"You’re borrowing from objective truth (free will matters, truth exists, the universe “works” a certain way) while denying objective truth exists."
Creation is predicated upon will. Creation exists. Therefore the Creator desires for Creation to exist. Creation exists because being in a state of omniscience as a singularity is boring. There is no novelty and no discovery. Those experiences only occur in beings with finite, limited perspective who are self-aware.
There are objective truths.
There are objective rules for what makes life meaningful. Every religion has a variation of the Golden Rule.
Do you know why?
Because most humans SUCK at abiding the Golden Rule.
If we were nailing the Golden Rule, every religion wouldn't be trying to teach it to us. That would be redundant.
The "rule" that HODL came up with is wrong. You already agreed that he should have worded the initial post differently, yet you continue to argue moot side points.
Why?
The Golden Rule exists across religions because it’s written on human hearts. The universality proves the objective standard, which is my point.
I didn’t agree HODL was wrong. I clarified two separate arguments.
Either there are objective rules for meaningful life (making HODL’s point correct), or there aren’t (making your Golden Rule appeal meaningless).
Yeah you did.
“I’d reword it myself.”
I just said I’d reword it. Not that he was wrong. I said he’s still capturing the point.
Same thing. Saying it in a way the needs to be reworded means saying it wrong.
I wouldn't have argued with him if he had worded it well, but he didn't and then he pompously wouldn't backpedal and restate it in a way that was correct.
I’ll leave HODL to defend himself there. I understood where he was going.
Not good enough. You're both fake Christians.
Ad hominem isn’t an argument.
If you have a theological critique, make it. Otherwise you’re just throwing rocks because the logic didn’t land
HODL's statement doesn't satisfy the very simple WWJD test.
Christ said to give up everything you have and follow him.
If you don't understand what everything you have means, it's because you don't want to think it through because you have things to give up including family.
All attachments must be released in order to do what Christ said.
Do you think that a society that structured around that interpretation would be a strong one?
Do I think that a society based on WWJD would be a strong one?
Yes, but that yes comes with a caveat. That would require having a strong vicarious connection to Christ and his teachings. That would require understanding Christ's teachings. Most people conflate Christ's teachings with modern mainstream Christian teachings and do not even consider the idea that Christ's teachings have been hijacked, redirected, and dogmatized into something that Christ would have rejected.
I would be curious to understand your vision of how that society looks in practice, given the original argument that one must give up everything including familial relationships.
Oh, welcome back.
Jung was a brilliant psychologist and a terrible theologian.
The Incarnation wasn’t God’s crisis. It was His rescue mission. The cross wasn’t God suffering for Himself. It was the Son bearing the penalty for human sin to satisfy divine justice.
Jung turned the Gospel into cosmic therapy and the cross into existential angst. That’s Gnosticism with a psychological veneer, not Christianity.
The eternal promise isn’t abstract mystical consolation. It’s the Holy Spirit indwelling believers, regenerating hearts, and conforming them to Christ.
Quoting Jung on theology is like quoting Freud on quantum mechanics. Sounds deep. Completely wrong.
Sure thing.
Ephesians 4:18.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you but it seems to me you're only thinking about physical possession.
Attachments are mental and spiritual, not just physical. Giving up everything means being willing to let go of false things that we were taught, often by people who had our best interests in mind who knew not what they were doing.
To give up all you have is to honestly acknowledge to one's self that there is more out there in the world worth exploring than that which I've already experienced. To follow Christ is to go out in search of all that there is that is worth exploring. The eye of the needle parable was applicable here. If you don't take the saddle bags off of your camel, it wasn't fitting through the opening in the city walls called the eye of the needle. Your camel is your transport. Can't lose that. It needs food and water. That's inside the city. A wealthy man would have lots of possessions (attachments) in his saddlebags and would be unwilling to enter the city knowing that, if he leaves his saddlebags outside with the guards, they're going to tax if not steal outright everything he left and if the guards don't, a band of thugs will come by and overpower the guards and take it all.
Christ was saying that you have to be willing to pay the price to enter the city and see what's there but the rich man will assume he knows that there is nothing in there worth experiencing and will choose to miss out. That's being non-receptive. That's antithetical to truth seeking.
The world would be a much more receptive and graceful place.
Appreciate the reply. I think I understand your position better after reading this and some other posts.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Christ said “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.” That’s about priority, not abandonment
“Leave everything” was a specific calling to specific individuals, not a universal mandate. Paul distinguished between those called to celibacy and marriage (1 Corinthians 7).
You’re weaponizing a particular calling against the general design. Christ upheld family under His Lordship. That’s covenant faithfulness, not idolatry.
No, it was the same teaching as Buddha taught.
Attachments are the cause of all suffering is the same lesson as give up everything you have and follow me.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Also, it was more of a "No True Scotsman" if you want to try to do formal debate call outs, but in this case, it's true.
Modern, mainstream Christians don't understand Christ's teachings.
They think they do, and to be fair, they understand some of it but most wouldn't recognize Christ if he was walking the earth today preaching.
I’m not a mainstream Christian brother. I would agree with that sentiment of sorts.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
False dichotomy.
There are objective rules for meaningful life.
That doesn't mean HODL identified them.
I didn’t say HODL identified all of them. I said his broader point about family being central to human flourishing aligns with those objective rules.
You’ve spent this entire thread arguing against that point while simultaneously admitting objective rules exist.
I didn't say you said that.
You said he identified an objective rule though and he did not.
He didn't even word it in a way that you would have.
That means you object to how he worded it, just as I do.
That's the main point here.
The whole time you've been arguing something that was never the debate.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
