• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Looking Out for Number One

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
A person is who they are because they chose so. That is free will. It has nothing to do with your nature, plight, and circumstances. Free will is for your inner being. One day you wake up and decide who you are going to be no matter what befalls you; free will.

As for Looking out for number one, that is based on the circumstance that a person might go through where all you get for others in life is vultures, thieves, and murderers. In that case you have to look out for yourself and defend yourself to the extreme.

For me my number one is truth. Truth is every good word about a being's character and heart; the virtues. I do believe human nature falls way short of perfection. The animal nature of reality is to be self serving imo. However everyone is free inside of themselves to become whatever kind of person they wish to be.

The Truth is my God, though i do not consider truth to be alive. Its the ideals i strive for though. The virtues bring peace, joy, and love to life. For me thats the way it goes. I would think there is no other way to obtain peace, love, and joy, but the truth.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
God is number one. But I actually hate God, I just pray to him because I believe he'll stop screwing people over if he has enough people praying and worshipping him.
God isn't screwing anyone over. We do that to ourselves, and to each other, by presuming that we should never experience pain, or loss, or suffering, in life, and by ignoring when and how we cause others to experience these. Most of humanity's suffering is self-inflicted. And that which is not, is just part of the experience of not being here. Once we stop presuming that we should never experience pain, living with it becomes a lot easier. And once we realize that we have the power to minimize a lot of unnecessary pain, the burden gets even easier still. And we can further mitigate it by looking for ways to appreciate the gift of being, and of being human.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
My children followed by my husband, then parents and myself (i guess), family and friends.

I can't understand those who put a mythical genocidal child killer before their loved ones.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
God isn't screwing anyone over. We do that to ourselves, and to each other, by presuming that we should never experience pain, or loss, or suffering, in life, and by ignoring when and how we cause others to experience these. Most of humanity's suffering is self-inflicted. And that which is not, is just part of the experience of not being here. Once we stop presuming that we should never experience pain, living with it becomes a lot easier. And once we realize that we have the power to minimize a lot of unnecessary pain, the burden gets even easier still. And we can further mitigate it by looking for ways to appreciate the gift of being, and of being human.

I'm not sure if it's so much a matter of not wanting to experience pain, loss, or suffering (although I can't think of anyone who actually wants to experience those things). It's about the hierarchy that we live under and religious-based assumptions that those with wealth and power have God's blessing and a divine right to rule. The implication is that, for anyone to oppose that hierarchy and "natural order" is, in effect, rebelling against God.

It also calls into question God's ability to judge good and evil, as He ostensibly rewards evil and punishes good. If this is how God created Earth to be, then why shouldn't we assume that other aspects of His creation are equally senseless and unjust?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
"You gotta look out for number one, but don't step in number two." - Rodney Dangerfield

Who is your number one? You? God? Something else?
If one believes that God is omnipresent, then there is no distinction between god or self as first. if self then is in crisis, then preservation of self first. one cannot help another when they are falling, drowning, or unstable. when self is stable then self as other can be first; if they are in crisis.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm not sure if it's so much a matter of not wanting to experience pain, loss, or suffering (although I can't think of anyone who actually wants to experience those things). It's about the hierarchy that we live under and religious-based assumptions that those with wealth and power have God's blessing and a divine right to rule. The implication is that, for anyone to oppose that hierarchy and "natural order" is, in effect, rebelling against God.

It also calls into question God's ability to judge good and evil, as He ostensibly rewards evil and punishes good. If this is how God created Earth to be, then why shouldn't we assume that other aspects of His creation are equally senseless and unjust?
I think there are two glaring misconceptions being promoted, here. One is that nature is a reflection of the divine. That God "acts" through natural circumstances. Thus, misfortunes that have no 'reason' are being attributed to some sort of divine personality's will. And that leads us to the second glaring misconceptions and that is that this divine personality is passing judgment on us, which is then assumed to be the reasoning for the subsequent "acts" of misfortune that we find ourselves subject to.

If we would simply let go of these two silly and unfounded presumptions, then our misfortunes would cease to be perceived as some sort of divine punishment from a deity that has for some unknown reason found us deserving of our suffering. And once we let go of this kind of superstition based blaming we would be freed up to actually perceive our suffering more for what it is: and that is just a part of life as a human being. While, "God", then, would be reflected in our world not as the source of condemnation and suffering but of the wonder of joy and grace that abounds and shows itself against the background of random, unconcerned, happenstance. Divine "action" is not manifested as judgment, condemnation, and suffering, but is the inexplicable LACK of it!
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That isn't free will but compatibility. It is exactly those factors that leaves the notion of free will utterly and entirely in the land of false beliefs. And though we don't know how much exactly our behaviors are pre-determined or not, the more we look, the more we uncover, the less "free" it appears we are.
I believe there are constraints on our free will but I do not believe in predetermination. I believe that we can make moral choices and we can make other day to day choices. For example, I can choose to spend all my time on this forum or do something else. There are days I think I have no choice, but then I stand back and analyze why I am on here and adjust my behavior accordingly. I have made some behavior changes as a result of doing that. It was very freeing to realize I do have a choice even if I choose to spend a lot of time here. My compulsive personality makes this a bit difficult so I have to keep reevaluating my behavior on a regular basis.

Free will is a most important subject because how we think about it can be the determining factor as to whether we think we have the ability to make choices. Free will is explained briefly here: 70: FREE WILL

I think that how free we are is related to how self-aware we are. The more self-awareness we have the more our thoughts reside at a conscious level, and the more we can analyze them and make decisions based upon what we understand about ourselves. Conversely, if we are lacking in self-awareness, we will live unconsciously, allowing our feelings to guide our behavior, since most of what resides in the subconscious is feelings, not higher rational thoughts.

We cannot make conscious choices unless we are aware of what we are thinking and feeling, and our motives for what we are doing. If we are not aware then we will be driven by the subconscious mind and allow it to run our lives.

What rings true for one won't ring true for another. And for some people that is very bad advice.
It is true that not everyone is going to evaluate the message the same way, so not everyone is going to consider the message as true. My point was that we all have to evaluate the message for ourselves rather than listening to what other people think about it or just assuming it is not true without even looking at it.
Not that many people have seriously or deeply even pondered the question of does free will exist or not, and the idea lives on unfettered and unchallenged. But even those who are determinist and doubters of free will still tend to accept that some people do need to be put away from the rest of society. Our actions, if our will is free or not, always have consequences.
It makes no sense to me to say that people should be punished for their actions if they are not responsible for their actions. To say that a criminal is accountable but not responsible is an oxymoron. That is akin to saying it is not really his fault but we are going to punish him anyway. It makes no sense at all. Of course the circumstances need to be taken into account, which is why there are degrees of responsibility/accountability, and why we have first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc.
You don't let a child learn to not shoot someone or themselves in the head by letting them shooting themselves or another in the head. Some lessons come with such great consequences that it's definitely better for someone who is experienced and knowledgeable to step in and teach the lesson before it's too late. But, some people don't care and will watch as a disaster waiting to happen becomes a disaster.
Of course it is advisable for someone who is experienced and knowledgeable to step in and teach lesson before it's too late. That is why we have parents and teachers and friends and family to help us. It is not God’s job to step in. That is why we have free will. Without it nothing makes any sense at all because we could not even “do” anything. We would be like robots who have predetermined lives, which is really no different from having God determine everything we do, which would make us pawns on God’s chess board.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
There's no number 1. Sometimes you need to focus on yourself, sometimes the needs of others go before you and they're "number 1". There needs to be a healthy balance to it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think there are two glaring misconceptions being promoted, here. One is that nature is a reflection of the divine. That God "acts" through natural circumstances. Thus, misfortunes that have no 'reason' are being attributed to some sort of divine personality's will. And that leads us to the second glaring misconceptions and that is that this divine personality is passing judgment on us, which is then assumed to be the reasoning for the subsequent "acts" of misfortune that we find ourselves subject to.

If we would simply let go of these two silly and unfounded presumptions, then our misfortunes would cease to be perceived as some sort of divine punishment from a deity that has for some unknown reason found us deserving of our suffering. And once we let go of this kind of superstition based blaming we would be freed up to actually perceive our suffering more for what it is: and that is just a part of life as a human being. While, "God", then, would be reflected in our world not as the source of condemnation and suffering but of the wonder of joy and grace that abounds and shows itself against the background of random, unconcerned, happenstance. Divine "action" is not manifested as judgment, condemnation, and suffering, but is the inexplicable LACK of it!

Yes, I can see what you're saying, although regarding the various misconceptions and presumptions, the biggest one of all is that notion that "God exists." Ultimately, the problem is people, while "God" may not even exist at all. Even if there is a being called "God," it doesn't automatically mean that He/She/It is "good." For all anyone knows, "God" could be a despicable, evil being who rewards humans based on how much evil they do, both in this life and the afterlife. It doesn't really matter what the scriptures or propaganda say, since we know that even the worst tyrannies will have propagandists saying that their leader is good - even if he's not.

Notions of "God" seem to be derived based on human understandings of politics of their era, which is ostensibly why "God" is often compared to a "King" - one that rules with ultimate wisdom, rewards good deeds and punishes evil - just as any leader would be expected to do in any society. It seems natural that humans would project these early concepts of human politics and law on to whatever deity (or deities) they worship.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Yes, I can see what you're saying, although regarding the various misconceptions and presumptions, the biggest one of all is that notion that "God exists." Ultimately, the problem is people, while "God" may not even exist at all.
This is true. "God" exists because WE exist ... and because we exist in the way that we do. "God" is a particularly human, and nearly universal cognitive manifestation. But I don't see how this could be changed without changing the nature of human cognition, itself.

Whereas it may be possible for us to change the way in which we tend to conceptualize "God". After all, it seems that this has already changed, pretty significantly, through the course of human history.
Even if there is a being called "God," it doesn't automatically mean that He/She/It is "good." For all anyone knows, "God" could be a despicable, evil being who rewards humans based on how much evil they do, both in this life and the afterlife. It doesn't really matter what the scriptures or propaganda say, since we know that even the worst tyrannies will have propagandists saying that their leader is good - even if he's not.
The mythology is of our own choosing. The myths mean what we want them to mean, and they are as significant as we choose to deem them. But I think if we could face up to and accept this simple fact of our own nature, we could begin to make a lot smarter and more effective decisions about the ways we conceptualize and value our whole god-mythos.

My point is that it's not going to go away, because we are still human. And the god-mythos is a big part of the way we humans cognate our experience of being human. But we could learn to take more control over the ways we employ this aspect of human cognition, in our lives. And thereby, I think, gain some enormous advantages that are currently being squandered in superstition, confusion, and outright abuse.
Notions of "God" seem to be derived based on human understandings of politics of their era, which is ostensibly why "God" is often compared to a "King" - one that rules with ultimate wisdom, rewards good deeds and punishes evil - just as any leader would be expected to do in any society. It seems natural that humans would project these early concepts of human politics and law on to whatever deity (or deities) they worship.
We are a cooperative, collective, species. We live in small collections of familial groups that have distinct social hierarchies. So of course, if we insist on anthropomorphizing our conception of "God" it will almost certainly become something akin to the dominant male at the top of our social hierarchy.

But what if we could learn to stop anthropomorphizing "God" in the first place? Perhaps by focussing more on a divine, transcendent, expression of being rather than some omnipotent, humanoid, overlord. For example, I can see the phenomena that we call "love" as being an example of a kind of 'divine nature' existing within physical nature, but also transcendent of it. In the same way that life transcends the physics that generates it, and then consciousness transcends the life forms that generate it; love becomes a transcendent expression of consciousness. And thereby a transcendent expression of existence, itself: a transcendent expression of 'being'.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is true. "God" exists because WE exist ... and because we exist in the way that we do. "God" is a particularly human, and nearly universal cognitive manifestation. But I don't see how this could be changed without changing the nature of human cognition, itself.

Whereas it may be possible for us to change the way in which we tend to conceptualize "God". After all, it seems that this has already changed, pretty significantly, through the course of human history.

Or we could choose to simply not claim the existence of any "God" or "Creator" without extraordinary evidence to prove it. All the misconceptions and presumptions you referred to earlier could have been avoided if we refrained from playing guessing games about stories written thousands of years ago.

We don't need to conceptualize "God" any more than we need to conceptualize the existence of some possible form of life which may exist in the Andromeda galaxy. If we haven't seen it and don't know it exists, then guessing about it seems an exercise in futility.

The mythology is of our own choosing. The myths mean what we want them to mean, and they are as significant as we choose to deem them. But I think if we could face up to and accept this simple fact of our own nature, we could begin to make a lot smarter and more effective decisions about the ways we conceptualize and value our whole god-mythos.

My point is that it's not going to go away, because we are still human. And the god-mythos is a big part of the way we humans cognate our experience of being human. But we could learn to take more control over the ways we employ this aspect of human cognition, in our lives. And thereby, I think, gain some enormous advantages that are currently being squandered in superstition, confusion, and outright abuse.

I agree that it's not going to go away, although I don't see any harm in addressing it and calling it what it is. This isn't so much about "God" as much as it's about the use of myths for political purposes and to control humanity. In a liberal democracy like ours, we've outgrown the need for a king, and likewise, we've outgrown the need for a god.

We are a cooperative, collective, species. We live in small collections of familial groups that have distinct social hierarchies. So of course, if we insist on anthropomorphizing our conception of "God" it will almost certainly become something akin to the dominant male at the top of our social hierarchy.

But what if we could learn to stop anthropomorphizing "God" in the first place? Perhaps by focussing more on a divine, transcendent, expression of being rather than some omnipotent, humanoid, overlord. For example, I can see the phenomena that we call "love" as being an example of a kind of 'divine nature' existing within physical nature, but also transcendent of it. In the same way that life transcends the physics that generates it, and then consciousness transcends the life forms that generate it; love becomes a transcendent expression of consciousness. And thereby a transcendent expression of existence, itself: a transcendent expression of 'being'.

Yes, we could do that, but it would still amount to guessing about the "great beyond." What keeps me focused is in just how small we are and the conditions which are observable about our existence. Essentially we're confined to a bubble of air inside an enormous vacuum, circling a giant star in a galaxy of millions of other stars in a universe with millions (or possibly trillions) of galaxies.

We don't really know how it all started or whether there was some sentient, intelligent designer responsible for it all. While we can't negate the possibility that some sort of "God" may exist, we still have to operate on a practical level as if "God" doesn't exist, regardless of how it is manifested or anthropomorphized. That's how we have to conduct business as humans. We have no other choice.

For all practical purposes in the here and now, "God" is superfluous.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Or we could choose to simply not claim the existence of any "God" or "Creator" without extraordinary evidence to prove it.
It's not going to happen. This simply is not how the human mind works. We know we don't know enough for this to be a plausible course of action. And we know we need more than material "evidence" to give us what we need to face our fears.
All the misconceptions and presumptions you referred to earlier could have been avoided if we refrained from playing guessing games about stories written thousands of years ago.
No, they couldn't, which is why they weren't.

If there were no gravity I could float around like a balloon. But there is, and I can't. So I deal with what is, instead of what isn't.
I agree that it's not going to go away, although I don't see any harm in addressing it and calling it what it is.
I don't see any advantage in it, either. So let's move on and address the NATURE of what is, rather than the fact of it being what is.
This isn't so much about "God" as much as it's about the use of myths for political purposes and to control humanity. In a liberal democracy like ours, we've outgrown the need for a king, and likewise, we've outgrown the need for a god.
Clearly, we have NOT outgrown our need/desire for kings and rulers and multi-leveled hierarchies of dictators, since we are all still willingly living within exactly these kinds of social and economic and political systems.
Yes, we could do that, but it would still amount to guessing about the "great beyond." What keeps me focused is in just how small we are and the conditions which are observable about our existence. Essentially we're confined to a bubble of air inside an enormous vacuum, circling a giant star in a galaxy of millions of other stars in a universe with millions (or possibly trillions) of galaxies.

We don't really know how it all started or whether there was some sentient, intelligent designer responsible for it all. While we can't negate the possibility that some sort of "God" may exist, we still have to operate on a practical level as if "God" doesn't exist, regardless of how it is manifested or anthropomorphized. That's how we have to conduct business as humans. We have no other choice.

For all practical purposes in the here and now, "God" is superfluous.
Literally billions of your fellow humans disagree. Mostly, because they don't have the luxury of safely contemplating the unknown and unknowable from the comfort and security that you enjoy. They are busy contending with multiple forces, known and unknown, that are trying to kill them on a daily basis.
 

DPMartin

Member
"You gotta look out for number one, but don't step in number two." - Rodney Dangerfield

Who is your number one? You? God? Something else?


it always about one's self fulfillment of what one loves or desires is all its about, whether others benefit from that or not.

even in the case of the God of Jesus Christ its about what He loves and desires whether others benefit from it or not.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
"You gotta look out for number one, but don't step in number two." - Rodney Dangerfield

Who is your number one? You? God? Something else?
This statement is one of humanities biggest threats!
I have no number one.
I have care.
It is obvious i care more for my family as they are the biggest part of my life, yet this doesn't mean i will not care for others.
"You gotta look out for all", will be a much wiser statement.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I believe there are constraints on our free will but I do not believe in predetermination.
Free will with constraints is not free will.
It makes no sense to me to say that people should be punished for their actions if they are not responsible for their actions.
In some situations it already does. Such as, a mother with a starving family commits a crime if she steals food to feed her family and charges can be pressed against her, even though she didn't freely choose to steal food but rather was primed to do so by her family's hunger.
It is not God’s job to step in.
If god requires us to get things right during this one life, it is very much his job to step in to at least clear up the confusion over who this god is, what this god's nature is, and what, if anything, this god requires of us.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Free will with constraints is not free will.
It is not completely free, but we have freedom within the constraints. If we were not free at all we would just be programmed robots.
In some situations it already does. Such as, a mother with a starving family commits a crime if she steals food to feed her family and charges can be pressed against her, even though she didn't freely choose to steal food but rather was primed to do so by her family's hunger.
Primed to do so by her family’s hunger? I am sorry, but that does not fly with me. She freely chose to steal that food. A couple of years ago, I put my wallet down on the counter in a store and when I got home I realized it was missing. I went back to the store and they said they had not seen it. It had all of my identification in it so it could have been returned to me, but it had over $500 in it so somebody just kept it for themselves. They could have taken the money and returned the other stuff in the wallet, but they did not give a rip what they put me through. My cat was dying at the time, which is why I was distracted and put the wallet down like that. There is no excuse for keeping my money and my wallet. I called the police and they said they consider that theft but there was no camera in that store. If their family is starving they can get a job, like everyone else. Decent people do not keep money and wallets that belong to someone else; that is so selfish. It is downright immoral not to mention criminal.

Not long after that, I left my purse in a shopping cart in front of the grocery store and it was a while before I realized it was missing. Of course I panicked after what had happened to my wallet. I went screaming into the store and a clerk at customer service asked me what was wrong. I told him and he said that the young boy who bags groceries had brought my purse to customer service. I was so grateful to that boy. This is how moral people behave. They care about other people as much or more than themselves. The main problem with this society is selfishness, but thank God many people are not selfish, they are kind and caring. Many people in law enforcement and rescue and firemen risk their lives for other people. What a contrast to the lazy people who just sit around waiting for a free ride. I do not feel sorry for them.

If god requires us to get things right during this one life, it is very much his job to step in to at least clear up the confusion over who this god is, what this god's nature is, and what, if anything, this god requires of us.
God did step in when He sent Baha’u’llah. All the information about God that God wants us to know is in His Writings. All that God requires of us is in His Writings. Nobody can blame anyone but themselves for not even looking at it and giving it a chance. Some people just want a free ride, but there are no free rides in life. Everything requires some effort. Of course, for people whose lives have been smooth sailing they might not realize that. They might expect God to sail right on in, but that is not how God set it up. Maybe those of us who have struggled to get where we are in life, working hard for everything we have, are better off than those who had an easy life because we realize life is not easy and don’t expect it be.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Primed to do so by her family’s hunger? I am sorry, but that does not fly with me.
So you don't think hearing her child's cries of hunger and pleas for food encouraged this hypothetical mother to shoplift food? Was it a choice when she spent time talking herself into it and convincing herself it's the right thing to do in order to feed her child?
God did step in when He sent Baha’u’llah.
None of that rings true with me.
 
Top