if christian god existed, would he be a cruel god?

@xDoubledragon said in #230:

I'm going honest with you, I was too lazy to read whole debate from 6-22 page, that's why I didn't respond. Maybe today I will read everything tho

I figured it was too much, particularly since there was a small book's worth of nonsense based in christian faith (which maybe you were looking for when making this thread), but I figured i'd sum up everything from my perspective.

@Sleepy_Gary said

"2) God is cruel, because he created a universe where suffering and evil exists. If he couldn't create a universe without suffering and evil and still achieve the same ends he had for creating humanity, the main tenant of the 30,000+ flavors of christianity are wrong, because either god is not Omnipotent (or actually good), or there's forces outside his control that he cannot alter."

To add, you can mix and match these attributes to say that God is not cruel but is instead not all knowing or all powerful which can sort of get around this problem. Yes, obviously 29,000 flavours of Christianity think God is all these things but around 1,000 don't. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism)

So if I were to play devil's advocate (or God's advocate?) and put on my Christian theologian hat I would obviously concede that God can't be all knowing, powerful, and loving but is instead not all knowing or powerful.

I don't care to try and defend this point but just thought I'd interject that there is a minority that do circumvent this problem with this method.

@Lemontang said in #232:

@Sleepy_Gary said

"2) God is cruel, because he created a universe where suffering and evil exists. If he couldn't create a universe without suffering and evil and still achieve the same ends he had for creating humanity, the main tenant of the 30,000+ flavors of christianity are wrong, because either god is not Omnipotent (or actually good), or there's forces outside his control that he cannot alter."

To add, you can mix and match these attributes to say that God is not cruel but is instead not all knowing or all powerful which can sort of get around this problem. Yes, obviously 29,000 flavours of Christianity think God is all these things but around 1,000 don't. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism)

So if I were to play devil's advocate (or God's advocate?) and put on my Christian theologian hat I would obviously concede that God can't be all knowing, powerful, and loving but is instead not all knowing or powerful.

I don't care to try and defend this point but just thought I'd interject that there is a minority that do circumvent this problem with this method.

That really is a function of any concept that can’t be proven. You can always layer on more bullshit to explain away the contradictions.

@Lemontang said in #228:

Here again I think we're in agreement about what I will call the, "King James Christian"...

Absolutely.

I think we're in good agreement regarding the semantics behind that phrase as alludes to the thought processes (lying mouths) of the human beings to whom that would apply to.

Also, on this point, I'd like to make it crystal clear that in many cases, but probably not all, when we human beings point our fingers at 'other' human beings in order to designate them as 'King James Christians', we are committing the exact same metaphysical infraction, with no distinction whatsoever, which we have correctly intuited that we should be taking issue with some of the 'King James Christians' for.

(Also, I want to make it extremely plain that my use of "we human beings", in this context, is not at all condescending, patronizing, or passive aggressive.

It needs to be recognized and made clear that, as a human being, myself, I am sincerely taking onus for the problem of our lying-mouth and ungodly misbehaviour. There are certain groups of people who use the phrasing 'I and I' to refer to their one another...it's easy to see the value in that.)

I heard from a sweet-heart a while back who said, paraphrased:

"People are mean to, and judging, those of us who are legitimately making progress against our own lying mouths...for not perfectly recognizing and/or addressing our own objective short-comings (the scope and effect of our own lying mouths) as we do our best to follow God.

Meanwhile, they appear to be people whose own 'lying mouths' seem to have convinced them to be thoroughly vested in ignoring/denying/mitigating/pseudo-excusing their own ungodly expressions, as they misappropriate Objective Love.

And they aren't even trying to address their own ungodliness, much less perfect these objective short-comings within themselves!

At least we're trying to help! What more do they want from us?!"

As I heard this, I could sense, and empathize with, this person's exhaustion.
As I heard this, I could sense, and empathize with, the confusion of those whom they were complaining about.

I hope that this person, at least, had a very good sleep that night.
I hope that the confusion, caused by our 'lying mouth', might dissipate.

Metaphysically, this person has asked for quarter from the attributes that distinguish this (imperfect) universal locale from the (Perfect) Other...and there isn't a person alive who wouldn't agree that it ought be granted...despite what our lying mouths might have to say about the matter.

Both are well seen and well understood.

The 'King James Christian' is seen.
Those who point their fingers at, and designate 'King James Christians' as 'others' are seen.

It's all seen.

With that said, I'd add a caveat in agreement with your position...where it's completely probable that this same person may very well have, in other areas, expressed a confused understanding, due to this 'lying mouth' which human beings appear to be saddled with for the time being...where they may very well have reflected confused expressions whilst attempting to consolidate and reconcile their brain and their heart with what's written in the bible, much less pertaining to what is true to God's Word, and what is not.

('God's Word' simply means:

'God's meaning/intent/effect/character/person/attributes/nature/love/life/truth/innocence'.)

It happens that its synonymous with 'the truth' as is proven by, for example, the practical effects of revenge vs. forgiveness, and many other effective benchmarks and litmus tests which can be bore out and well understood.

Perhaps, we'll get to this part of the conversation a bit later...but there is no need to address this before first pinning down our metaphysical landscape where certain ideas can them be seamlessly intuited, understood, and seen.)

At times, we are all confused.
At times, we are not at all confused.

It is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for human beings to accurately disseminate God's Word with perfect effect, and/or to do it without having our own lying mouths slander and/or blaspheme against Him in the process.

The reason it's said "do not judge", is because while the misbehaviour of human beings is also problematic, it is, fundamentally, and at its epitome, symptomatic.

I once heard an appropriate parable about two very good brothers sitting under a tree having a rest:

A lone joker, in the bushes, without a true friend in the world, much less a brother, thought that it would be fun to throw a stone at one of them.

After being hit in the face, the one brother awoke with a start, and seeing nobody else around, assumed his brother was pretending to be asleep began yelling, "What'd you do that for!? I thought that we were just having a nice sleep under this tree for a minute! Why would you disrupt our moment like that?"

After reticently hearing his brother's explanation, they finally both fell back asleep.

Again, thinking it would help it feel better, the joker threw another stone at the other brother, where he then awoke with a start and assumed that his brother was taking wrongful retribution.

This continued until the joker's need for a friend was sated (which was probably 'never')...or until the brothers proved grace for their one another and imagined the idea that they might both be telling the truth, and that there was probably a joker in the bushes that they ought, together, seek out and declaw, defang, and dewing, so that it could no longer cause their blood to spill (which was probably 'eventually').

It's clear as day that people who commit crimes are being imprisoned...by the exact same effects which greatly, vastly, and to extremely large degrees are easily proven to have contributed to the possibility, probability, likelihood and, arguably, the necessity of 'said' misbehaviour in the first place...

...and which is only in its position to point its finger at the criminal, call them "other", and have them apprehended...due to its very own ungodly misbehaviour and mistreatment of "others" in the first place.

It's clear how irritating this point of fact is, how deep-seated and systemic this matter is, how seemingly impossible it is to admit, much less address, and its nauseatingly tedious characteristics and effects.

But this does not mean that this point isn't thoroughly relevant, at the pinnacle, and a completely cogent and necessary hypocrisy that we need to answer for, and correct, if we're going to enable our ability to better identify what is the truth and what is not.

It hints that it can't be overlooked or put aside, spoken around, or ignored, if we're to find and understand paradigms and perceptions which are more accurate to objective reality.

(This is not to say that this is what you, Lemontang, are or aren't doing...but I'm an eye-witness...with no ambiguity...regarding how this unpalatable point is shoved down the throats of our psyches, from birth, with impressive effect...and how its done solely by the effects of our lying mouth and the misbehaviour which it's encouraged...and where we're convinced to subconsciously accept and assume this lie as 'the best that we can do' and 'that's just how things are' and 'it's just the way that things natural are' and 'we don't want to directly/indirectly exploit and/or bomb our own babies and/or neighbours, but we really don't see any other choice" and 'etc.' 'etc.' 'etc.'.)

I apologize for the lengthy chapter...

But it's not easy to voice 'digital ideas' (metaphysical) using analog means (physical).

(Later, perhaps, we can examine if/where/why/how some of 'the physical' attributes of this locale might be antithetical to 'the metaphysical'.)

@Lemontang said in #228:

Now we are moving into Christian Apologetics and larger theology where we are now redefining God in perhaps something similar to Bergson's Elan Vitale or Paul Tillich's Ground of Being etc.

Indeed. I feel that this conversation is moving forward very nicely!

And yes! Let's move into what's been called "Christian Apologetics".

However, let's first eviscerate and divorce the confused context of "Christian" which was implicit with your idea of "Christian Apologetics", due to having been ill-defined by a very confused, dynamic, and subjective mish-mash of influences...undoubtedly effected by this apparent 'lying mouth' which human beings have been saddled to be influenced and confused by...

...and let's endeavour ourselves to first correct this misuse and abuse of language...

...where the objective intention, foci, and function of certain words (!!and therefore language, itself!!)...has been supplanted to reflect, convey, and communicate the meaning of their subjective antithesis.

Let's, instead, re-install and return to the actual definition of "Christian":

"The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11 after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year. The text says that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26)."

"Christians" are the people who were following Jesus the Christ.

Jesus, with obvious authority and ties to the truth, gave us exactly one commandment:

"Love your one another, especially your so-called 'enemies', perfectly." - God

Therefore, implied is "a Christian is someone who perfectly loves their one another, without pause or exception".

It's not a small point that we've painted ourselves into such a needlessly painful 'backwards world'!

(It's not lost on anyone that not only have many of the ideas of Christianity morphed into their antithesis, such as prosperity gospel, and such as the Catholic institution, in a plethora of different ways, selfishly choosing to misbehave ungodly instead of lovingly choosing to behave godly...but that we seem to be steadily 'influenced to influence' by this same 'opposite land'.

This is not a new phenomenon.

I'm reminded of a place and time, thousands of years ago, where the Hebrew clergy, on behest of those who proclaimed to have 'the best ability to look into the truth behind our metaphysical context of our existence' all proclaimed:

"Our god" will save us from "our" "enemies".

And it's easy to see exactly where, why, and how our 'lying-mouth' accrued this slandered misinterpretation...

When, obviously, the writing on the wall actually said:

'The God has/is/will save us all from our enemy.'

They considered "their enemies" to be "other" human beings, and completely overlooked the same lying mouth which human beings are apparently saddled with for the time being...and which we've had a bad habit of empowering...and which often has convinced us to do a very good job of ignoring and disavowing the existence of...through use of convenient alibis and pseudo-excuses...as it relegates itself to blindspots where it can continue to throw stones and hide its hands...and while it leaves our bloody hands left carrying the bag.)

Anyway, this can be the only real competent, literal, truthful, and most of all, effective definition of the word "Christian"...and anything else would be to adhere to a definition which has, over time, been influenced, perverted, sullied, tampered with, diminished, mitigated, spun, slandered, and confused by the fictions of our 'lying mouth' and its ill effects...just as it does to all which it directly/indirectly affects...apparently without exception.

Notice, as soon as the truthful and competent definition of "Christian" is re-installed, the need for "apologetics" automatically disappears into thin air, and those who argue against what is called "Christian apologetics" find themselves on the exact same hot seat that those who argue in favour of what is called "Christian Apologetics" are on.

It's as though we're, all, being pigeon-holed to speak only the truth.

Isn't it cool how that works, eh? :) :) :)
Isn't it cool why it should be the case that it works that way, eh? :) :) :)
Isn't it cool that we should be here to see how it's the case that it works that way? :) :) :)

The idea that there isn't a metaphysical 'lock' that we can all intuit holds us prisoner, is negligible.
The idea that there isn't a metaphysical 'key' that could free us, is negligible.
The idea that a lack of love, in all of its many forms, isn't our biggest/only problem, is negligible.
The idea that a perfect amount of Love, in all of its many Forms, isn't our biggest/only solution, is negligible.

No, obviously, there is no need to hold to the conclusions of mathematics professors who have confused and sabotaged underpinnings of "2+2=5" as their fundamental assumption...nor is there a need to hold to the conclusions of those who challenge that professor and who do it motivated only by that exact same "2+2=5" fundamental assumption and miscalculation.

It makes very good sense to just put this strawman to bed, where it belongs.

@Lemontang said in #228:

However, we can certainly agree that the KJC interpretation of God is a square peg to a round hole in these problems...

I'm not sure if you've ever read the book "Dirt", but the parts that I've learned about are real eye-openers, in particular, King James (at least I think it was him?).

I learned about it from a 3-part series by Dr. William Mackey Jr. called "The Geo-Political History of the Holy Bible".

You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSXhBCvwneM&list=PLyu3cDR9xX1V0AS4dz64PTQEGh0GBdDy2

Dr. Mackey Jr. does a phenomenal job of highlighting the many different under currents which have influenced the re-writing the bible.

It's a fascinating, eye-opening, and instructive 7-hours...and it's very well worth the look.

That said, I really want to drill down on what you're calling "the KIC interpretation"...because it appears to be saddling the responsibility of the inability to accurately assess God and His will, with that of King James' context.

And, while I don't at all disagree with the point I think that you're making...alongside King James' inaccurate interpretation of God, is also your own and my own inaccurate interpretations of God's nature, God's will, and God's effect...and I'm fairly certain that we can set our watches to the responsibility for those inaccurate interpretations, and confusions, being traced to 'the lying mouth' that the human being appears to be saddled with for the time being.

What's very interesting is that we can see exactly if, where, how, and why this 'lying mouth' has been of strong effect to make Him unclear to us.

For far too long its been far too tempting to attempt to simply disavow and divorce meaning from the context of life which we're here to observe.

One of the 'pinnacles of hypocrisy' which I alluded to earlier, threatens us with all kinds of insanity if we dare even begin to think about attempting to call 'a spade a spade'...

...assess 'what is' and 'what ought'...

...and follow the necessary conclusions which we arrive at...

...and so our natural reaction has been to attempt to ignore/disavow/mitigate/slander the meaning behind our context of life...

...and yes...

...we can easily trace and track which lies that 'lying mouth' told in order to help convince us to...

...and we can easily trace and track all of the effects thereof.

I look forward to further drilling down on this point of 'the lying mouth', because it's interesting how God appears in our peripheral, as we focus on, and drill down, on this matter of 'the lying mouth'...10 out of 10...would highly recommend.

@Lemontang said in #228:

This concept must be more clear.

Wonderful. Thank you for asking for clarification.
I'll try to be much more clear.

This point of fact is crucial, and it's important to annihilate all ambiguity surrounding it.

Example #1:

Right now, there is probably an alcoholic, somewhere, who is struggling with what we call "their addiction to alcohol".

Probably, we say things like, "That person both wants nothing more than to drink another bottle, and they also want nothing more than to never have had a drop in the first place, and to never have another drop ever, again."

Probably, we say these kinds of things because we recognize the selfish pull that a bottle might have in regards to the psyche of an alcoholic, and we also recognize the loving pull that reconciliation with one's friends and family, and with one's self, also has.

At first glance, it appears as though both opposites are true of this person, and that both are true at the very same time.

However, when we peel back the veneer, we find that, "I want another bottle of booze," is a lie that's merely observed by the person, and "I want sobriety," is the truth which the actual person intends.

(Incidentally, it's not a coincidence that 100% of the human beings on this planet can accurately describe which of these misbehaviours is a selfish lie, and which of these behaviours is loving truth...but we can shelf this 'aside' until later in the conversation where it will have more meaningful and relevant context.)

Example #2: Right now, there is probably a couple who were made for each other. They were, and are, deeply in love with each other. They were, and are, in a committed relationships with one another.

However, as time goes on, sometimes we experience some tension in relationships, and sometimes we might push our partners' buttons a little more than we feel we need to, and sometimes we might end up with some animosity accompanying the love and affection that we have for our partners.

Many of us work/study/play/associate alongside many others, and sometimes chemistry can arise between colleagues/acquaintances.

In these kinds of situations, he/she might easily find themselves observing thoughts of, "Isn't your colleague really cute/hot? They're really into you, you're really into them, you guys obviously have some chemistry, and they're not giving you any of the hostilities of your significant other! I'm just saying!"

Of course, it's sometimes experienced as, "Oh wow, I find my colleague really cute/hot! They're really into me, I'm really into them, we obviously have some chemistry, and they're not giving me any of the hostilities that my significant other is! Whoa... what an interesting experience!"

As the days progress, he/she might witness many different 'discussions' within his/her mind:

Ideas of, "If you hear me out and really think about it...your partner might actually deserve your infidelity because"...
Ideas of, "If you hear me out and really think about it...your partner is practically daring you to misbehave yourself"...
Ideas of, "I watched you warn your partner that something could happen...and he/she is still contributing towards animus"...
Ideas of, "If you abc xyz, your partner wouldn't even know"...
Ideas of, "Plus, if you really thinkg about it, you'll probably be less on edge around your partner, and it might be good for the relationship"...

Experienced as, "My partner might actually deserve my infidelity because"...
Experienced as, "My partner is daring me to mistreat them"...
Experienced as, "I've warned my partner, and they're still contributing towards the animus in the relationship"...
Experienced as, "If I abc xyz, my partner wouldn't even know"...
Experienced as, "Plus, as I think about it, I'd probably be less on edge around him/her, and it might be good for the relationship"...

If we're convinced to ignore the loving foundation of that relationship and to betray our partner, then we end up with a completely separate variation from the one where we put our faith in that love, and in the value of that trust, and in the value of our partner.

With that said, reducing this to simple "temptation" is no where near adequate.
We can do much better than that.

Not only can we suss out and pin down the ontology of the matter, which is metaphysical...but we can make all kinds of predictions and prove all kinds of conclusions that we can set our watch to.

We can do with math what we do with algebra in order to prove our solution for 'x' or 'y' correct!

More on this point in a little bit...

@Lemontang said in #228:

Example #3:

A friend of mine, whom I would regularly play chess with, would periodically hear me say, "Yikes...you really got me thinking about this position! Wow!"
His response was often to joke, "Oh no...don't do that...there's no need to think!"

Of course he was talking about me overlooking something and making a mistake, where he could then scoop up an easy win, and where my complicated threats against his position, which give chess players a type of a 'puzzle-headache', would immediately evaporate.

His psyche had automatically calculated that this would be 'best', 'most fun', 'most enjoyable', 'the best course of action', 'the path of least resistence'.

Curious to examine our human condition, on one occasion, I did exactly as he joked, and I threw the rest of the game.

As we lined up the pieces again, I asked if he'd prefer me to play good chess at my best, or if he'd prefer another thoughtless game.

With a smirk he said, "I want both!"

So, I presented him with the dichotomy, and then asked him which represented his 'true' self.

He immediately intuited that "a good game of chess, where we both play our best, win/lose/draw" was the best...and he somehow knew that it was the truth of the matter without needing to invest any "thought" about it.

We examined the source of the 'idea that wanted the easy win', and it was easy to find its underpinnings and fundamental origins within the ingredient of 'death' which we find within this univeral locale.
We found that it could very well be the exact same "voice" that keeps us safe when crossing the street.
We found that it could very well be extremely deep-seated and probably functions on all kinds of conscious/semi-conscious/subconscious levels.
We found that it could very well bear great responsibity in regards to a significant percentage of thoughts/ideas which enter our mind's eye, and which might come, go, and be acted upon, almost automatically.

Further, we found that it could be a tall order to separate ourselves from it.

It became a bit irritating to understand that it's not only not actually alive, nor does it represent what's objectively best for us...but that its default setting is to remind and convince us to assume that we're too weak to do what's best for us ourselves...and that all we're capable of is it's damage can contrive as the 'runner-up' reality that we ought be saddled to live within.

And, it wasn't lost on me that this very same 'lying-voice', only a few weeks prior, had just convinced someone to kill his neighbour, mere feet away from where we played, only a few weeks prior.

When we examine the matter, we find that our thoughts reflect many things.

"I'm hungry! I'd like a plate of food!"
"I'm gassy and around people whom I want to impress! I have to go to the bathroom!"
"I'd like to cheat on my significant other!"
"I like how sex feels great!"
"I like how BBQ smells and tastes wonderful!"
"If I mistreat my neighbour, I can have what that they've accrued and I can have what I want!"
"I want!"

If we go with our 'best guess' as to how we've come across our opposable thumbs, we quickly find that while our opposable thumbs, as well as our ability to observe and use them, are the effect of life...but where we've also added much death into the mix, mish-mashing with our life, in order to give our thumbs, and their "development" their specific effect...within this particular context of life.

We say the same about the long-necked giraffe vs. the short-necked giraffe:

We explain that while the long-necked giraffe had access to all food sources, e.g. the leaves on tall trees, the short trees, as well as the grass and bushes on the ground; that, in times of drought, the short-necked became extinct, proving itself a fatal mutation, due to being limited to only being able to access the leaves on the short trees, bushes, and the grass.

We call the genes of the long-necked giraffe "evolved".
We call the genes of the short-necked giraffe "a fatal mutation".

Likewise, we call our thumbs "evolved" and our extinct hominoid cousins "fatal mutations".

However, is this the truth or is this a lie?

Depending whom we ask, across over 5 billion examples, over 99% of the species upon this planet have gone extinct.
When we call 'Tomorrow' to the stand, it testifies that we are no exception.

Thus, it is inaccurate to reality, and untruthful, to call our genes "evolved", "the opposite of fatal mutations", when they are, actually, and in fact, fatal mutations.

Obviously, we've replaced the reality of our state of affairs, with a fiction...and even to the extent that we would confuse death with "life"...much less "who" made Whom.

When our lying mouth values the feeling of sex due to it's apparent links to our "survival"...
When our lying mouth values the smell of cooking meat because, not too long ago, that smell meant that we got to live another day and "survive...

We see a VASTLY deeper initiative behind our difficulties in regards to our ability to more easily adopt/uncover/acclimate ourselves with the paradigm of truth!

Having our lying mouths sum up the metaphysical impact of infidelity with the simple matter of "temptation", whilst then assuming a religious connotation that implies it's a subjective perspective, is not the best that we can do.

And again, I want to be crystal clear, here...I am not at all using "our lying mouths" in a condescending way!
It's now been tied in with, and proven to be a part of, both our sex drive and also the reason behind cheesy BBQ smelling fantastic and tasting almost magical!

These are arguments which my own lying mouth has attempted to value in the past, and I don't mind admitting, and can show how, I did so with a flippant complacence...even if it indicts the paradigms and assumptions which I used to operate under...given the (mis)information which I had at the time.

Lastly, on this point of 'lying mouth'...now that we can't simply gloss it over with some inadequate idea like "simple temptation...whatever that is..."

...now that we've drilled to its roots and realize that ungodliness is as default and natural as going to the bathroom...we can now identify another idea in regards to its effects and how its manifested within our collective psyche. (By the way, as a thought experiment, it might be worthwhile to interpolate everything that it would and wouldn't be droning on about if it reflected the context of only Perfect Love!!)

Anyway, popular opinion has supplanted the Catalyst of Our Life, with the idea that we owe our lives to "the ability to survive"...which is obviously a complete fiction.
Which is not a surprise...because this deadly and ungodly environment has made clear a confused and unintelligent mouth, and has given it space to spew its drivel, which reflects its ungodly attributes.

Alongside this confusion regarding the Author of Life, enters the problem of praising this universal locale for creating the life which we reflect, and/or praising nature as "the source of life".

Thus, we now have books such as 'The 48 Laws of Power' where our lying mouth enjoys free reign to share its confused and asinine side of the story...where it explains why everything is "as good as it can be" and how "everything is working well" and "don't worry about a thing, I'm responsible for life, and I am forever" and "I will never die away, I promise" and "never mind the 99% of life which has gone extinct, I know what I'm doing".

Thanks to its effects, women are assigned a 1-10 based on their so-called "beauty"; men are assigned a 1-10 based on their so-called "status", and the value of life has been diminished.

Thanks to its effects, our kids are looking in the mirror, being convinced to call themselves 'ugly', hating what they see, and concluding that they'll never be high enough on the 1-10 scale of "beauty standard", and they are killing themselves.

Thanks to its effects, adults who can't afford their families presents, while their families watch others receive gifts, are convinced that they are inadequate and that they deserve to die, killing themselves.

Thanks to its effects, most of society feels that its role is to be preyed upon by those who have the ability to price gouge and plan obsolescence.

Thanks to its effects, many nations feel as though its their role to be preyed upon by those who have the ability to corrupt their governments and continue stealing their resources.

Thanks to its effects, nations who've been preyed upon by the lying mouths of war criminals, now desire to have the ability to prevent their predators from damaging them. As such, every nation on this planet covets the means to most efficiently kill the human species, and this is touted as an "important feature if we're going to 'survive' ourselves".

Thanks to is effects, young girls are saddled with deep seated wounds, because Uncle Lester is "just doing what comes natural to him". Then, she grows up to be further exploited to do the blindspots within her psyche which allow her to be more easily preyed upon...as she...in turn...exploits sex addicts who have their own deep-seated damage functioning behind their psyches. And this is before we even discuss the coercion of women to take of their clothes for money.

In other words, what this 'lying mouth' has convinced society to deem as "most important", has been catastrophically confused by the precedent and protocol of the ungodly effects that it has incurred upon us.

Finally, we can track down where our vanity comes from, where our idea of "beauty standard" comes from, where our idea of "status" comes from...and they are all nothing more than an 'idolic' fiction which stems directly from us confusing the nature within this universal locale, with "God".

We've taken our cues from the birds with their boastful voices and silly dances, frogs that can croak the loudest, we've taken our cues from the biggest rams with the biggest horns, we've taken our cues from hawks devouring bunnies, and we've even now added our own twist to these matters, including hoarding all bunnies and then coercing and manipulating other hawks if they want some bunnies to eat.

We've allowed our lying mouth to convince us that this is the best that we're capable of.

We've allowed our lying mouth to convince us that this is what we deserve...er...created for ourselves and wanted for ourselves.

We've failed to consider a context of life without any death or other ungodly attributes.

We've failed to consider that we may be assuming this universal locale, and all of its ungodly attributes as being fundamental; and, as such, we've left ourselves wide open to 'begging the question' before we are even able to begin to ask accurate, truthful, meaningful, relevant, and productive questions regarding ontological matters...much less finding the functional answers thereof.

(I don't mean to seem as though I'm adding poetry, I'm not. The metaphysical probably underpins the physical, not the other way around. Thus, there are certain ideas and truths which not only lie in crevices which our pudgy physical fingers can't access...they are probably also more real, and more relevant, than our fingers, themselves!)

So, the equation is very simple:

Perfect Love is godly. A lack thereof is ungodly.

This is the metaphysical equivalent of "2+2=4".)

Also, it dons on me that you might ask for clarification with the idea of the 'Catalyst of Life' being synonymous with being Perfect Love, having the effect of Perfect Truth, Perfect Life, and Perfect Innocence...but...as natural born scientists, we know exactly how to plug in different models in order to test them for integrity and reliable conclusions...and this point is one such.

So, regardless of the 5-sense experiment that our lying mouth might demand to look at before "allowing us" to entertain the idea that it might not be the only "god" in the room...this is one of those areas where our lying mouth has to sit outside, while we look around and see what kinds of metaphysical formulas we can corroborate and discover.

We send rockets to the moon based on the exact same principle...but in this case...we're dealing with metaphysical instead of physical.

And, a bit later, when I say, "If this world had many more Christians, bombs would not exist, much less be dropped on human beings," that ought serve as proof of concept, evidence, and conclusion.)

(Until now, many of us, myself included, have looked around and have had absolutely no idea how it is that we would be facing certain hot-button issues regarding our ability to accurately define terms and our confusion surrounding what we call 'reality' and 'the truth'...and we've appeared completely confused...and have utterly lacked sufficient context to explain what it is that we are seeing...how it's occurred, why it's occurred, where it came from, or the context with which in it exists.

Hopefully, this might not only help shed some light on the matter...but...more to my point...hopefully we can begin to connect the dots and begin to realize what metaphysical testimony, metaphysical proof, and metaphysical litmus tests might look like...despite what our lying mouths might have to say about their existence.)

Also, and likewise, it is inaccurate to reality, and untruthful, to use "the survival of our species" or "the survival of my body" or "the survival of my group" as though this idea is anything more than a complete fiction, sold wholesale, to all of us, as well.

For anyone whose ever been winded or otherwise deprived of oxygen, or even just lacerated, burned, or otherwise injured in any way, it's obvious the way in which our very own physical cells and biology collude to convince us of this fictional idea of "physical survival".

I am very sensitive to the accusatory "he's just playing word games" that I can hear our lying mouth droning on about...but the reality of the matter is...I'm only here in this thread to help correct the actual word games which have been played against us by that same lying mouth.

It's not an accident that, with the logical exception of (perfect) love, it looks as though everything that we do "in the name of survival" doesn't appear to have a snowball's chance to achieve that prerogative.

It is not confusing to me why this is the case or why it is that we're here to observe it.
And it is not in question whether there is actually a "why", or not.

(We can challenge this point, but then we're stuck trying to imagine the logistics involved with a mental landscape that would attempt to present a meaningful argument against the existence of meaning. And, unlike the scape-goat/whipping-boy which our lying mouth projects as "god" and then calls to the stand to "logically" prosecute...and where that same lying mouth then attempts to testify "the truth"...this is an actual paradox, full of meaning, which, by contrast, lays bare the meaningless waste of time that our lying mouth's so-called 'ominpotence paradox' would have us attempt to sign off on.)

(Apologies for the side-track. I thought that it was important for context, proof, relevence, and for effectively communicating the bredth and depth of the idea which I'm attempting to share.)

So, back to the 'lying mouth'...

When we understand the idea of some accidental and unintelligent process, randomly mutating life with its objectively unproductive effects, so that it can proverbially 'throw life at the wall to see what sticks'; and where what sticks it calls "evolved", and what does not it calls "fatal mutation"; and where it conflates "evolved" with "strong" and "desireable" and "fatal mutation" with "weak" and "undesireable"; and where this process must, literally and by necessity, first accidentally and randomely pseudo-guess every single possible incorrect answer...before it can then finally arrive to the point where life is sticking to the wall for the moment...and which it then finally pseudo-points to and says, "Ah-hah! It's evolved! Look at me and what I can do!"...before then killing that, too, and continuing the process near ad infinitum and well past ad nauseum...and when we can see that this pseudo-contribution to our context of life...which feigns intelligence and convincingly has us accredit intelligence to it...alongside our life...and feigns to take credit for it...we're then beginning to see where this lying mouth has its origins...and we're then...finally...able to understand the bredth of depth of its pseudo-qualities and how it impacts our experience within this particular context of life.

And that's not even factoring in the way that chattel slavery, for-profit farming, planned obsolescence, tobacco manufacturing, the R.I.C.O. practices of the World Bank and how they tamper with and prey on the nations which they've incurred grievous scars upon, human trafficking, etc., play out this exact same metaphysical scenario of exploited/exploiter and/or predator/prey within in our physical environment.

Again, the idea that something physical could so flawlessly match with something metaphysical, leaves us no room to deny it, it's significance, its meaning, its context, its reason for existing, or the truth which it is reflecting.

People are quick to point at the hawk eating the bunny, and the human being eating a pig whose life they've made miserable...everyone is quick to point out how "natural" that is...with the implicit confusion and assumption that "this universal nature creates life"..."its God"..."it knows best"...but when we come face-to-face with our own wars, be they personal, interpersonal, or international...and when we see this matter played out when it pertains to our own child's face on the milk carton...all of a sudden...out of the other side of our mouths...we proclaim..."That's wrong! That shouldn't be! They shouldn't misbehave like that!" and/or "This is meaningless!" and/or "Karma will punish!" and/or "There is no God!"

@Lemontang said in #228

Observe:

"I'm hungry! I'd like a plate of food!"
"I'm gassy and around people whom I want to impress! I have to go to the bathroom!"
"I'd like to cheat on my significant other!"
"I like how sex feels great!"
"I like how BBQ smells and tastes wonderful!"
"If I mistreat my neighbour, I can have what that they've accrued and I can have what I want!"
"I want!"

All of these, from the hungry belly, to the sex drive, to the greed, to the willingness to mistreat, and the willingness to excuse ones mistreatment of others, while demanding correction when the target of that same mistreatment...all of these are a direct result of the selfish, inaccurate, deadly, and ungodly attributes within this universal locale...which are, almost certainly, reflecting ungodly opportunities for correction within our human spirit.

Think about it, while you and I have a conversation crossing the street, both of us won't skip a beat while we consciously focus on the conversation...but semi-consciously/subconsciously we're both looking both ways before crossing, without even really paying any real attention to that process.

This is the process which is partially responsible for keeping us alive as long as we've lived...but we probably shouldn't assume that it is the process to Whom we owe our life to...despite what it has convinced us to say about the matter.

It is, however, the same process which has roots regarding the specifics of the context of life within this particular universe, namely, everything that we intuit is needless, everything that we could do without, and everything that really ought not exist in the first place.

I fully understand the objection that, "If it saves us from a Mack truck, then how is it a bad thing? Obviously, it must be something that we can always set our watch to!"

And, as I said, this 'lying mouth' has no problem telling part of the truth twice a day, and/or when its convenient.

I fully undestand the objection that, "How can we have (this context) of life without death involved?"

And, no different than attempting to present a meaningful argument against the existence of objective meaning, this, too, is a ruthless non-starter as, without life, first, our lying mouth wouldn't be in existence to argue any untruth in the first place.

In other words, while up and down are opposites, while -10 and +10 are opposites, while white and black are opposites, these all exist only under the umbrella of life.

Thus, to argue life and death as 'opposites', might fall short.

It is skeptical that there is a law that states, "Anywhere life is, so there must be the lying mouth".

And, it is totally skeptical that there is a law that states, "Anywhere life is, so there must be a lying mouth, masquerading as life, itself, successfully convincing life to listen, believe, and react to its ungodly ideas, under the guise of "truth".

I admit that I don't fully undestand the objection of, "Without sadness, how could we experience joy? Without bad health, how could we experience good health?"

But I remember my pops once positing me this nugget of insight, and its really puzzled me ever since.
I'm often surprised at myself, and wonder why/how it is that I haven't yet landed firmly on the side of those who repeat this idea?

I'm still thinking about it...but I suspect that...as with up and down or -10 and +10...the same similes probably can't be applied regarding matters of love, truth, life, innocence...for the reasons in the aforestated point about attempting to argue a meaningful statement against the existence of objective meaning...with blends of "begging the question" fallacy.

It seems as though that paradox is part and parcel, and synonymous with, one's attempt to label 'life and death' as being part of the same system where they are inter-dependent upon one another.

Also, I would posit an additional ideas on the matter:

Growing up, I didn't first have to lose one of my friends to death in order to enjoy their company.

Also, I don't anticipate that people enjoy their friends and family so much more, as there are fewer and fewer people alive on the planet who recognize them.

But, at the same time, I do recognize the difference between getting into a hottub after being in a sauna, and getting into the hottub after being in a cold pool.

But with that said, it also dons on me that after a few minutes...one can't tell whether one was priorly in a sauna or in a cold pool.

"It's unambiguous, and we can look within our own lives, as well as through our collective history, and we can see, predict, prove, and measure its modus operandi and its effects, with total precision."
I think if this were true all of ethical philosophy would be solved. But here the specifics become cumbersome.

Cumbersome to say the least!!

You try and tell someone whose had their partner withold affection as punishment, that they shouldn't go for drinks after work with that special work colleague who excites their biology...much less that their partner should have chosen to show some grace, in the first place, instead of leveraging affection as punishment...much less that whatever would have had him/her opt to do so, probably, also, ought not have been opted into existence, no doubt, by someone allowing that 'lying mouth' its time to speak and/or considering what that lying mouth has to say as being "true".

You try and tell someone whose been imprisoned by a war criminal that they shouldn't fight for their freedom...much less that the crimes of the war criminal ought not have been existence in order to cause the reaction...much less that whatever would have had the war criminal opt to do so, also, ought not have been opted into existence, no doubt, by the person/people allowing that 'lying mouth' its time to speak and/or considering what that lying mouth has to say as being "true".

You try and tell someone whose been smoking a pack a day, for decades, that its time to quit.

You try and tell someone who can place a put-option on an untraceable inside trade that they shouldn't.

You try and tell someone whose great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren might have a severe shortage of fossil fuels, and where that fuel might be extremely vital to their ease and quality of life, that they shouldn't watch cars do laps and burn copious amounts of fuel in the process.

You try and tell someone not to destroy a whole whack of "surplus" blood diamonds so that they can continue to collect top dollar on the market.

You try and tell someone not to treat for-profit mammals in ways that they, themselves, sometimes have trouble stomaching, all because there is a market which caters to our thoroughly influenced and vested taste buds, and our unwillingness to choose lovingly.

You try and tell someone not to overeat, when they've been mistreated as a child and do so as a literal defence mechanism against a perceived, persistent, predator.

Man...I can go on and on and on and on!

It's wild the way that people feign to champion and value the existence of "freedom" (to exploit "others" and/or "themselves"?) which is easily shown to actually be slavery.

It's wild the way that people rally against 'big government' for infringing on their "freedom" (to better exploit "others" and/or "themselves"?) whilst simultaneously cow-towing and bending to an ungodly effect which would dictate how BBQ smells, what sex feels like, and the desire to have what others can't afford.

It's like someone choosing to bang their head against prison bars due to some unseen influence, while simultaneously complaining about the way that the slight breeze is affecting their hair-do and causing a few hairs to fall out of place...

...and even "choose", in this context, deserves some attention.

With that said, the famous 'trolly problem' can be managed by considering that it only exists within a locale where death has been mixed with life...where ungodliness has been mixed with godliness...where unloving mistreatment has been mixed with loving treatment...where lies have been mixed with truth...where guilt and shame has been mixed with innocence.

Also, it needs to be made perfectly clear that when our lying mouths first contribute towards an environment of death, and then start the camera rolling while they shove it in our face to ask us how we're prepared to deal with it and explain our surroudings and circumstances...(much less the faces of our children)...all while simultaneously accusing us and judging us as being solely responsible for the death we've wrought...it becomes a bit tedious!

It's a little bit like when we falsely accuse God for the ungodly things that we've contributed towards, where if we actually met Him, we'd be ashamed of ourselves for doing so.
It should be considered that it might be infinitely easier to steal candy from one's own well behaved newborn, after slapping it across the mouth, than it is to challenge God to His face.

On this point of failing to recognize and adequately diagnose exactly where and how that lying mouth has contrived itself, I think that you're completely incorrect in saying that if a 'lying mouth' could be recognized, that then our ethical opportunities for solutions would be solved.

Perhaps now that I've expanded on what I mean by 'our lying mouth', it is a bit more clear the impact that its quasi-existence has and how its relevant to the question of us watching our lying mouths attempt to answer the question of "if God is cruel" and "omniscience paradox" and "argument of complexity" and everything else that it goes on and on about...including why its necessary to kill our own babies in order to ensure their survival.

In my view, the fact that this 'lying mouth' is still allowed influence, despite our ability to trace and track its modus operandi and derogatory effects, from start to finish, is not evidence that it doesn't quasi-exist.

It is evidence that it does.

And it is evidence that it is every bit as problematic, unnecessary, needless, and nasty as it sometimes illuminates itself to be.

I need simply ask you the following:

Lemontang, would you like to awake into a context of life where everyone is 100% trustworthy, and where you choose to behave with perfect integrity, and where the idea of someone betraying someone's trust is nothing more than a complete science-fiction?

Lemontang, would you prefer to be mistreated in order to sate someone's selfish and lying mouth, so that you can, in turn, justify continuing to sate your own selfish and lying mouth at someone else's expense?

Or would you prefer there to be nothing but loving treatment throughout the context of your life, at all times, everywhere, and without any pause?

Lemontang, since war anywhere within a locale, is war everywhere within a locale, would you prefer to wake up in a locale of peace, or one of war?

Also, I'm not being facetious, here, I'm genuinely curious...because I've been encountering people who are attempting to argue that being mistreated is a wonderful thing that they would miss if it didn't occur...and who maintain that their inability to enjoy mistreatment isn't a flaw regarding someone's misbehaviour, but that it's a flaw in their perception of the matter. Are you one such?

It's been very interesting to watch today's purported "thought leaders" all brush aside the challenge of evil.

"Of course I don't want to see dead bodies!"
"Of course I don't want to see hunger!"
"Of course I don't want to see all kind of people exploited in all manner of ways!"

"What kind of question is that?" they say.
"What does that prove?" they ask.

Very simple.

Wanna see some magic?

Watch carefully...

If this planet was filled 100% with Christians, who exercised Christianity perfectly, there would be no bombs falling from the sky today.

This is unimpeachable.
This is a matter of fact.
This is without denial.

This is proof positive that He is practically, effectively, logistically, the only Solution to our only problem!

And this is also proof positive that Christianity, alongside Reality Itself, is either not religion at all, or the only Religion.

Apparently, there are very specific parameters, behind a very rigid reality, which is obviously only going to reflect His meaning.

All kinds of people can come up with all kinds of weird imaginative and inventive 'bottom-up' metaphors and quasi-"meanings"...

But only this particular paradigm offers us the many verified 'top-down' contexts that we would associate with truth. (This functions as the equivalent of a detective corroborating testimony with physical evidence found at the scence.)

Things mean stuff...and...apparently...'meaning' is much more difficult to arbitrarily, and with vested interest, misappropriate than one would think!

It's easy to see how the lying mouth has difficulty perceiving itself...while attempting to sort itself a 'fictory' which writes us out of existence.

I repeat:

Fact #1: Everyone claims they don't want bombs falling from the sky, yet, they are.
Fact #2: If everyone were a Christian, there would be no bombs falling from the sky.

This is completely clinical.
This is plain fact without confusion.

This can't be ducked.
This can't be dodged.

"Meaning" lands squarely, and exclusively, on my side of this debate, and there is a very good reason for that.

Obviously, it is exactly how it is, because He is the only Way.
Obviously, we're here to confess this.

And its not a coincidence that, besides being commanded to love our one another, this was the other directive that we were given when He was here a few thousand years ago.

As I said, it's highly improbable that we're not here, within this particular context of life, in order to attempt to prove the opposition of love (perfect love isn't the only way).
As I said, it's highly improbable that this universal locale isn't reflecting what it is that we are arguing (it's OK to mix some ungodliness with the godliness).

As I said, it's not without very good reason that the idea of Him coming here to remind us of His Love and His Nature, is so incredibly heart-warming:

"Despite your own projections of Me which mostly reflect your own ugly quasi-nature...and even to the degree that your lying mouths would have you kill Me...I still love you.
And if you concede that in perfect love is the only way to live, then you can come back Home and I'll let you back in."

And, there is no telling what kind of a metaphysical beacon that 'warmed-heart' might represent and effect...but we have every good reason to understand and intuit that it's probably no different than the bleating of a lost lamb.

"With that said...I do see the effects of our 'lying mouth' in many parts of the Bible.

Indeed. But for where love and all of its many effects exist, this 'lying mouth' has thoroughly saturated and inundated this universal locale.

It's not difficult to see why people have been convinced to conclude that since godliness and ungodliness are temporarily intertwined, here, that so it must be the case, everywhere.

If everyone always threw a rock at someone entering a room...it would be almost impossible for such a sad group of people to envision the possibility of a room/society in existence, where one could so much as enter a room without first having to duck rocks.

Anyway, I think that I probably misunderstood your context in the above section.

I thought that you were saying that "If we could identify, trace, and track the effects of a lying mouth, that then we wouldn't be expressing/experiencing any issues with our ethical philosophy. And, thus, the 'lying mouth' doesn't exist or have any effect."

But here, you're saying that you recognize the 'lying mouth' within the bible.

I'm sure I've probably confused your meaning.

What are the litmus tests? Yes, in many scenarios our conscience is fought with a lying mouth and our egos getting in the way and some simple logic or even gut instinct can often disillusion us to the right path. But in more complicated scenarios ethical decisions are not as easy as, "Listen to God" or whatever the secular equivalent is. Furthermore, what makes these litmus tests more accurate than for instance the Categorical Imperative?

Great question.

The litmus tests exist within the methaphysics of meaning, and they aren't easily accessed by the same 'lying mouth' which is also thoroughly vested in disavowing the existence thereof.
I hope that I've given some excellent proofs as to what I'm alluding to, but I'm happy to work at some more.

With that said, it's probably critical that we not assume and complacently take for granted the particular aspects and state of affairs/context of life, and the meaning thereof.

According to what I'm trying to communicate...we have deep-seated influences that would have us do exactly that.

According to what I'm trying to communicate...it's a mandate that our lying mouths would look straight past Whom it is that we are seeking, and fail to recognize and deny Its existence, while demanding that we move on to something that is more fitting of its perception of the 'thing' that we ought find...and the "logical" attributes that it projects He must have.

For the writers of the old testament? This lying-mouth had us tell acute inaccuracies about God.
For the writers of Buddhist philosophy? This lying-mouth had us tell acute inaccuacies about God.
For the writers of new age spiritualism? This lying-mouth has us telling acute inaccuracies about God.

And I can only hope that I'm not attaching myself to this list...but I have many very good reasons to consider that I might offer a unique perspective...namely...as far as I'm aware...the majority of my ideas are original.

Also, according to what I'm saying regarding God's Nature and Attributes, when cross-checked with Kant's idea, we all get to start sleeping much more soundly, and eventually with two eyes completely closed, immediately. (This is one example where we can introduce the metaphysical litmus test which I've alluded to.)

But, with that said, it can't be understated the matter that when attempting to understand God, that we're doing it from a paradigm that's been mixed with His antitheses, and that we are, by default, therefore, fated to find learing the truth about Him, somewhat counter-intuitive.

It's not a mystery that we project ourselves, and all we know, and mislabel it as "information".
It's not a mystery that we project ourselves, and all we know, upon Him, and call that construct "god".

It's not a mystery that there should be copious amounts of, "Objection, your honour, on grounds of 'Begging The Question' fallacy by the prosecution, alongside failing to submit evidence, alongside there being actual video evidence that the prosecution is the actual perpetrator of this crime!"

@Lemontang said in #228

Also, it's not a surprise to learn of the 'Categorical Imperative'!

I'm glad to see Mr. Kant's recognition.

This was a very good find and I'm very glad that you brought it up.

This is starting to get very close to areas that I consider "metaphysical proof" and "metaphysical evidence" and "metaphysical testimony" and "ability to discern truth".

It certainly shares some terrain with the actual and functional definition of 'Christianity' which I've re-installed.

There might be a massive divide between Kant and myself, I'd have to learn a bit more...but from what I see, he's talking about a few things that can't really be easily feigned to be understood.

"Rational persons regard themselves as belonging to both the world of understanding and the world of sense. As a member of the world of understanding, a person's actions would always conform to the autonomy of the will. As a part of the world of sense, he would necessarily fall under the natural law of desires and inclinations. However, since the world of understanding contains the ground of the world of sense, and thus of its laws, his actions ought to conform to the autonomy of the will, and this categorical "ought" represents a synthetic proposition a priori."

I'd have to learn more about what Kant uncovered, but yeah, it looks like he's identified a significant tool within my toolbox.

I'm curious if he assumed that this universal locale is the only context of life?

Also, I'm very curious how he treated "others"?

Also, I'm very curious about what he has to say about love and God, and/or if he found a way to master linguistics in a way that would use these ideas as 'standins'?

But, it seems as though he's replaced "God" with "moral imperative", and that certainly won't do.

(We can certainly discuss 'why it won't do'...but the several painfully lengthy chapters have gone to painful lengths to make it painfully obvious.)

That said, there is no doubt that some of Kant's ideas will share traction with mine.

His frequent mention of moral and ethics seem to indicate that he does, and, moreover, he's identified that the natural world is contained within the world of meaning, instead of vice versa.

So, yeah, as far as I can tell in the 30 seconds I've spent reading about this work, he's already miles ahead of most of us.

But, with that said, lacking the idea of a God Who is perfectly loving, the meaning of love, and love 'itself', he'd have been stuck 'begging the question' regarding the problem of evil, where he'd have been stuck assuming that it's "just a part of life", when this is not at all the truth.

I'm very curious to see what would have occurred had he met God and lived to tell about it.
I'm very curious what kinds of conclusions he'd have then finally been able draw.

"As for the term "Christian", its only context is "those who follow Jesus"."

Sure! We can for instance throw out the lots of the Bible on account of the book of Esther not mentioning the word God once, the outdated rules of the Pentateuch that the early Christians sought to rewrite (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache), the fevered dream of a guy named John in Revelation and so on.

Almost, but not quite...

You mentioned the "early Christians" who sought to rewrite the Pentateuch...

Were you 'begging the question' in using the term "Christian", there?

Or were you referring to a group of people who followed Christ's commandment and flawlessly loved their neighbours, especially when it was most difficult to do?

Again, the idea that we're going to assume that by "God" we're talking about "someone's subjective beliefs, with equal parts imagination", won't do.

And the exact same goes for the word "Christian".

The idea that the only literate definition of "Christian" includes a world where everyone refuses to misbehave themselves unlovingly, can't be looked around. It is prescriptive and clinical. It is real. And it is demonstrated every time someone refuses the unloving misbehaviour of infidelity, in favour of the loving behaviour of fidelity...alongside the multi-generational effects that this incurs...and again...depended NOT upon 'which metaphysical constructs we choose to apply'....but depended on if we adhere to the ONLY metaphysical construct in all of existence, aka the Truth, aka Reality Itself, or not.

So, I'm certainly no more in favour of ignoring literate semantics, where a clear and clinical solution is offered, in favour of having our lying mouth superimpose it's illiterate abuse of language, and meaningless semantics, in place of critical ideas such as "God" aka 'Perfect Love, Life, Truth, Innocence,"...and ideas such as "Christian" aka 'Reflecting God's Will, Character, Person, Nature, Attributes, etc.'...that would be like a math professor leaving aside '2+2=4' in favour of teaching his/her class that '2+2=5'.

I submit that it would never happen in a PhD classroom, and that it should, likewise, not be permitted, here!

I have a ton more to say, but I'm curious about listening to your feedback!

To start, it seems as though we’re moving into the territory of asking, “What is right action?” Perhaps this is the best way to inquire into this reasoning. We begin with this concept of the lying mouth which if I may, will summarize as, “The drive for survival which influences our decision making by way of pseudo-excuse.” I like to imagine most people would agree that this is the state of affairs which governs a lot of evil in the world and is in all of us. It is obviously illogical to say,

The world is governed by survival. Therefore, we should act in accordance with survival.

This is because an observation about the world is not a reason the world ought to be any particular way. Thus, this statement has the exact same logical value as,

The world is governed by survival. Therefore, we should act in accordance with love.

I don’t feel the need to dissolve every poor argument one’s ego might use to justify their wrong-doing as I feel we’re on the same page.

We have example #2 where TLM asks us to stray from our partner and into wrong-doing. Why is this wrong? Is it because we are lying to our partner? If so, is there a situation where lying can be the right course of action like in telling the Nazi there are no Jews here? Is it the breaking of a promise? If so, would it be okay to break the vow to be always and forever if a partner is physically abusive? Is it the actual act of having multiple partners? If so, is there something wrong with an openly polygamous couple? If any of these are the reason this is wrong and this reason has exceptions then there is a massive can of worms here which we haven’t gotten any closer to resolving.

@Resurrection_of_Abel said,

“So, the equation is very simple:

Perfect Love is godly. A lack thereof is ungodly.

This is the metaphysical equivalent of "2+2=4".)

So, regardless of the 5-sense experiment that our lying mouth might demand to look at before "allowing us" to entertain the idea that it might not be the only "god" in the room...this is one of those areas where our lying mouth has to sit outside, while we look around and see what kinds of metaphysical formulas we can corroborate and discover.

We send rockets to the moon based on the exact same principle...but in this case...we're dealing with metaphysical instead of physical.

This is simply shifting the problem one step. What is right action? Well, it’s Perfect Love. And what is that? Or in the context of example #2, why is adultery wrong? Well, because it’s not Perfect Love. Why not? I’ve only added an extra step to my line of questioning.

To use this terminology, we have gotten closer to Perfect Love by dissolving TLM; but this is not sufficient to say what a person should and shouldn’t do in their life.

And this is where we come to Jesus.

@Resurrection_of_Abel said,

Jesus, with obvious authority and ties to the truth, gave us exactly one commandment:

"Love your one another, especially your so-called 'enemies', perfectly." - God

What obvious authority and ties to truth? Was it his miracles? There are other historical figures who performed miracles. Was it his claim to be the son of God? Several people who take psychedelic drugs today say this, in fact it’s a cornerstone to Hindu belief.

"Love your one another, especially your so-called 'enemies', perfectly." How do I do this? It is the exact same problem. What should the girl in the example with Uncle Lester do? Does she have the right to defend herself with force? Or is she to simply turn the other cheek/heal the soldier’s ear? What do we do about Uncle Lester? Should we simply love and forgive him? Does this change if he laughs and promises to do it again?

I think I’ll stop here as I feel there’s enough that’s been called into question.