how loving christians are!

[Mike Cl]

Look into any conversation he had with the Pharisees in scripture.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Pops, give me a verse or two sampling what you (or he) is referring to.

[Solomon Zorn]

...Really I didn't start reading core scriptures of any religion until maybe a year and a half- two years ago.

I started in 1983.

I actually waited to read the bible because I presumed it was rife with error and misdirection.

Depends on your definition of “rife with error.” They're not on every page, but there are plenty.

And though there are small parts that seem to go against what I know to be right, specifically in the OT, the book as a whole is indeed inspired by GOD, however you want to take that.

The devil is in the details. If there is demonstrable error at all in the book, it should not be believed overall, because any other part might be error as well. Including the parts about the nature, or will of God.

The selfless conscience is objective morality within the grasp of all singular free agents.

Selflessness, as an absolute, is absurd. How would you feed yourself? The need for balance with selfishness is self evident.

It is holy as in different.

That's an unusual  definition of Holy. I wouldn't try to superimpose that meaning onto what you read. You will most likely misunderstand.

It is potentially in each and every one of us. It seems to be their naturally, yet difficult for many to grasp, due to deceit on an inner most level.

Selflessness is “potentially” in most of us, but there's no “inner deceit.” The self, naturally, comes first. Any attempt to subvert the selfish nature absolutely, will be rejected by the conscience. There is a balance. I will concede that the selfless side usually requires more effort, and therefore more focus and encouragement, for some,  but ambition and competitive drive â€" the selfish side of our nature â€" are responsible for a great deal of human progress as well.

...what I am getting at is that even if this right way,  this narrow path has even evolved into our being; it is still the creation and will of GOD, for our sake.

Sez you.

[Baruch]

I'm kind of with you Solomon.  If there was a deity, wouldn't it just of write "I'M HERE  in firey letters in the sky.?   Otherwise, it seems like cruel torture

Seriously How would there be a stupid cruel deity?

You don't know me yet ... but FYI ... I am a theist who believes in Cruelty (the god) not cruelty (something I do).  Not something I want, just something inescapably empirical for me.

[popsthebuilder]

Pops, give me a verse or two sampling what you (or he) is referring to.

I've looked and found many cases of him speaking directly against hypocrisy, but so far haven't found any cases where it is expressly spoken that literal interpretation is wrong, thiugh itt is hinted at. I will continue tomorrow, but am falling asleep tonight.

Sorry

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

I started in 1983.
Depends on your definition of “rife with error.” They're not on every page, but there are plenty.

The devil is in the details. If there is demonstrable error at all in the book, it should not be believed overall, because any other part might be error as well. Including the parts about the nature, or will of God.

Selflessness, as an absolute, is absurd. How would you feed yourself? The need for balance with selfishness is self evident.
That's an unusual  definition of Holy. I wouldn't try to superimpose that meaning onto what you read. You will most likely misunderstand.

Selflessness is “potentially” in most of us, but there's no “inner deceit.” The self, naturally, comes first. Any attempt to subvert the selfish nature absolutely, will be rejected by the conscience. There is a balance. I will concede that the selfless side usually requires more effort, and therefore more focus and encouragement, for some,  but ambition and competitive drive â€" the selfish side of our nature â€" are responsible for a great deal of human progress as well.

Sez you.

I don't generally superimpose it. 

As far as selfishness being needed.... No.

One can eat to sustain life and still be selfless. Or one can consume all within their grasp and still want more.

We naturally sustain ourselves without greed or selfishness.

Removing reward or consequences from a moral equation makes the equation objective.  This is oversimplifying it but still.  You get the point.

Don't confuse greed with need.

I'm glad you have been reading scripture for so long. I would have been 2 at that time. So,  I take it, you don't read the bible any longer. What about other religious texts?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

As far as selfishness being needed.... No. 

One can eat to sustain life and still be selfless. Or one can consume all within their grasp and still want more. 

We naturally sustain ourselves without greed or selfishness...Don't confuse greed with need.

I think defining terms is called for here. When I say, “selfishness,” I am referring to a focus on satisfying your own needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, becomes greed. “Selflessness,” on the other hand, would be focusing on satisfying another's needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, makes you a servile doormat, willing to martyr yourself for the smallest cause.

In Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, King Solomon said:

16 Do not be overrighteous,
    neither be overwiseâ€"
    why destroy yourself?
17 Do not be overwicked,
    and do not be a foolâ€"
    why die before your time?
18 It is good to grasp the one
    and not let go of the other.
    Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

Avoid extremes. Good advice. Balance is the goal.

[popsthebuilder]

I think defining terms is called for here. When I say, “selfishness,” I am referring to a focus on satisfying your own needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, becomes greed. “Selflessness,” on the other hand, would be focusing on satisfying another's needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, makes you a servile doormat, willing to martyr yourself for the smallest cause.

In Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, King Solomon said:
Avoid extremes. Good advice. Balance is the goal.

To me balance isn't the utter goal. One can live life trying to make the smallest wake possible, but how is that done?
It is done by knowing of potential yet not acting on it. This to me is chaos and not the ultimate goal. Do I mean it is right to martyr yourself for the sake of a fly?  No.
Does it mean to do what you know is right in all available scenarios regardless of reward or consequences....yes. I respect Solomon, he was surly wise,  but to attempt to make the smallest effect possible is to negate righteous action based on what one knows to be right in favor of self preservation and comfort. To me this is just wrong. But I am not Buddhist either. I believe utter harmony is the way,  but the harmony I speak of isn't a subjective thing, but something that can be achieved by all for all. We all have wants and needs,  but I'd we can set these aside and focus on what is right in all cases, then our own sustenance will be provided.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

To me balance isn't the utter goal. One can live life trying to make the smallest wake possible, but how is that done? 
It is done by knowing of potential yet not acting on it. This to me is chaos and not the ultimate goal.

Balance is the goal, in almost everything in life. And in the case of moral decisions, it is not “making the smallest wake possible,” but recognizing your own value, as well as the value of others.

Do I mean it is right to martyr yourself for the sake of a fly?  No. 

Yet that is exactly where unbalanced selflessness will lead, when taken as an absolute.

Does it mean to do what you know is right in all available scenarios regardless of reward or consequences....yes.

What is “right,” must take everything into account, including reward or consequences.

I respect Solomon, he was surly wise,  but to attempt to make the smallest effect possible is to negate righteous action based on what one knows to be right in favor of self preservation and comfort. To me this is just wrong.

Again, it's not a matter of making the smallest effect possible. It's a matter of balancing your own well being with that of others. You assume that self-preservation and comfort can't be “right” as well, but those considerations can be just as important, in making a decision.

But I am not Buddhist either. I believe utter harmony is the way,  but the harmony I speak of isn't a subjective thing, but something that can be achieved by all for all. We all have wants and needs,  but I'd we can set these aside and focus on what is right in all cases, then our own sustenance will be provided.

You see things in black and white. Your utopia is a world of self-denial. Almost as bad as a world of greed. Human beings aren't ants, that live for the greater good of the group. We are individuals, with complex natures, and selfishness is part of our survival. Selflessness is good, but it doesn't stand alone as the perfect goal for human behavior. What is “right,” in many cases, is to help yourself.

Harmony comes from balance.

[popsthebuilder]

Balance is the goal, in almost everything in life. And in the case of moral decisions, it is not “making the smallest wake possible,” but recognizing your own value, as well as the value of others.
Yet that is exactly where unbalanced selflessness will lead, when taken as an absolute.
What is “right,” must take everything into account, including reward or consequences.
Again, it's not a matter of making the smallest effect possible. It's a matter of balancing your own well being with that of others. You assume that self-preservation and comfort can't be “right” as well, but those considerations can be just as important, in making a decision.
You see things in black and white. Your utopia is a world of self-denial. Almost as bad as a world of greed. Human beings aren't ants, that live for the greater good of the group. We are individuals, with complex natures, and selfishness is part of our survival. Selflessness is good, but it doesn't stand alone as the perfect goal for human behavior. What is “right,” in many cases, is to help yourself.

Harmony comes from balance.

I really think we're splitting hairs at this point.

You cannot be wholly and utterly selfless and survive.

So we agree to some level.

Yes harmony and balance are similar.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

If and when one can place self worth equal or lesser than that of any other individual, then a near objective morality can be achieved.

The variables are removed if all are equal. As such the solution will always be representative of the best possible scenario for all involved without bias.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

Striving for humility and not putting off the conscience are a start. Recognizing self deceit is too a start. But seemingly very difficult for the greedy or proud.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Work only kindly towards your enemy.

Things like that right?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

I really think we're splitting hairs at this point. 

You cannot be wholly and utterly selfless and survive. 

So we agree to some level.

To me, it's not splitting hairs. It's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself. Exercising good judgment.

Absolute selflessness is unequivocal cooperation, at best, and doormat servitude at worst. That's the problem with Holy Law. It never has sufficient nuance to be the perfect solution. It's better to say that the golden rule is a code of conduct. But life is competition, as well as cooperation.  And competition is selfishness, made into an effective catalyst for growth.

If and when one can place self worth equal or lesser than that of any other individual, then a near objective morality can be achieved.

The variables are removed if all are equal. As such the solution will always be representative of the best possible scenario for all involved without bias.

Sometimes your worth is greater than the other. Like if he's trying to take your life. You have seconds to decide your moral response. Kill or be killed. How much will the doormat lay down for his absolute selflessness? Your personal value skyrockets as his plummets.

Or maybe he's trying to take your job. Are you supposed to give it up because he has 4 kids to your 3?

Morality in life, is never objective. Not even “near-objective.” It's full of human drama, and weirdness. It requires good judgment, but rarely gives you a lot of time to make an informed or well thought out answer. You just try to apply the golden rule, as circumstances allow.

Recognizing self deceit is too a start. But seemingly very difficult for the greedy or proud. 

So which are you then? Greedy or proud?

Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Work only kindly towards your enemy.

Things like that right?

Things like that. Right.

But again,  it's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself.

[Baruch]

People who follow natural law, follow the law of nature ... they run in a pack and eat smaller animals.  Anything else, they are shedding crocodile tears.

[Solomon Zorn]

By the way Pops, you were saying that Jesus was against the literal interpretation of the scripture. How do you reconcile that statement with this passage?

Matthew 5:18
     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[Mike Cl]

By the way Pops, you were saying that Jesus was against the literal interpretation of the scripture. How do you reconcile that statement with this passage?

Matthew 5:18
     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Solomon, I was moving toward this verse, but waiting for Pops to come up with a verse or two where he is against the literal interpretation.  But Pops seems to be so vague that I would probably have to wait forever for him to directly address the issue.  He is a master at the duck and ignore such requests.