Who do people say I am?

@kellyjay said
If we are left to police ourselves without anything but our own desires, ideas, morals, all based upon our own sense of right and wrong, what is fair?

We ARE "left to police ourselves", as you put it. "Policing ourselves" is how communities protect themselves and survive.

@kellyjay said
If we are left to police ourselves without anything but our own desires, ideas, morals, all based upon our own sense of right and wrong, what is fair? Fair requires a standard, and if there isn't one but billions of standards due to there are billions of people whose measure do you think matters?

"...what is fair? Fair requires a standard..."

A few months ago you were telling the forum about how you are glad that your God figure "isn't fair" ~ because, if He was fair, then he would torment EVERYONE in burning flames for eternity because EVERYONE "deserves it".

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There aren't 'billions of standards.' Human beings create societies where standards are shared. Yes, these standards may vary with some within that society and indeed with other societies, but they tend to converge on the important stuff. (Murder is wrong etc). Or do you claim there are billions of standards when it comes to murder?

If each person sets their own, then there is one for each person. Every person is going to have an individual spin on the cultures they mingle in.

@kellyjay said
If each person sets their own, then there is one for each person. Every person is going to have an individual spin on the cultures they mingle in.

Each person has a moral compass ["there is one for each person"] through which they perceive and interact with the norms and values set by the communal groups, at various levels [as described before], that they live among.

Every person having an individual spin on the cultures they mingle in is what is so wonderful about this life that each of us has. It is arguably the quintessential building block of the human condition.

So, every single Christian - for example - is going to have an individual spin on the cultures they mingle in, and that is more or less what makes them human and what gives them personhood.

@fmf said
Every person having an individual spin on the cultures they mingle in is what is so wonderful about this life that each of us has.

Meanwhile, there you are, KellyJay, going on and on and on about how you might be sent to "Hell" - where you will be tormented in burning flames for eternity - for "calling someone a fool".

Well. Tell you what. You are welcome to your "individual spin" and all the subjective opinions and conjecture that gives rise to it.

@kellyjay said
Odd that you are still going on about fairness if the only measure is us, by us, and for us. If we are left to police ourselves without anything but our own desires, ideas, morals, all based upon our own sense of right and wrong, what is fair? Fair requires a standard, and if there isn't one but billions of standards due to there are billions of people whose measure do you t ...[text shortened]... of just Judge because fairness, righteousness, and goodness will be applied to everyone for justice.

The problem is not with anything I have said. It's that you think that you have escaped from using your own moral compass, but you have not.

Even standing before God, you do it on your own two feet.

@bigdoggproblem said
The problem is not with anything I have said. It's that you think that you have escaped from using your own moral compass, but you have not.

Even standing before God, you do it on your own two feet.

I'm not putting you down in any place I don't think I'm also in. This isn't a problem with you that I also don't also share in! The only thing I'm talking about is the reality of what the mankind is going through while living life. Without a common standard then there is nothing by which to say this path is better than that one. Without knowing rules of a game, how do you know if you are winning or playing correctly, and if life is without such rules, how do you know your ways are better than the next guy or s/he you?

@kellyjay said
I'm not putting you down in any place I don't think I'm also in. This isn't a problem with you that I also don't also share in! The only thing I'm talking about is the reality of what the mankind is going through while living life. Without a common standard then there is nothing by which to say this path is better than that one. Without knowing rules of a game, how do you kn ...[text shortened]... d if life is without such rules, how do you know your ways are better than the next guy or s/he you?

Good; glad we cleared that up.

So, on to the next issue. You seem to view morality like a game of Chess; something that has objective rules to it. I am more agnostic on whether moral rules are objective. I think it's possible that morality may be like art, where it is subjective, sure, but there is still such a painting as The Mona Lisa that is clearly to a higher standard than the random scribbles of a newbie artist.

I do not think the existence of subjectivity ruins the ability to make valid judgments. I also think that, from a practical standpoint, questions such as "where can I find relatable teachings that help me make Spiritual progress in my life?" are more useful and helpful than questions like, "is morality objective and/or fixed, or not?"

@kellyjay said
Without a common standard then there is nothing by which to say this path is better than that one.

"Without a common standard"? What are you referring to? "Common standards" abound ~ they vary from culture to culture, vary by geography, vary down through history, vary by religion, and they vary within religions etc.

You seem to be dismissing stuff that's alien to you or that you disagree with as "nothing". It comes across as little more than a rhetorical gimmick: you don't discuss it or address it, but instead glibly dismiss it as "nothing" and then go back to your rather numb recitation of dogma that you do subscribe to.

If you sincerely believe that your path is better than BigDoggProblem's, then that is your subjective prerogative.

If you need someone or something to "say" to you that this is so, then that is a matter for you BUT it is interwoven with your beliefs about supernatural things ~ you cannot expect people to buy into it simply because you keep making assertions, over and over again, about what your own belief system just so happens to need.

@kellyjay said
Without knowing rules of a game, how do you know if you are winning or playing correctly, and if life is without such rules, how do you know your ways are better than the next guy or s/he you?

But there ARE "rules of the game", KellyJay, at all levels of communal interaction and all across various cultures.

You use your moral compass to internalize these, evaluate them, and make decisions about how to act based upon them.

You - like all of us - use your moral compass to decide whether you believe your ways are better than the next guy.

@kellyjay said
The only thing I'm talking about is the reality of what the mankind is going through while living life.

Are you? Are you sure?

On the contrary, I see you as steadfastly refusing to talk about "the reality of what mankind is going through while living life" and, instead, you are trying to project what makes you tick personally onto mankind in a thoroughly hypothetical and "reality"-defying way.

@kellyjay said
I'm not putting you down in any place I don't think I'm also in. This isn't a problem with you that I also don't also share in! The only thing I'm talking about is the reality of what the mankind is going through while living life. Without a common standard then there is nothing by which to say this path is better than that one. Without knowing rules of a game, how do you kn ...[text shortened]... d if life is without such rules, how do you know your ways are better than the next guy or s/he you?

@kellyjay said to BigDoggProblem
I'm not putting you down in any place I don't think I'm also in. This isn't a problem with you that I also don't also share in!

But wait a minute, how can you say you share the same problem about morality as BigDoggProblem?

Haven't you adopted a belief that you will receive a "free gift" of everlasting life in "Heaven" that does not actually oblige you to act in a morally sound way because "it would never be good enough" anyway even if you did?

BigDoggProblem is talking about how people make decisions about moral issues, whereas your stance is that your belief in Christ will "save" you regardless of your failures viz a viz your decisions about moral issues.

You are certain that you are "saved" by a "free gift" regardless of morality while you believe BigDoggProblem deserves to be tortured for not believing that "free gift" exists.

How on Earth is that not "putting him down"?

@bigdoggproblem said
Good; glad we cleared that up.

So, on to the next issue. You seem to view morality like a game of Chess; something that has objective rules to it. I am more agnostic on whether moral rules are objective. I think it's possible that morality may be like art, where it is subjective, sure, but there is still such a painting as The Mona Lisa that is clearly to a higher s ...[text shortened]... ife?" are more useful and helpful than questions like, "is morality objective and/or fixed, or not?"

I do believe there are objective rules to it, the top two being love God and each other. The rest works its way out as we do these, and both are required to get it right. Centering on Christ He being in total harmony with the Father, being one with Him to the point that He could say if you have seen me you have seen the Father, as a man He was perfection in human life, as the Word of God made flesh. To be conformed into His image would be the real goal, but man cannot do that; we are to selfcentered but by God, yes. So a born again experience is required and called for and required for this to occur.

My wife was sharing a story with me a little while back about someone who was refining silver. He never left it while he was working on it, and when asked how do you know when its done he replied, "When I can see myself." If God is refining us to be in His image, when He sees Himself in us, that would be the highest possible goal imaginable, in my opinion.

@kellyjay said
I do believe there are objective rules to it, the top two being love God and each other.

Your belief that your God figure exists is based on your subjectivity and on your speculation about supernatural things. Your subscription to the "top two rules" being "love God" and "love each other" are not "objective". They are as subjective as can be.

Here's an "objective" fact about your "top two rules": hundreds and hundreds of millions of Christians believe that the "top two rules" are "love God" and "love each other". That is an objective fact. However, your belief that those two "rule" are objective is just your subjective personal opinion.

@kellyjay said
Centering on Christ He being in total harmony with the Father, being one with Him to the point that He could say if you have seen me you have seen the Father, as a man He was perfection in human life, as the Word of God made flesh. To be conformed into His image would be the real goal, but man cannot do that; we are to but by God, yes. So a born again experience is required and called for and required for this to occur.

This is your personal opinion and your preference.

I'm not sure how repeating this doctrine over and over again...

[1] addresses the points arising in this discussion, and

[2] I don't see how it persuades non-believers to agree with you ~ even in harness with the dark threats of violent revenge for non-belief that you frequently allude to.