Suddenly you hear a voice...

I often had 'clients' sit in front of me and make the same claim. they were trying to explain why what they were saying may not APPEAR to make sense to the uninitiated. some were especially selected and carefully watched double agents, others had been abducted by aliens and had received all their 'instructions' in languages unknown on earth. the list goes on.

 

Yeah, like when quantum physicists act like only the initiated can understand their mathematics. Or when Mexicans blah blah blah at me and then act like there's some "language" they are speaking which seems like gibberish, except to the initiated.

 

no,not like that at all. quantum physicists use terminology that few of us comprehend ... because we're not quantum physicists. the same can be said for plumbers and electricians. and mexicans. these (i.e, being one of) are all actual conditions. being a tinfoil hat wearing, alien abducted, triple agent for the KGB and/or Greenpeace is not.

 

No, of course not. But you were trying to put Jeanette in the same category as those "triple agents" and such, based on what you called "trying to explain why what they were saying may not APPEAR to make sense to the uninitiated". I merely point out that there are also times when that explanation is legitimate.

 

If I don't worship you, are you going to see that I burn forever, along with Gandhi, and Ben Franklin, and all Hindus/Buddhists, etc. who don't believe you because you steadfastly refuse to simply provide proof of your word? Or are you more moral than that?

 

hang on, you haven't even verified that I am, in fact, the crowned male head of Norwegia. that means you'll be dead easy to boss around and frighten into submission

(you see what I did there? changed the topic lest the kiddies accidentally stumble across references to spit roastings - the preferred Norse method)

 

But if one of them claimed to be the son of god, and that you'd burn if you didn't believe him, then of course you'd be SCARED enough to believe THAT person, right?

You dealt with mentally ill people, I assume? If so, then in your professional opinion, were Moses, Jesus, and Abraham clinically insane as I suspect they were?

 

exactly. there are times when it's legitimate. her example isn't one of them.

 

Read the Bible/Qur'an, and then do the opposite of what it says, THAT'S one way to define moral behavior.

 

Well, if that's your definition, it's easy to understand why you think you are moral and the bible is not. You have defined it that way.

 

yes. and yes. though possibly to the latter question you'd have to add the rider that by the standards of the day they may have appeared merely eccentric. it's just as possible that they were considered even crazier than they might appear to us. history gives as a variety of points of view on mental illness in the Goode Ole Days, depending on era, geography, culture, etc.

either way, claiming you're the son of god (or in fact, god) these days will get you an early appointment, fully refundable via medicare

- - - Updated - - -

just as you have probably defined the bible as moral (assuming you're a jesus peep). the difference being that he's right and you're wrong.

bummer !

 

You got me, I'm too fearful to think for myself. I'm also too afraid to try to question you if you act completely illogically (like if you wrote in your book to kill gays - I'm too cowardly to question you.) I'm too cowardly to dig deeper and actually verify that you are real. Please don't hurt me, I'll do thy bidding. It's a lot easier if you can just tell me what to do, so I don't have to actually think for myself - I'm incredibly intellectually lazy.

P.S. your holiness, when you say something that goes completely against common sense, or against proven science, and people call me on that, what do I tell them?

 

I don't know her personally, but I do know a few Orthodox, and I think that her example is perfectly legit if you know the Orthodox. Firstly, they are the original church, and have a history and oral tradition that further explain the scriptures. And when they use, for example, the word "saved", it means a different thing than it would to a protestant. The Eastern mindset is different, it asks different questions, and sometime uses different definitions. To understand it requires some initiation.

 

technically yes they are both moral
they might not be your morals but that is a different question

the act of God doing something arguably makes it moral by definition

 

I love Christians and want to help them, but are you saying that their magic dead invisible friend in the sky would be considered clinically insane by modern medical/scientific standards if he were alive today?

 

actually it's "Your Majesty" (that whole king thing, ya know), but never mind that now, I have orders to issue!

please bring me some snow from Mother Norway, as it's really REALLY hot here. you can bring it in a wooden boat - it'll stay frozen even though the journey will take 14 months. but I want it today, you understand?

on that other thing, when the bastards make your eyes spin and your butt clench with their probing think-making, quote Norse mythology (which you can adapt to suit) to prove how stupid they are. it never fails!

 

I define the bible as "a religious book". I was asking for his definition of morality, and oddly enough, this human secularist has defined morality based around the bible (although he reversed it all, kinda like a Satanist would). I guess I gave Secular Humanism too much credit, and thought that they would be able to have a concept of morality that didn't rely on the bible for context.

 

Then one of those belief is therefore likely wrong. Too bad Jesus is too much of a prick to tell us which one is right. I you had that power, would you tell us which one is right? That would be the moral thing to do, correct? They claim Jesus is the most moral person ever, no?

- - - Updated - - -

How about this: "the greatest good for the greatest number of people"

 

oddly? how is it odd when it's the same stuff which has been a foundation of cohabitation since forever? what you probably meant to say was "it's odd how the bible just rehashes tried and tested 'morality' and tries to sell it as an original product"

and, omikingofnorway, did you say 'satanist' out loud?

 

I guess I gave Secular Humanism too much credit, and thought that they would be able to have a concept of morality that didn't rely on the bible for context.

 

Yes, just like you, somehow, I'm not really sure how (but I'm too cowardly to question you), magically got the penguins and kangaroos half-way around the world to Noah in the Middle East! I will be your Noah!

By the way, after I do this for you, when I die please just give me one super-slut that really really knows what she's doing instead of 72 completely inexperienced babes that probably don't have a clue, mkay? But you already KNEW I wanted that, because you're omnipitent, so I won't waste my time praying to you anymore (praying seems ridiculous when you think about it.)

 

Apparently there is some reason for the Prime Directive here. If I ever talk to Jesus, I'll ask him about it.

OK, so we're switching to utilitarianism, huh? OK, then we're back to my original point: slavery brought greater good to a greater number, allowing all of mankind to benefit from their labors. So according to your new definition, it is moral.

 

My morality is far better for the world/humanity, though. So their "god" probably doesn't exist, or he's not as good at his job as I am....so he probably doesn't exist.

Which morality do you choose? My morality of modern Secular Humanism (no rape, no slavery, women treated equally, gays not killed, etc.) or the opposite morality of the Christian "holy" texts?

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to the slaves, they disagree. Would YOU want to be a slave?

 

If you had that power, would YOU tell us which belief system is more the truth? Or would you not, like Jesus?

 

I would never do it. Our laws in this world cannot be based on voices people hear in their heads.