I’m sorry what?

Edit: what do you mean?

Yes but to live how God would’ve wanted to save ourselves from the double edged sword that is to know anything on top of the knowledge of any knowing being good or evil. And the snake representing that vulnerability to arrogance when something as capable of knowledge is guided by blind arrogant humans as opposed to a God that represents truth, but the truth of selflessness in a way over any dogma; knowledge, thus, consciousness more specifically, where any potential of truth originates.

“For kindness I desired [mercy, as Jesus specifies in 9:13], and not [animal] sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings [external worship].” - Hosea 6:6

It doesn’t matter if selflessness was something we lost, or if it is in God’s plan.

I’m not saying it was something we lost, or anything being in God’s plan, what I’m saying—this post has nothing to do with either of what you’re saying here.

If God wants us to be selfless, why did he first create us to be ignorant of selflessness?

Because knowledge needs to be gained, and what comes along with the knowledge of both selfishness and selflessness is our knowledge of death, that we would’ve otherwise have been blissfully unaware of. If the snake didn’t introduced its influence via its arrogance, then they would’ve simply listened to God and that would’ve been that, everyone and everything lives happily ever after. But God not knowing something creeped it’s way into knowing so much without its knowing, didn’t allow it to happen therefore, it’s something that again has the potential of happening to something capable of knowing so much that isn’t being guided by God, which the snake obviously wasn’t, and wouldn’t anyway being so arrogant, so blissfully self-assured.

You point out we need to regain what we lost through God. We need to regain our selflessness.

When did I make this claim/what are you gathering this from? I’m saying in order for either the individual or a collection of individuals to establish peace both within themselves and amongst themselves they would need to strive to become more ignorant of how aware they are of themselves. More specifically, what is right or wrong in relation to themselves, and replace that instinctive worry, need, or fear for themselves with the fear, worry, need for everything else.

Had they passed by a fish out of water

This wouldn’t have been a thing in Eden to begin with, presumably. I don’t equate Eden as a literal place and all of these literally happened so this is irrelevant to begin with.

How do we get back our pre-fall selflessness if Adam and Eve didn’t have it?

Did you even read my post?

Alright great.

So what do you mean by “these places” exactly?

Oh okay. Yeah you’re right, it definitely needs plenty of work; think of my posts more as drafts rather then being a representation of something finished. I appreciate your thoughts, thanks!

Are you referring to this post here regarding the book of Jonah?

What do you mean? Are you saying something similar regarding how Tolstoy equates the supernatural and miracles within religion? As a means for men mellieniums ago to express thought?

That’s very kind, I appreciate that. Have you considered this one?: https://lemmy.world/post/36602700

I haven’t gotten anyone’s thoughts on it and I don’t how stupid or kindergarten it is. And if it’s not to much of a bother, I’d be even more interested in your thoughts on this here; what I like to call “The Basis of Things”:

“Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” - Solomon (Doing of doings; all is a doing)

“Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we’ve organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity (a desire to do; a striving), bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here’s a proposed chain of things:

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity

• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence is shaped by truth,
• Truth arises from reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organ reacting to our present environment. (There’s a place for Spirit here but haven’t decided where exactly; defined objectively however: “the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.”)

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

Oh and I don’t post about Tolstoy and the Gospel, I post about Tolstoy sure, amongst other things. Recently however I’ve been posting the preface of his translation of his interpretation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief, which is a more philosophical, objective, less supernatural interpretation of them.

I don’t agree with walling off people from knowledge via words for words; more complex words that are just words for more simpler ones that do the job just the same. And you must have missed this:

"Jesus calls this book the “sign of Jonah”:

The Sign of Jonah

29 “When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.” - Luke 11:28

The sign being an influence, thus, incentive and will therefore, via a knowledge to save themselves from their inherecy to themselves, being absent the knowledge of God (of morality) otherwise; instinct leads us to sin (selfishness), knowledge leads us go be able to pierce through what instinct demands of us, away from the hell we potentially make for ourselves here in this life, becoming either a prisoner of our minds (of our conscience), or to men, ultimately."

I’m more than interested in conversation, that’s why they’re all titled “what are you thoughts?” Because I’m genuinely interested in them. And no AI.

It’s not AI and I’m sorry you’ve missed the more philosophical message, but its definitely there, but it’s shaped around the book of Jonah, that Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) referred to as “the sign of Jonah.”

https://lemmy.world/post/32217876

https://lemmy.world/post/27295960

Yeah but then we’d have to mention all the other philosophers that inspired him in some way or another, like Socrates or Marcus Aurelius. His biggest inspiration, objectively, would be Jesus, but from the point of view of Jesus not being supernatural this or that, but a profound philosopher of morality, like Buddha, but with a much bigger emphasis on action and the extremes of selflessness.

I can’t say for a fact of course, but are you assuming that I’m idolizing Gandhi?

I think people are really good at lying about people, and subsequently just as good at not even bothering to even begin to consider that what they’re being told regarding someone else might be total bullshit, and nothing but the consequence of the lack of knowledge, or experience specifically, of the woes of slander.

Absolutely, my pleasure.

From what I understand, Tolstoy believed that a more philosophical, objective, non supernatural interpretation of the Gospels but especially of the Sermon On the Mount specifically (Matt 5-6: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV) and its precepts, including to never take an oath at all (including promising to consider anything as infalliable), holds the potential in becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak, for our hearts, as a species. By constitution I mean something we can gather around and consider a common understanding of how we should be striving to live, something to unite us as a species and make us stronger the same way a constitution does for a nation and did regarding how weak the colonies here in America were back when we didn’t have a constitution to unify us; it only divided us and made us weak and vulnerable.

I’m not 100% on this next bit, but based on reading his non-fiction it sounds like he didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah (savior) in the traditional sense—the Nicene Creed interpretation. I believe Tolstoy believed that Jesus, amongst all the humans that existed both before and after him, was the one that taught and suffered to transfer the knowledge of love so well (not perfectly; if Jesus was God he would’ve done it so perfectly to the point where it would’ve easily have done its job by now) that he considered Jesus to be the bee—amongst all those that came before and after him—that stirred (inspired) the hive (humans) so well that ultimately, one could argue that Jesus saved mankind from its inherency to itself: selfishness, being absent the knowledge of his teaching otherwise—the value and potential of selflessness; Messiah is defined as a savior of a people.

Little do the majority know that they’ve only smothered (yet again, like the Pharisees and Sadducees did in Jesus’ time) the “Law and the Prophets” as a whole: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” by all our (again, yet again) incessant, blind oath taking to our contemporaries. To the point where the precepts—born out of the logic of the “Law and the Prophets” as a whole—of the Sermon On the Mount (selflessness) are the last thing people are met with (in favor of the Nicene Creed, of things Jesus never spoke of or even hinted at when he mimicked Moses, bringing down new commandments during the most public point of his ministry, thus, the most accurate) or are taught when they go to Church or are taught of Jesus today, in favor of securing our or ones place in Heaven (selfishness).

Sounds like someone needs to read Tolstoy’s non-fiction.

I did say I didn’t agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.