Context is everything. Jesus said His followers would be hated for following him and that following him would divide families. We can see this today; Christians are hated by the world.
But this was just one of Jesus’s messages. If you read the Gospels, you will see that his main message was to love God and love your neighbor. He teaches about love dozens of times.
So read the Gospels and you will understand more.
Jesus didn’t say, “follow me and others will hate you”, which is rewriting the Bible …
Jesus said “hate everyone including yourself or you cannot be my disciple”
Yes, He did. Read the Gospel of Matthew.
Please stop pretending you are knowledgeable about the Bible.
“You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
That would make sense since he asks you to hate everyone, that you might equally be hated in return.
Jesus hated himself, he had a “splinter in his eye”.
Anything other than absolute perfection was hatred to Jesus …
I’ve read the gospels as well
Jesus even said “be perfect like the father is perfect”
lol troll.
if there was an intelligent ‘god’ out there, this ‘god’ would not make possible the knowledge of itself through the revelatory experiences we read about in religious text, because such experiences would be credited as dubious by intelligent people (which we have done). in other words, if this ‘god’ wanted to be known by 21rst century people, he would not have placed the evidence for his existence in the testimony of those who lived thousands of years ago. it’s very simple; god knows that we can’t know if these guys were full of shit, so he wouldn’t have used them.
therefore the knowledge of this ‘god’ would be purely rational; knowledge that is gained through deductive reason alone and impartial to any reputed historical experience that can’t be trusted, e.g., paul and jesus and muhammad and the gang. so revelatory religious text is not substantial enough to be taken as evidence for a ‘god’s’ existence. if there was a ‘god’, to hold faith in such text as evidence would be an insult to ‘god’s’ integrity.
knowledge of this ‘god’ would be accessible to anyone who had the capacity to reason, and a posteriori experience would be irrelevant (and muddled, as spinoza put it).
lol i shouldn’t have called this ‘god’ a ‘he’. such gender coding is another insult to ‘god’. my bad. call it an ‘it’.
Promethean,
You make a great and obvious point (great points are often obvious)
I’d posit it like this above and beyond your point.
If we assume god to be good, and the creator of all:
All one merely need do is to check in with themselves is say, “is my consent being violated right now?”
Of course, everyone will answer yes to this question.
This is a god disproof.
fuck this is gonna get complicated and i don’t wanna do all the leg work to sort it out for ya. there’s a lot to be said and it takes forever to say it all if it’s to be done right. that’s my dilemma at this juncture; to do it right, or not do it at all. so i’m gonna try and cheat a little.
the concept of ‘god’ which you believe your premise disproves is actually wrong on two counts. first, it’s an anthropomorphic concept of god, and second, it assumes that it wouldn’t be necessary for ‘evil’ to exist if such a god existed, anyway. so even if you were right in your anthropomorphic conception of ‘god’, you’d be wrong in your argument against evil. but since you’re wrong about your conception of ‘god’, you’re argument against evil is fortunately irrelevant.
so ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are completely relative concepts which reflect our incomplete knowledge of the natural necessity and perfect order of everything. shit happens like we like, we call it ‘good’. shit happens that sucks, we call it ‘evil’ (or ‘bad’ for those a little less extravagant in their terminology). but these things are not essential characteristics of substance… rather only attributes of the more crude emotions which we experience. as value judgments they are of a lower order than purely rational knowledge (of which is included the relative and contingent nature of ‘good’ and ‘evil’).
in any case, an existence of universal consent would be something static. it’s in the nature of what exists that it be changeable and dynamic, and therefore generative of the lower order of experiences of joy and sorrow and all those other tedious little emotions that humans feel while moving about in space and time and bumping into each other. particle complexes swirling around in a void sometimes produce the phenomena of pleasure, and sometimes the phenomena of pain. that’s how it works, dude, so you gotta hunker down and deal with it. the good news is, being that we have the power and capacity to modify and control these particle complexes, we can sometimes foresee and prevent particular particle complexes that result in the phenomena of pain. that’s the beauty of our uniqueness; two modes of being - mind and extension - united as if by some mysterious anthropic principle that had us planned the whole time. that great catastrophe of existence that occurred when the balance of the void was disturbed, ended up producing us, bro. who would have thunk it.
I believe in an infinite number of intelligent different species in the universe. My argument is not anthropomorphic.
Also, this reveals more about you than me: you don’t want to be accountable towards any judgement or correct or incorrect or good or bad.
Every being that exists has one dignity that nobody can enslave or steal from them, much to your frustration, they can ask “is this violating my consent?”
You hate this.
What do you mean when you say ‘accountable’?
“if you wish to converse with me, define your terms” - voltaire
Sure, your fear, specifically, of “accountability” is that you might be under responsibility to “owe something”
There’s your definition.
You are even terrified of feeling bad if you are wrong about something, so you just want no accountability to anything whatsoever. You couch this fear as you being a nihilistic badass.
Yo max, handle this one for me, chief…
“Where the world comes in my way—and it comes in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use. We owe each other nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at most to myself. If I show you a cheery air in order to cheer you likewise, then your cheeriness is of consequence to me, and my air serves my wish; to a thousand others, whom I do not aim to cheer, I do not show it.”
This quote gives me only the impression that this guy thinks he’s god or something.
What I’m talking about in terms of “owe”, is crime and punishment in a reality that isn’t ideal.
If you are caught murdering someone here, that’s 25 to life, that’s what you owe.
Likewise, should you commit the crime of contradiction and you are caught, you owe feeling bad and an apology.
That’s what I mean by accountable.
I’m sorry… a ‘god’? Oh heavens no, good sir! Max was something immeasurably greater than a ‘god’. He was… (wait for it)… the creative nothing.
Here’s a translation you won’t read when you see how long it is. Don’t sweat it, bro. It’s a humorously polemical departure from philosophy that need not be read.
I read enough to know he has a god complex.
Shakespeare said it best, “thou doth protest too much”
The reveal was when he made the theistic argument that without god, everything is just absurd."
Only people with God complexes make this argument.
Stirner, nor you, nor anyone can state that my axiom “nobody wants their consent violated”. Is false.
It’s counter definitional for one.
That, not “anarchism”, is what really gives power to the people, and like you, stirner hates that.
That a person can be their own judge of reality.
He’s also not a logitician, no truth is stating a truth, set acting upon itself as a contradiction.
You see, humans for mating privileges use contradiction to show their WEALTH!!! To get women into bed…
That’s all your towering intellect is here, a 19th century dickhead. That’s called real philosophy.
Do you see what you are doing here? You are trying to take away one’s individual free choice when it comes to what we find to be meaningful and valuable in life. True, for many people, their God gives the most meaning, especially if they live in accordance with God’s laws but there are multitudinous things in life which we experience which give us meaning, and more meaning. We are all individuals who have had different journeys along the way. How could we all feel and respond the same way? We are not the Borg!
I wonder what your God thinks about the atheist who because he cannot fathom a God and a life after death, sets out to do so much good in this world because he thinks" "Well, this is all there is so I will make my life count for something. He serves humanity in a far better way than many so-called “good” people do.
William James said that the greatest use of life was to spend it for something which would outlast it. I do not think that he meant that we ought to make God an opiate or ourselves torquemadas.
FreeSpirit1983
Starting?
If something comes as a result of evidence, then there is no need for faith. It is knowledge since it has been proven.
If he believes in grace, then perhaps he is not such an atheist as one would believe. Anyway, I would sooner take a pantheist over some believers because their feelings and experiences (the pantheists’) of the universe and nature come closer to the kind of awe and reverence and mystery which I experience. Perhaps I am a pantheistic agnostic. lol
I cannot say one way or the other if there was truly a Jesus who lived, an historical figure. Historians may believe that it is possible but they sometimes lie or do not get the facts right. Has it actually been proven?
I wonder how that would hold up in court, FreeSpirit. What evidence? You do realize that eyewitnesses sometimes get it wrong. They miss a lot, and they sometimes see what it is that they want to see.
How can one possibly prove that a man was literally the Son of God? You do realize that people are not beyond the Lie in order to get something started, founded, because to them it would be part of the greater good, to bring forth a more loving, compassionate, humane world.
Some things in science are rational to believe and then one goes forward to prove that.
Yes, it probably is a rational thing to believe that there can be Something which began all of this based on the evidence around us (though we cannot really prove it) but that does not specifically point to Catholic/Christian doctrine as being “real”.
Where does an agnostic like me? Limbo? 
You have every right to your beliefs — they are your subjective beliefs for whatever reason — but do you have the right to insult people so casually for their disbeliefs, for their way of thinking differently, simply because they conflict with yours? Do you have the right to condemn them to a hell because their hearts and minds experience things differently than yours?
I am only paraphrasing here but Carl Jung has said that we become in time what we fight the most. I would add “internally” to that. Psychologically speaking it makes sense. The suppressed and repressed things which we do not bring to our consciousness will eventually take their hold on us. Many of us have learned that.
Do you ever take the time to see what a beautiful universe has been created? I am not saying that you do not. Do you see that, do you experience that, or do you just cut to the chase and see only the one who you believe created it, missing it all and all of its meaning?
I wish I knew how to respond, as you did, line by line 
I recommend you read this book. It goes into the evidence. You can get it for dirt cheap.
A good tactic would be to ask someone how. You click on quote, as you have already done, on their post. When it comes up you can mark any portion of their text by holding the left button down on the mouse and selecting text. The at the top of you draft you will see symbols B, i and u
and then Quote.
click on quote and the marked areas will now have the instructions for making a quote. You can get into trouble if you have too many of one of the instructions. But that’s a good start.
This is fine as an addition in a response, but it’s not really a response. It’s a philosophy discussion forum. Which means that points made should ideally be responded to in clear ways. You wrote X, and I think that X is not the case because…or is the case because…and this leads us to believe Y. Direct responses to specific points.
If someone wants to go online and find out books on by people who believe X, they can find much easier and direct routes themselves. So, it’s a fine addition but it’s not a philosophical response.