The gospel according to Jim

[Jim]

In this thread I'll be posting random thoughts about what I see the Bible saying about various topics.

Sometimes in the gospels, the gospel of Jesus is called the "gospel of the kingdom," and I'm thinking that what Jesus means by "gospel of the kingdom" is everything He says about "the kingdom," "the kingdom of God," or "the kingdom of heaven." I'm also thinking that it means the kind of life a person can have by trusting Him, which I think is the best thing that can happen to anyone; and what the world needs most of all and most urgently, for human progress, and to stop the rampaging, right the wrongs and repair the damage. I don't think that trusting Jesus explicitly is the only way that can happen. I think it can happen to anyone, no matter what they believe or don't believe about Jesus or even about G-d. It's something that I think of as a kind of love and trust, that moves a person to try to become a better person, with the aim of helping to improve the lives of others. I think that will grow and spread, until it becomes enough that social conditions will stop getting worse and start getting better. I think that will take a few more generations at least. Unless and until that happens, I don't think that any plans or programs of any governments, organizations or movements can stop things from getting worse.

Some other topics I might discuss are the role of scriptures, baptism, faith and works, the Trinity, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Windwalker]

I think it can happen to anyone, no matter what they believe or don't believe about Jesus or even about G-d. It's something that I think of as a kind of love and trust, that moves a person to try to become a better person, with the aim of helping to improve the lives of others.

You could also frame this as someone taking the Bodhisattva vow, to help all sentient beings awaken and be freed from their own suffering. However we symbolize that, it has the same end in mind and the same Heart at the core.

I think that will grow and spread, until it becomes enough that social conditions will stop getting worse and start getting better. I think that will take a few more generations at least. Unless and until that happens, I don't think that any plans or programs of any governments, organizations or movements can stop things from getting worse.

I would agree with this. What creates our reality is actually nothing other than habits. In order to break free of the negative effects of bad habits, new healthier habits must replace them. That then creates a positive, self-amplifying feedback system which exponentially creates new more positive effects and new more positive habits. But it takes a moment of choice and a dedicated exercise of the will in order to change the direction of the momentum of these habits.

Often this doesn't happen for us until life stinks bad enough and we are miserable enough to wake up to ourselves and take responsibility for what happens. Some, seeing no hope, instead opt for suicide. That is where I see us today collectively, with the few saying "wake up", realizing the negative spiral of self-reinforcing bad habits that are sucking us into self-annihilation.

 

[joe1776]

In this thread I'll be posting random thoughts about what I see the Bible saying about various topics.

Sometimes in the gospels, the gospel of Jesus is called the "gospel of the kingdom," and I'm thinking that what Jesus means by "gospel of the kingdom" is everything He says about "the kingdom," "the kingdom of God," or "the kingdom of heaven." I'm also thinking that it means the kind of life a person can have by trusting Him, which I think is the best thing that can happen to anyone; and what the world needs most of all and most urgently, for human progress, and to stop the rampaging, right the wrongs and repair the damage. I don't think that trusting Jesus explicitly is the only way that can happen. I think it can happen to anyone, no matter what they believe or don't believe about Jesus or even about G-d. It's something that I think of as a kind of love and trust, that moves a person to try to become a better person, with the aim of helping to improve the lives of others. I think that will grow and spread, until it becomes enough that social conditions will stop getting worse and start getting better. I think that will take a few more generations at least. Unless and until that happens, I don't think that any plans or programs of any governments, organizations or movements can stop things from getting worse.

Some other topics I might discuss are the role of scriptures, baptism, faith and works, the Trinity, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jim, I think by rewarding us with pleasure when we show kindness to others and by punishing us with guilt when we intentionally cause harm to innocent people, our brains are motivating our species to make moral progress regardless of what we believe.

 

[Jim]

Jim, I think by rewarding us with pleasure when we show kindness to others and by punishing us with guilt when we intentionally cause harm to innocent people, our brains are motivating our species to make moral progress regardless of what we believe.

That might be true, but I think there's more to it than that. I see you framing it as a moral issue, and I agree with that.

 

[Jim]

... with the few saying "wake up" ...

Have you seen any discussions here about how each one of us can help wake up more people?

 

[Jim]

I think that what “faith” means in my scriptures is loving and trusting G-d as we see Him in the words and actions of His prophets. It is not what a person thinks they believe about G-d and His prophets. It’s loving what they represent enough, and trusting them enough, to try to live for their purposes, in accordance with their prescriptions.

 

[PureX]

Jim, I think by rewarding us with pleasure when we show kindness to others and by punishing us with guilt when we intentionally cause harm to innocent people, our brains are motivating our species to make moral progress regardless of what we believe.

Our brains don't do that automatically. They need to be taught to respond this way. That's one of the roles of religious practice and human socialization.

 

[joe1776]

Our brains don't do that automatically. They need to be taught to respond this way. That's one of the roles of religious practice and human socialization.

We can't train our brains to react with the pain of guilt when we have intentionally harmed an innocent person anymore than we can train it to react with pain when we sprain an ankle.

 

[PureX]

We can't train our brains to react with the pain of guilt when we have intentionally harmed an innocent person anymore than we can train it to react with pain when we sprain an ankle.

We can and we do. Just as we can go the other way and desensitize ourselves to the suffering of others.

 

[joe1776]

We can and we do. Just as we can go the other way and desensitize ourselves to the suffering of others.

You are insisting you're right even though I've shown it's not possible.

Here's a different argument:

"All knowledge begins with an observation." Our conscious, reasoning minds, which create moral principles, would know nothing of morality if not for observing the feelings we call guilt, remorse, and moral outrage which arise from our unconscious minds. We refer to those intuitive feelings as Conscience. So, having learned from Conscience, we then create moral principles because we imagine that our wonderful reasoning minds can improve on the judgments of Conscience.

Our long-ago ancestors couldn't see, smell, taste or hear the difference between moral right and wrong so how did we come to know anything about morality if they didn't feel the difference?

 

[Earthling]

If you take the Bible as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation, it isn't a guidebook on how to make a better place for us, it's a guidebook on how to survive the coming destruction. It isn't going to get better, it's going to get worse. Until it ends as we know it, and then the Kingdom of heaven, which includes the earth and the heavens, will be renewed. The first step of that is a war in heaven where all the rebellious spirit creatures are cast out. A new heavens. Then they go to Earth and cause a great deal of trouble. That's where we are now.

 

[Earthling]

Jim, I think by rewarding us with pleasure when we show kindness to others and by punishing us with guilt when we intentionally cause harm to innocent people, our brains are motivating our species to make moral progress regardless of what we believe.

I don't agree with this. I actually think that we, as individuals, treat each other pretty well. We leave each other alone, we come together and give aid to one another in times of need. The bigger picture is on a larger scale. The corporate abuse of the land, people, oceans and environment. In the agricultural, pharmaceutical and energy (coal and oil). The political and social corruption of governments under the influence of international bankers and big corporations raping the lands of the poor, and keeping everyone in slavery to debt.

When I first started studying the Bible I would read in the book or Revelation about the destruction of religion by the government and the destruction of commerce and then the governments themselves and I would think to myself, why? and how could such a scenario happen. Now I'm seeing it before my eyes.

 

[Earthling]

Have you seen any discussions here about how each one of us can help wake up more people?

Most people don't want to be awoken, they are a part of the bigger picture. They are employed and dependent upon corporations, they are divided and conquered by governments. They see things as getting better even as they see the impending doom. They trust in science and technology and nationalism and materialism. All of that stuff has to go as it is incorporated now into a system. The system has to be removed. It's broken. But they are a part of it.

 

[Earthling]

You are insisting you're right even though I've shown it's not possible.

Here's a different argument:

"All knowledge begins with an observation." Our conscious, reasoning minds, which create moral principles, would know nothing of morality if not for observing the feelings we call guilt, remorse, and moral outrage which arise from our unconscious minds. We refer to those intuitive feelings as Conscience. So, having learned from Conscience, we then create moral principles because we imagine that our wonderful reasoning minds can improve on the judgments of Conscience.

Our long-ago ancestors couldn't see, smell, taste or hear the difference between moral right and wrong so how did we come to know anything about morality if they didn't feel the difference?

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know they didn't feel the difference?

 

[joe1776]

I don't agree with this. I actually think that we, as individuals, treat each other pretty well. We leave each other alone, we come together and give aid to one another in times of need. The bigger picture is on a larger scale. The corporate abuse of the land, people, oceans and environment. In the agricultural, pharmaceutical and energy (coal and oil). The political and social corruption of governments under the influence of international bankers and big corporations raping the lands of the poor, and keeping everyone in slavery to debt.

When I first started studying the Bible I would read in the book or Revelation about the destruction of religion by the government and the destruction of commerce and then the governments themselves and I would think to myself, why? and how could such a scenario happen. Now I'm seeing it before my eyes.

Like you, most people are pessimistic about the future of humanity. A poll showed only 22% were optimistic about our moral future. But, it's a deceptive measurement problem. Here's my recent thread on the topic:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/global-harmony-is-inevitable.205512/#post-5502536

And here are a couple of links to websites:

https://ourworldindata.org/

https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/

 

[joe1776]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know they didn't feel the difference?

MY post wasn't perfectly clear: I'm arguing that our ancient ancestors DID feel the difference between right and wrong -- just as we do.

When we read of a cold-blooded murder, we feel the wrongness. When we read of a clear case of a killing in self-defense, we don't feel the wrongness.

I'm saying that it is from those feelings that our knowledge of morality has been built.

Are the judgments of conscience the product of reason or intuition? Like David Hume, you can put me in the intuitionist camp when explaining our moral nature. Most philosophers subscribe to the rationalist explanation.

 

[Earthling]

Like you, most people are pessimistic about the future of humanity. A poll showed only 22% were optimistic about our moral future. But, it's a deceptive measurement problem. Here's my recent thread on the topic:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/global-harmony-is-inevitable.205512/#post-5502536

And here are a couple of links to websites:

https://ourworldindata.org/

https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/

I differ from many believers and unbelievers who think that morality is an issue. Morality is subjective. It isn't a constant law, as such, it is an ever changing paradigm. Immorality is an ever changing anomaly of the paradigm. These things are decided within a geographical area and the stream of time.

Every generation is pessimistic about the future of humanity because the future is unknown and it signifies change.

 

[Earthling]

MY post wasn't perfectly clear: I'm arguing that our ancient ancestors DID feel the difference between right and wrong -- just as we do.

When we read of a cold-blooded murder, we feel the wrongness. When we read of a clear case of a killing in self-defense, we don't feel the wrongness.

I'm saying that it is from those feelings that our knowledge of morality has been built.

Are the judgments of conscience the product of reason or intuition? Like David Hume, you can put me in the intuitionist camp when explaining our moral nature. Most philosophers subscribe to the rationalist explanation.

As a Bible believer I think we are equipped with morality in a basic sense, but it is ultimately a social or cultural construct which evolves but is always founded upon the basic sense of morality we possess.

When we rationalize morality, through cultural, traditional, social or religious deviations of that natural possession of morality we tend to obfuscate it by intellectual or emotional influences.

Take homosexuality for example. When I was born in 1966 homosexuality was generally hated. Considered immoral. That gradually has changed in my lifetime due to the emotional and intellectual probings of a changing society. It gets more and more acceptable. This is seen as progressive, but in the ancient lands of the Bible it was much more practiced and accepted. Have we then really regressed rather than progressed?

Conversely, take pedophilia. It was also widely accepted at that time, but is universally rejected now. Joseph, at 32, married Mary, at 14 or 15 years old. The practicality of that in modern times is in stark contrast to the practicality or it in ancient times. Then, the man learned a trade, then established himself so he could take care of a family. Marrying a sexually mature female.

Things have changed so the moral view changes.

 

[joe1776]

I differ from many believers and unbelievers who think that morality is an issue. Morality is subjective. It isn't a constant law, as such, it is an ever changing paradigm. Immorality is an ever changing anomaly of the paradigm. These things are decided within a geographical area and the stream of time.

Every generation is pessimistic about the future of humanity because the future is unknown and it signifies change.

Imagine an unbiased jury of say 33 people, unhindered by laws, who will render a verdict based only on their conscience, on a specific moral case in which all the relevant facts are known. My position is that the verdict of the majority is the objective moral truth in that specific case.

Morality only seems subjective because the number of ways a verdict might be the result of bias is almost endless.

 

[Earthling]

Imagine an unbiased jury of say 33 people, unhindered by laws, who will render a verdict based only on their conscience, on a specific moral case in which all the relevant facts are known. My position is that the verdict of the majority is the objective moral truth in that specific case.

Morality only seems subjective because the number of ways a verdict might be the result of bias is almost endless.

The question then becomes will they judge more or less harshly depending on whether the case is about murder or self defense. Are they inclined to find guilty in the greater crime based upon it's severity rather than the facts. In such a case you see morality bended and corrupted.