carnal instinct or to even watch TV, or more specifically—vanity and desire for the sake of oneself; that it’s what a collection of concious monkeys would aim for, and that humans are the most capable of the opposite, to even suffer to abstain from it; God or not.

Yes so this topic has always been a very delicate one. I personally completely agree with Gandhi for example, that who’s to say how many less people would have died if we would’ve “given ourselves up to the butchers knife” in World War 2, opposed to do what we’ve always done throughout history: retaliate. This is where Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions of life come into play. Peace can be reached, but it comes down to individuals willingness within each generation to give themselves up for it, to die a martyr to it by teaching it via exemplifying it (Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one think of changing themselves." - Leo Tolstoy). Presently, and ever since forever, selfishness has been the emphasis (something for something), that’s why this idea to you and I still sounds absurd. However, I think in the very far future, the opposite will be the social norm (something for nothing). “If men were Angel’s, there would be no need for government.” - James Madison (i think this quote coupled with this perspective would line up with your anarchist perspective—I believe in a future where government is no longer necessary, but through a government; a time where government is no longer necessary, but on the other side of the most amount of government.) This is what I meant about how men of the past would imagine humans flying in the air like birds or the idea of organizing ourselves around something else besides a King, Tyrant or Dictator. Selflessness to even the most extreme degrees, ultimately, to the the point where even “rights” this and “individualism” that has become obsolete, dare I say.

The context was someone slapping you in the cheek, and you offering them your other cheek in return, and taking this context and applying it to bigger ones like even War, all the way down to racism, the tailgater or the bully at school. The bigger contexts are obviously the more controversial, and require the most will to fulfill, but the bully at school? Doesn’t seem like the worst thing to respond to them with collective love opposed to collective hate. We only breed the worst of the world by reacting to what we hate with more hate. There’s no future that consists of a century of people finally either eliminating or locking up all the worst of the world of that present time (something for something) and living happily ever after. The only true cure is love (something for nothing) and our knowledge of it, and a newfound understanding that desire for the sake of oneself (the need to retaliate or the fear for oneself that only leads to anger) is selfish and barbaric and only ever leads to more hate, anger, and evil in the world, i.e., the “vicious cycle.” Only when we no longer see the fulfillment of our greatest desires as being our highest happiness—individually, are we able to move beyond the inherently self-obssessed barbarian that’s still within all of us, to a future where at least violence is considered obsolete—collectively.

I’d love to share more examples of the Sociology and Psychology within religion if you’re interested but I don’t want to end up making this comment to much of a chore to read than it already is lol so ill just give this one for now: It’s only what a person thinks that can truly defile them: “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” - Matt 15:11 "Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” - Matt 15:17 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 15&version=NIV

So if you convince yourself that others are xyz because someone told you that, then that’s what it becomes. Like racism, or hate between nations (via either their governments or oaths that have been taken to the idea of a God or Afterlife and their pasts, or both), or convinced that we should throw the supposed messiah up on a cross, or not allow women to be pastors, or discriminate towards gay people, or not to bother with new knowledge or foreign influences because supposition this or assumption that, etc. Taking oaths—to yourself or to someone or something else, I guess I call it, but only because I’m ignorant to the proper term that’s probably already been invented.

Yes yes I’ve heard this dozens of times, I’m not saying we’re the only living things capable of selflessness, I’m saying we’re the ones that presently hold the most capacity for it on this planet, and that have ever existed—as far as we know of course. Both to not only imagine it in our heads (our imaginations being what’s truly unparalleled, though I can see the argument toward the idea that other species might very well have more ability in this regard, its seemingly impossible (from my more ignorant point of view) to say for sure obviously, but we do reign supreme in going about it, expressing it to one another, acting upon it, and applying it to our environment) but of course the extent we can even toil and suffer in applying it to our environment, not only individually, but especially collectively.

I’m saying that we don’t teach the value and potential we hold for selflessness in public schools and to the masses in general because it’s to busy being tied up under some man made thing being held as unquestionably true via the influences of a God and an Afterlife. I’m very, very, anti religious, however I’m the complete opposite when it comes to the substance of religion; of the potential we hold to even giving ourselves up entirley for a purpose or reason outside of ourselves, because it’s the truth, dare I say. The fact that we hold so much potential for selflessness—not only individually but especially collectively, is as true as we need air to breathe, or that when adding 2 things with another 2 things, we get 4 of them. A God on the other hand? I have no idea (I myself believe in a creator of some kind, but i agree with Jesus that anything more than this comes from evil: a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness) and I know that to suggest that I do is to only put even more potential divison in the world than there already is.

That’s what morality is though—love and hate, good and evil.

Justice from a man’s point of view would equate to revenge or vengeance (something for something). Justice from the point of view of a God or creator of some kind would be the opposite (something for nothing): infinitely forgiving, love unconditionally.

Hey I just wanted to let you know I’m going to be taking the time with your comment at some point either today or tomorrow. I’m sorry for the delay I’ve been too busy. And I want thank you for taking the time at all, can’t tell you how much I appreciate it.

By the way if you’re looking for more evidence check out my post: Socrates, The Story of Jonah, and Jesus.

Never said I did, and it takes far more then that to be considered a Christian to Christians, depending on which type of Christian you’re asking of course. (There’s 35-40 thousand different types to ask apparently)

It worked in gaining India’s independence, amoungst other examples. Things like the idea of Democracy were also seen the same way as you’re seeing our capacity for selflessness now, and returning good for evil done specifically.

“The hardest to love are the ones that need it the most.” - Socrates. Based off my 10 years experience working with them, I can tell you you’re absolutely wrong in ever way in that regard. And it’s less about getting them to stop being a bully, and more about teaching others the relevance of resisting the selfish barbarian within all of us when met with what we hate, to find alternative solutions our inherent ability to logic and reason shows us; like collective love opposed to collective hate, that only ever leads to more hate.

I’m clearly not merely quoting ancient philosophers; especially considering Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK are amoungst them.

You’re only referencing the standards and societal norms of the day. 2+2 is still 4 regardless who says it and who they happen to be underneath; responding to hate and evil with equal parts love and goodness is more logical, regardless if it’s Jesus or Hitler saying it.

Challenging ones own assertions is a huge emphasis of what I have to say: “to never take an oath at all.” And you didn’t challenge my assertions at all, you did nothing but label them and consider them useless as a result.

My argument still stands. You have no idea what your refuting because you haven’t even bothered with what’s being refuted yet; resulting to you walking into contradiction after contradiction. I still have no idea that you have any idea what I’m talking about.

So you’re saying people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi etc didn’t present any evidence? And what they had to say isn’t worth considering therefore? Because again, the evidence they put forth based off their observation, is the same as mine.

The evidence I present is there, if you would read what I have to say to understand it—opposed to not even bothering with it at all and assume it’s nothing but stoner this or drug addict that—then that’s what we would be talking about right now.

What do you think things like the Big Bang Theory are? Scientific theory, based purely off our ability to observe the world around us. Not to mention philosophy. Why do you bother with anything on this sub then? All you’ll ever find is almost exactly what you just said: personal opinions based off observation.

What makes my personal opinions based off observation any different? I don’t know why I even bother to ask, because you’ll either not reply, or just chalk it up to pontification, despite pontificating to any degree absolutely not something that’s no longer worth considering, not by any means.