You’re presenting an incoherent philosophical idea.

How would you know? You haven’t even read it lol You probably didn’t even read my comment in its entirety either, but that’s how it goes when one is drunk off self-assurance.

I’m not going to waste my time wading through the whole thing

Then just like the reviewer, your opinion is completely obsolete; don’t have time to consider the things you give your arrogant opinions on? Then I’m not going to waste time with your lazy, arrogant thoughts.

Good day and God bless

Just wanted to comment for the record: If you made something, and a reviewer began with, “I only considered the first part because it didn’t even make sense from the beginning.” You’re telling me the criticisms of that reviewer are valid? If so, why?

Edit: if a reviewer from IGN reviewed a video game, or anything really, the way you did, they’d be cooked; their career would be over.

Didn’t read the whole thing because it makes no sense from the get go.

Please let me know if you ever end up reading it, I’d be interested in your thoughts, thanks!

I’m sorry what?

Edit: what do you mean?

Yes but to live how God would’ve wanted to save ourselves from the double edged sword that is to know anything on top of the knowledge of any knowing being good or evil. And the snake representing that vulnerability to arrogance when something as capable of knowledge is guided by blind arrogant humans as opposed to a God that represents truth, but the truth of selflessness in a way over any dogma; knowledge, thus, consciousness more specifically, where any potential of truth originates.

“For kindness I desired [mercy, as Jesus specifies in 9:13], and not [animal] sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings [external worship].” - Hosea 6:6

It doesn’t matter if selflessness was something we lost, or if it is in God’s plan.

I’m not saying it was something we lost, or anything being in God’s plan, what I’m saying—this post has nothing to do with either of what you’re saying here.

If God wants us to be selfless, why did he first create us to be ignorant of selflessness?

Because knowledge needs to be gained, and what comes along with the knowledge of both selfishness and selflessness is our knowledge of death, that we would’ve otherwise have been blissfully unaware of. If the snake didn’t introduced its influence via its arrogance, then they would’ve simply listened to God and that would’ve been that, everyone and everything lives happily ever after. But God not knowing something creeped it’s way into knowing so much without its knowing, didn’t allow it to happen therefore, it’s something that again has the potential of happening to something capable of knowing so much that isn’t being guided by God, which the snake obviously wasn’t, and wouldn’t anyway being so arrogant, so blissfully self-assured.

You point out we need to regain what we lost through God. We need to regain our selflessness.

When did I make this claim/what are you gathering this from? I’m saying in order for either the individual or a collection of individuals to establish peace both within themselves and amongst themselves they would need to strive to become more ignorant of how aware they are of themselves. More specifically, what is right or wrong in relation to themselves, and replace that instinctive worry, need, or fear for themselves with the fear, worry, need for everything else.

Had they passed by a fish out of water

This wouldn’t have been a thing in Eden to begin with, presumably. I don’t equate Eden as a literal place and all of these literally happened so this is irrelevant to begin with.

How do we get back our pre-fall selflessness if Adam and Eve didn’t have it?

Did you even read my post?

I quoted Jesus; arrogance is at the root of all the hate and evil in then world.

Wow thanks that’s very nice of you. What’s your group all about?

What’s said about knowing and not knowing is what I wish people would get. All these social ideological sects that are appearing in society is because people think THEY are the only correct ones. Political and theological groups can be some of the most egregious in this manner.

Omg I could not agree more! That’s what Socrates took his life trying to teach, and die a martyr to.

People talk more than think. And usually think what others have talked to them about.

Beautifully said! I think people like Jesus would’ve agreed, considering the extent he would call out the dogma of his day; promising to believe something as unquestionably true would be an example of an oath: “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34

Alright great.

So what do you mean by “these places” exactly?

Any knowing is a knowledge. Our knowledge of time for example or even of the experience.

Just because blind men have attached their words and beliefs unto Jesus’ via the New Testament ever since, distorting the crap out of it 45 thousand different ways, that doesn’t make it what Jesus was really trying to say. “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34; of course making the promise to believe things as unquestionably true cna be catorgorized as an oath.

Oh okay. Yeah you’re right, it definitely needs plenty of work; think of my posts more as drafts rather then being a representation of something finished. I appreciate your thoughts, thanks!

I could not agree more. Have you considered his teaching in its purest form via the precepts of the Sermon On the Mount - Matt 5-7, but interpreted more objectively? Including and especially the one about oaths (promising to believe things as unquestionably true would be an example of taking an oath in my opinion); “do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34.

I also noticed that what he meant by we humans being the salt of the earth and light of the world (Matt 5:13), he was pointing towards our unique and profound abilities for selflessness and knowledge in contrast to nature. Selflessness is the salt: Without humans on an earth (a conscious capable being on a planet), there’s nothing to be as selfless as we’re capable of being; the extent we can push past our instincts in favor of where knowledge takes us. And knowledge is the light: Without humans, there wouldn’t be anything to give life to any knowledge (including of a God) to the degrees we can in contrast to nature, and be able to retain and transfer it (keep it living so to speak; “the living God” - Matt 16:16 ); not to mention anything with the ability to measure morality the same way we do our knowledge of time, and to act upon it and apply that knowing to our environment.

Are you referring to this post here regarding the book of Jonah?

What do you mean? Are you saying something similar regarding how Tolstoy equates the supernatural and miracles within religion? As a means for men mellieniums ago to express thought?

That’s very kind, I appreciate that. Have you considered this one?: https://lemmy.world/post/36602700

I haven’t gotten anyone’s thoughts on it and I don’t how stupid or kindergarten it is. And if it’s not to much of a bother, I’d be even more interested in your thoughts on this here; what I like to call “The Basis of Things”:

“Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” - Solomon (Doing of doings; all is a doing)

“Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we’ve organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity (a desire to do; a striving), bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here’s a proposed chain of things:

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity

• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence is shaped by truth,
• Truth arises from reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organ reacting to our present environment. (There’s a place for Spirit here but haven’t decided where exactly; defined objectively however: “the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.”)

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

Oh and I don’t post about Tolstoy and the Gospel, I post about Tolstoy sure, amongst other things. Recently however I’ve been posting the preface of his translation of his interpretation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief, which is a more philosophical, objective, less supernatural interpretation of them.

Have you considered Tolstoy’s perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we’ve rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call “religjon.” All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn’t lead one to think that that’s what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.

I agree. However, ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability, this would of course include the woes of taking oaths (promising to believe things as unquestionably true); “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34.

Have you considered Tolstoy’s perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we’ve rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call “religion.” All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn’t lead one to think that that’s what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.