Why can’t we live in peace?

[Mick-7]

And the Lord proclaimed, maketh profit off the backs of thy fellow man.

What Bible did you get that from?

It's sort of an extension of: "And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" — Genesis 1:28

The Old Testament God was a predatory fellow.

[Mick-7]

From Klaatu's second album (1977)

I think it's time to call Gort: "Klaatu barada nikto!"

[Stevebol]

All the bots I've used feel more lefty. While ChatGPT is definitely the most woke of them all haha. Grok is the only righty I've tried. Have a chat with him!

Grok told me to get a CPA and file a return for 1985. Also, don't say anything publicly about Japan in 1985.
I said, you devalue musicians.
It said, sorry you feel that way.

[pauln]

The Old Testament God was a predatory fellow.

"The two Testaments are interesting, each in its own way. The Old one
gives us a picture of these people's Deity as he was before he got religion,
the other one gives us a picture of him as he appeared afterward."
- Letters from the Earth, Mark Twain

[deacon Mark]

I am finally going to comment because it is Sunday. The Lord's Day went to the first Mass of Priest ordained yesterday. Regardless of what anyone says here the Lord is real to me in ways that no human is at all. His existence I sense completely but it is not like I can see the " guitar." in front of me. Peace as understood by Christianity cannot exist completely in this world, but we must try and give it a go. Same as with sin, it cannot be eliminate from us, but we have to continue to try.

The Second Vatican Council in the early 1960's said that peace was not just the absence of war. One of the best ways to keep peace in many respects is to play the guitar. At least for me it keeps me out of some situations and once in a great while delivers some joy to someone. Keeping religion and the state separate are most needed for sure. Otherwise, the priest in the sacrament of confession would have to divulge things to lawful authorities and government. That is not going to happen regardless of what even the constitution might someday be interpreted by SCOTUS.

[fep]

I haven't made it to the end of this thread, but there is a misunderstanding of what atheist means (maybe this was already clarified):

I've heard this discussed by Neil Dygrasse Tyson which is consistent with this AI Overview. Degrasse fits under the Agnostic Atheist definition below.

Since I can't fathom how someone can prove the negative, i.e. god doesn't exist, I think to be a Gnostic Atheists require faith just as Christianity requires faith, i.e. believing in something that can't be proven.

AI Overview
Atheism is broadly defined as the lack of belief, or the active rejection of belief, in gods. While the core definition is simple, individuals arrive at this worldview through different philosophical, emotional, and social frameworks.The main types of atheists can be categorized by knowledge/certainty and perspective/reasoning:Categorized by Knowledge & Certainty

Agnostic Atheists: They do not believe in any gods, but they also believe that the existence or non-existence of a higher power is ultimately unknown or unknowable.

Gnostic (or Strong) Atheists: They firmly assert that no gods exist and believe this can be proven or logically demonstrated.

Implicit Atheists: The simple absence of theistic belief, often without a conscious rejection. This includes those who have never been exposed to the concept of a god (like young children).

[Stevebol]

At least at some level, the New Testament is a murder mystery. For me it's not a who done it. It's a why.
Sometimes I think I'm Japanese.

[Stringswinger]

At least at some level, the New Testament is a murder mystery. For me it's not a who done it. It's a why.
Sometimes I think I'm Japanese.

Thanks for being here Stevebol. You keep things interesting.

[Mick-7]

I haven't made it to the end of this thread, but there is a misunderstanding of what atheist means (maybe this was already clarified):

I've heard this discussed by Neil Dygrasse Tyson which is consistent with this AI Overview. Degrasse fits under the Agnostic Atheist definition below.

Since I can't fathom how someone can prove the negative, i.e. god doesn't exist, I think to be a Gnostic Atheists require faith just as Christianity requires faith, i.e. believing in something that can't be proven.

"Gnostic Atheist: Firmly asserts that no gods exist and believe this can be proven or logically demonstrated."

That term (in bold) is an oxymoron. As you said, one cannot know that something does not exist, one can say it would be illogical for it to exist but insisting that reality conform to human logic is illogical.

Reminds me of this statement from a book I read: "Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that Nature is purposeless would constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred N. Whitehead

[Kirk Garrett]

It's sort of an extension of: "And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" — Genesis 1:28

The Old Testament God was a predatory fellow.

Subduing the Earth for the sake of stewardship and cultivation makes sense, no?

Otherwise, people would be living in what Hobbes called the state of nature: “nasty, brutish and short.”

[deacon Mark]

Humans are the highest point of creation we need to accept this premise without any prejudice. We come before the animals, nature, and only humans are made in the image of God. This is above the angels. However, most especially in Christianity God became Human completely in Jesus Christ. That said we Christian worship only the Trinity, the highest Dogma that can be found. Interesting to note that St Augustine said that singing to the Lord was like praying twice. In effect music is a gift from God and can show a host of emotion that words can never proclaim. Music implies order, thought, processing, and does not just happen as random accident. Music is 3 things, melody, rhythm, and harmony.

If you believe the world and the known universe is an accident that happened, then to me you really cannot be a musician as such because there is no creator. My premise is we musicians are in fact believers in something for sure. We believe in music and its ability to reach depths of the human heart and mind. So back to the original why can't we have peace.................that has been explained the answer now is music can certainly encourage peace among other things. We jazz guitarist have a sacred duty to keep playing through the changes and making music...............get at now.

[Tal_175]

Humans are animals. We are part of the genetic continuum of life on Earth. We share 98–99% of our DNA with chimpanzees; the main difference is a slightly thicker and more folded cortex. They display complex social behaviour, tool use, and cognitive traits similar to ours. In fact, we are only the ninth (it could be up to 15) known human species to have lived on this planet. It amazes me that in the 21st century some still cling to mysticist narratives that treat humans as a fundamentally separate category of being from the rest of the animal kingdom.


People who subscribe to a religion rarely test their own convictions by the same standards they apply to other religions. That’s where “experiential evidence” comes in. It’s a circular argument: in order to have the experience, you must already hold the belief; then you treat the experience as evidence for the belief. The problem is obvious. People who believed Zeus was a god had the same intense emotional experiences, and Zeus felt just as real to them as the Christian God feels to Christians. This is simply how the brain’s reality-construction mechanism works as understood by modern cognitive science. If you pay attention to your own mind, you’ll observe this mechanism operating on a smaller scale in everyday life.

To give another example, if I believe there is a monster living in my basement, I will experience real fear and panic when I go downstairs. My body will produce real physiological symptoms; elevated heart rate, hyperventilation, even hallucinations. I’ll interpret every noise and shadow as evidence of the monster. And if the existence of the monster is my presupposition, it becomes “logical” to treat any noise as probably caused by it. But using these very real experiences as evidence for the monster’s existence is obviously misguided.

[DawgBone]

Humans are animals. We are part of the genetic continuum of life on Earth. We share 98–99% of our DNA with chimpanzees; the main difference is a slightly thicker and more folded cortex. They display complex social behaviour, tool use, and cognitive traits similar to ours. In fact, we are only the ninth (it could be up to 15) known human species to have lived on this planet. It amazes me that in the 21st century some still cling to mysticist narratives that treat humans as a fundamentally separate category of being from the rest of the animal kingdom.


People who subscribe to a religion rarely test their own convictions by the same standards they apply to other religions. That’s where “experiential evidence” comes in. It’s a circular argument: in order to have the experience, you must already hold the belief; then you treat the experience as evidence for the belief. The problem is obvious. People who believed Zeus was a god had the same intense emotional experiences, and Zeus felt just as real to them as the Christian God feels to Christians. This is simply how the brain’s reality-construction mechanism works.


If I believe there is a monster living in my basement, I will experience real fear and panic when I go downstairs. My body will produce real physiological symptoms; elevated heart rate, hyperventilation, even hallucinations. I’ll interpret every noise and shadow as evidence of the monster. And if the existence of the monster is my presupposition, it becomes “logical” to treat any noise as probably caused by it. But using these experiences as evidence for the monster’s existence is obviously misguided.

You, and others here consistently display a complete lack of understanding of the Christian faith. By and large it is the polar opposite of paganism, i.e it is a belief not based in "intense emotional experiences". Spiritual phenomena, such as dreams, apparitions, and visions, while embraced by paganism, is rejected almost as a rule by the oldest sects of Christianity. You are taking TBN tv prosperity gospel stuff like speaking in tongues and ecstatic worship, and projecting it as though it were the sum total of the faith when the truth is those things are fruits of schismatics, and heretical, because it runs in counter to sound doctrine.

[Strat-itis]

DawgBone, you can't assert beliefs as facts to him, he's not gonna have it. You shouldn't do this in the first place either. Although it's refreshing to hear Christianity interpreted correctly from an adamant standpoint.

I was amused to read the bots take on my ideas. And largely it was spot on, even the part about me viewing the world through a conservative lens. I am a straight White male, a longtime Republican, a Life member of the National Rifle Association and a Zionist. There is no question that I view the world through a mostly conservative lens. But at the same time, I am pro-choice, pro-Gay marriage and pro-environment. Which makes me part of a dying breed, a moderate Republican. The bot missed that. And I knew that the bot leaned left when it brough up the Nordic Countries in rebuttal to what I had written. That is a lefty talking point. And one that is easily answered.

That's pretty cool - a moderate republican. That's indeed a rare breed. I'm just independent.

[Strat-itis]

Grok told me to get a CPA and file a return for 1985. Also, don't say anything publicly about Japan in 1985.
I said, you devalue musicians.
It said, sorry you feel that way.

Stevebol is a self-taught legend.

[Strat-itis]

Tal, do you really think you're the authority on reality when these issues haven't been proven either way so far?

Humans are animals. We are part of the genetic continuum of life on Earth. We share 98–99% of our DNA with chimpanzees; the main difference is a slightly thicker and more folded cortex. They display complex social behaviour, tool use, and cognitive traits similar to ours. In fact, we are only the ninth (it could be up to 15) known human species to have lived on this planet. It amazes me that in the 21st century some still cling to mysticist narratives that treat humans as a fundamentally separate category of being from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Humans can be a part of the animal kingdom evolution wise and still be the focus for God's narrative.

People who subscribe to a religion rarely test their own convictions by the same standards they apply to other religions. That’s where “experiential evidence” comes in. It’s a circular argument: in order to have the experience, you must already hold the belief; then you treat the experience as evidence for the belief. The problem is obvious. People who believed Zeus was a god had the same intense emotional experiences, and Zeus felt just as real to them as the Christian God feels to Christians. This is simply how the brain’s reality-construction mechanism works as understood by modern cognitive science. If you pay attention to your own mind, you’ll observe this mechanism operating on a smaller scale in everyday life.

To give another example, if I believe there is a monster living in my basement, I will experience real fear and panic when I go downstairs. My body will produce real physiological symptoms; elevated heart rate, hyperventilation, even hallucinations. I’ll interpret every noise and shadow as evidence of the monster. And if the existence of the monster is my presupposition, it becomes “logical” to treat any noise as probably caused by it. But using these very real experiences as evidence for the monster’s existence is obviously misguided.

Just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean you're automatically imagining it. God is just as viable of a theory as atheism. One of my ideas to prove the existence of God is that I think there is observable spiritual cause and effect.

[Tal_175]

Tal, do you really think you're the authority on reality when these issues haven't been proven either way so far?

Actually I have the epistemic humility to say that I don't know. It's possible that we are part of a greater consciousness, it's also possible we are not. Maybe there is a multiverse, may be there are infinite dimensions, maybe our intuitions about causality and time are wrong and there is no beginning .... There are infinitely many explanations for existence that we have never even considered.

Christians, Muslims etc on the other hand, think they are the authority on reality. They already claim to know the answers. Not only that there is a greater consciousness, it is also the creator. Moreover, it's not just any God, it is exactly the God that's described in the bible with all the other metaphysical constructions like angels and demons.

Do you have the humility to say that you don't know or are you the authority on reality?

[deacon Mark]

Humans are animals. We are part of the genetic continuum of life on Earth. We share 98–99% of our DNA with chimpanzees; the main difference is a slightly thicker and more folded cortex. They display complex social behaviour, tool use, and cognitive traits similar to ours. In fact, we are only the ninth (it could be up to 15) known human species to have lived on this planet. It amazes me that in the 21st century some still cling to mysticist narratives that treat humans as a fundamentally separate category of being from the rest of the animal kingdom.


People who subscribe to a religion rarely test their own convictions by the same standards they apply to other religions. That’s where “experiential evidence” comes in. It’s a circular argument: in order to have the experience, you must already hold the belief; then you treat the experience as evidence for the belief. The problem is obvious. People who believed Zeus was a god had the same intense emotional experiences, and Zeus felt just as real to them as the Christian God feels to Christians. This is simply how the brain’s reality-construction mechanism works as understood by modern cognitive science. If you pay attention to your own mind, you’ll observe this mechanism operating on a smaller scale in everyday life.

To give another example, if I believe there is a monster living in my basement, I will experience real fear and panic when I go downstairs. My body will produce real physiological symptoms; elevated heart rate, hyperventilation, even hallucinations. I’ll interpret every noise and shadow as evidence of the monster. And if the existence of the monster is my presupposition, it becomes “logical” to treat any noise as probably caused by it. But using these very real experiences as evidence for the monster’s existence is obviously misguided.

Hum....it would appear I share 100% of the DNA of Joe Pass and Wes, but regardless of this I cannot play the guitar like they could. I could practice 12 hours a day for 30 years and never get there for sure. Humans are fundamentally different that all other life forms I know this, but God has not revealed that to you just yet. Not a problem for me really because He is God and I am not. I am not your enemy in any way because I know what human life is and can be, in time all will be revealed. Everyone has a religion, the definition of Religion is precisely this...................Religion is the response to the mystery of life. Yours is just different and we all have free will. How long will it be before the Chimps can carve a nice guitar like John D'angelico did? Then be able to play at least to my humble ability, although I am much more proficient the typical person who can simply play the guitar? Will the earth even be inhabitable by then?

[Strat-itis]

Do you have the humility to say that you don't know or are you the authority on reality?

Try reading my previous posts. Your argument is logically sound yet you seem to be fixated on achieving superiority somehow, which doesn't make sense if all viewpoints are equally unproven.

[Tal_175]

Try reading my previous posts. Your argument is logically sound yet you seem to be fixated on achieving superiority somehow, which doesn't make sense if all viewpoints are equally unproven.

I don't know why you say all viewpoints are equally unproven when one view point is "I don't know" and the other is "I know the truth, it is the Christian God"?

[Strat-itis]

I don't know why you say all viewpoints are equally unproven when one view point is "I don't know" and the other is "I know the truth, it is the Christian God"?

Is that what I ever said? You're really deranged with your strawman quest for superiority. I'll let you work through this 1st grade scavenger hunt.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Can I unsubscribe from a thread I started? I’d rather you’d listen to my post of “All of Me”

[Tal_175]

Is that what I ever said? You're really deranged with your strawman quest for superiority. I'll let you work through this 1st grade scavenger hunt.

OK, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I must have completely misunderstood you. Turns you also hold the humble position of "I don't know".

[Strat-itis]

OK, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I must have completely misunderstood you. Turns you also hold the humble position of "I don't know".

Yes, thanks. Well it's unproven so of course I don't know. The reason I believe what I do is I think it's true, but I know this is unproven.

[deacon Mark]

Can I unsubscribe from a thread I started? I’d rather you’d listen to my post of “All of Me”

You might be able to delete the thread or at least request it be deleted. We clearly started playing "outside" the changes.