How difficult is it to create a benevolent religion? Amorism

maxx

well you are not exactly answering my question. If you took those original quotes and listed them in order without your statements in between them, you seem to have a set of guidelines by the bots on amorisim. Since the bot is talking only about amorisim; how can one fail to believe it stated that "certain people should be put in a place " that it was not part of amorisim? Why else would the bot state that for if it was not part of the religion? If you answered that, i am not sure I saw it. also,  i did ask if you think such a religion would stand, or simply deteriorate with out a fear of punishment for failure to follow the guidelines. Again, historically reward and punishment are part of life, and I do not think humans could live in an utopian world. strife is part of human nature. Amorisim sounds great on paper, but it could never work .It would erase all the meaning of life; gaining perfection in a religion or even society would leave nothing for humans to strive for. The secret to happiness is as much as searching for it as attaining it. Pure contentment?  no thanks. It would cause many psychological problems and perhaps even mental problems; for we are emotional animals. It would erase hope, desire, need, and yes even those negative emotions, such as hate, anger and envy; they are all part of being human and have been since the dawn of humans. How would that work out? the erasement or complete suppression of all emotions save for love? Humans need negative emotions; it is part of us. an utopian existence would not only stifle human progress but counter out our very human nature.  @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx


Amorisim sounds great on paper, but it could never work . @MayCaesar

You mean like the way Chritianity or Islam worked? Saying an untried religion would never work is not an argument its merely an unjustified opinion and can be dismissed as such.

maxx

no, most religions are based on human nature; all complex emotions are with-in their framework. Amoriism is based upon love and understanding; taking out the idea of how humans are. utopian, once reached, leaves nothing left to reach for.  would you want to be part of amorisim; the idea religion? you could not even follow one single guideline. read the rest of the statement i sent may and stop signaling out one sentence out of context with the rest of what i wrote. That is as bad as people taking a sentence out of a paragraph in the bible  out of context with the actual meaning. That is one of your major problem in debating. you grab at a straw and say it is the whole bale. @Dee

Dee

@maxx


MAXX SAYS .......

Amorisim sounds great on paper, but it could never work.........WHEN CORRECTED ON THIS HE WAILS.....stop taking one sentence out of context 




no, most religions are based on human nature; all complex emotions are with-in their framework

Nonsense,  most religions are meant to give meaning to life or explain the origin of life or the Universe.

. Amoriism is based upon love and understanding; taking out the idea of how humans are.

What do you think Christianity is meant to be based on? You're making no sense at all.

utopian, once reached, leaves nothing left to reach for. 

What are you on about? If you reached Utopia why would you look for or need anything else? You just spout nonsense thinking you're making sense.

 would you want to be part of amorisim; the idea religion?

It sounds far better than my previous vile belief system Catholicism 

 you could not even follow one single guideline.

Really? Why not?

read the rest of the statement i sent may and stop signaling out one sentence out of context with the rest of what i wrote.

The rest of what you wrote I corrected you on 

 That is as bad as people taking a sentence out of a paragraph in the bible  out of context with the actual meaning. That is one of your major problem in debating. you grab at a straw and say it is the whole bal

Nonsense , you think repeating one ridiculous statement that's nothing to do with the topic is debating , several members are aware of this childish tactic you attempt everytime you're thrashed.

maxx

.  you did not comment on all i said, you grabbed one sentence pout of context. there are also many religions that do not have the idea of a creator. an idea religion would erase that idea any way and concentrate upon acceptance of others, including the fact that human nature is a complex set of emotions, including negative one. It should not be about utopian. rather it should be about the embodiment of family values, the betterment of self and others, and acceptance of others despite their flaws. most of the guidelines in religion are just values anyway. humans are born with all emotions and simply providing a religion that promotes love without regard to human nature is self defeating. humans are animals; with the same basic instinct of survival and assuming a religion , that accepts you only to promote love would stifle humans natural way of life. You do not know much do you, about the actual make-up of humans . Humans could not live in a world of nothing but peace and love. we are not genetically inclined for peace; in which one only has to look at history for proof. Aside from that, how would this operate, this religion? where would they get money? grow crops and sell them? donations. People would still have to work and interact with society as a whole, and such interaction would inevitably cause strife.  If you think humans could operate in a world of peace and love then you show me how.  now go ahead dee, grab a sentence or 2 out of my statement and run with that; saying things such as nonsense, ridicule what you do not understand and talk in circles, claim you already answered what you did not. why dont you actually try to debate for once?  One thing you do not understand about debating, is you do not simply say no, or nonsense or you are not correct; you explain in detail as to why, and then give in detail the opposite of the reason. @Dee

Dee

@maxx


Stop lying Maxx here is what has your panties in a twist , so enough with the insults calm down and attempt a coherent reply instead of your constant insults and deflections.....



MAXX SAYS .......

Amorisim sounds great on paper, but it could never work.........WHEN CORRECTED ON THIS HE WAILS.....stop taking one sentence out of context 




no, most religions are based on human nature; all complex emotions are with-in their framework

Nonsense,  most religions are meant to give meaning to life or explain the origin of life or the Universe.

. Amoriism is based upon love and understanding; taking out the idea of how humans are.

What do you think Christianity is meant to be based on? You're making no sense at all.

utopian, once reached, leaves nothing left to reach for. 

What are you on about? If you reached Utopia why would you look for or need anything else? You just spout nonsense thinking you're making sense.

 would you want to be part of amorisim; the idea religion?

It sounds far better than my previous vile belief system Catholicism 

 you could not even follow one single guideline.

Really? Why not?

read the rest of the statement i sent may and stop signaling out one sentence out of context with the rest of what i wrote.

The rest of what you wrote I corrected you on your nonsense 

 That is as bad as people taking a sentence out of a paragraph in the bible  out of context with the actual meaning. That is one of your major problem in debating. you grab at a straw and say it is the whole bal

Nonsense , you think repeating one ridiculous statement that's nothing to do with the topic is debating , several members are aware of this childish tactic you attempt everytime you're thrashed.

maxx

You are the , not me. I where does it say anywhere in the bible that Christianity is based upon love. @Dee

MayCaesar

maxx said:

well you are not exactly answering my question. If you took those original quotes and listed them in order without your statements in between them, you seem to have a set of guidelines by the bots on amorisim. Since the bot is talking only about amorisim; how can one fail to believe it stated that "certain people should be put in a place " that it was not part of amorisim? Why else would the bot state that for if it was not part of the religion? If you answered that, i am not sure I saw it. also,  i did ask if you think such a religion would stand, or simply deteriorate with out a fear of punishment for failure to follow the guidelines. Again, historically reward and punishment are part of life, and I do not think humans could live in an utopian world. strife is part of human nature. Amorisim sounds great on paper, but it could never work .It would erase all the meaning of life; gaining perfection in a religion or even society would leave nothing for humans to strive for. The secret to happiness is as much as searching for it as attaining it. Pure contentment?  no thanks. It would cause many psychological problems and perhaps even mental problems; for we are emotional animals. It would erase hope, desire, need, and yes even those negative emotions, such as hate, anger and envy; they are all part of being human and have been since the dawn of humans. How would that work out? the erasement or complete suppression of all emotions save for love? Humans need negative emotions; it is part of us. an utopian existence would not only stifle human progress but counter out our very human nature.  @MayCaesar

I politely ask you to stop reiterating the same points (that I have responded to on numerous occasions) over and over again. If you want the discussion to move forward, either start with my responses to these points, or propose new ones.

One new point you did propose is that humans need negative emotions, hence pure contentment is either untenable or undesirable. Is this a fair reading of your argument?
Amorism does not advocate for suppressing any emotions. It advocates for setting on a journey towards universal love, a journey full of obstacles and challenges. Negative emotions are a part of that journey, and negative emotions do not necessarily go away in the ideal case where you arrive at the end point of the journey - universal love means love and acceptance of everything and everyone, including negative emotions. You do not necessarily stop experiencing negative emotions, but your relationship with them change: you no longer resist them, and they no longer control you. It can be seen as similar to "enlightenment" in Buddhism where negative emotions are just sensations going through your body freely, and not those mental demons that stray you away from your path and cause you to do and say things that you later regret doing and saying.

maxx

you never did answer the question on once we achieve the final goal of amorisim, on what would happen to humans as a whole considering their nature; however that is all right. My idea of an idea religion would function a bit differently. It would be based more on the embodiment of family; such as yours or mine and so on; in where actual change requires consideration and to be malleable in regard to such change. the religion would accept one with all of their flaws, including the anger, greed and envy that is part of a family. There would be a leader, in which amorisim does not seem to have, and there would be punishment just like real families have. after all religion is but a family and to treat it differently would lose the union it tries to create; a better family that is closer, and able to accept each other. Taking it to its basics a religion is designed to teach better morals and values, just like a real family does. Love is but an effect of religion, a by-product, not its base.@MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

As I said before, there is ideal of Amorism towards which people's journeys are directed, but which technically speaking is unachievable. So it is not clear how one can reasonable discuss what happens "once we achieve the final goal of Amorism".

I understand that your idea of a religion is different from ChatGPT's. But we are discussing ChatGPT's ideas and not yours, are we not? It seems like you are trying to force your vision of religion on Amorism, which is analogous to trying to bake a cake when your ingredients are from an onion soup recipe.

maxx

one can not develop a religion based upon an emotion. The emotion is an effect of the religion.. basing a religion upon an emotion such as love means that love is the guiding force; hence, one does not worship or pay tribute to an emotion.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

If you say so.

maxx

i guess if i were to read all the questions and answers from your chat bot, perhaps i would understand better. Even christainity is not based on emotion, but faith.  @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

MAXX SAYS CHRISTIANITY IS NOT BASED ON A LOVE OF GOD ......WATCH NOW AS HE INVENTS SOME PILE OF BALONEY TO SAY HE MEANT SONETHING ELSE 


one can not develop a religion based upon an emotion.


Yet Christianity is based on love of god , you say the most ridiculous things and youre not even aware of it 

Good man Maxx you go on and tell 2 billion Christians they're wrong because you say so........

 After all, Jesus said the greatest commandment is to LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30)

maxx

if you say so. i never realized that the commandments of the Old testament were a base for christainity. Interpretation can be a strange thing deee, and in the eye of the beholder. many scholars take the idea that jesus wanted to end religion. Jesus Came "Not to Abolish the Law but to Fulfill It": The Sermon on the Mount and Its Implications for Contemporary Law (pepperdine.edu)  @Dee

MayCaesar

@maxx

Talking to you is not exciting, maxx, because your main conversation strategy is to reiterate the same assertion over and over again until your partner gives up and moves on - and then you conclude that you were in the right. It goes like this:

maxx: "X is true."
Partner: "What is your argument in support of this claim?"
maxx: "It is that X is true".
Partner: "Okay, I would contest your claim based on A and B".
maxx: "And you would be wrong, because X is true."
Partner: "Could you please address my criticisms?"
maxx: " I already did when I said that X is true".

Very little can come out from engaging in this kind of sophistry.

maxx

many times you also fail to make yourself clear to others. regardless i agree that amporisim looks great on paper; yet i doubt it would work. Just human nature alone would make it impossible; too many conflictions. I and i am sure that you have seen ; not only on this site, but in society as well, how mad Christians get when non believers push the right buttons. I think that would happen in amorisim as well when they interact with society. If the whole world was based upon amorism then perhaps; yet i still think human nature basic instincts would cause problems. myself, i think i would gladly join such a religion, where love, helping other, living life without stress, being good; yes;  such a religion; if it worked i would join. Yet there is too much evil in this world, too many people yelling "me first" too many who do not care, who have no consideration; too many people who simply refuse to better themselves and to even try to raise above their animalistic behaviorisms. These are the people who would never join, and if they did, would simply either drop out quickly, or remain and create havoc.  @MayCaesar ; @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

Your st-pidity and ignorance is astonishing I've just caught you again and you do the usual attempt another lie , are you really that st-pid you're now saying chistianity is not about love of God and your fellow man?

Like how dense are you as you now quote the Sermon on the mount and don't even know its central message is love ....

When Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, he commanded his listeners to be like God by loving their enemies. All the while Jesus knew that he would himself obey that command by going to the cross in love for enemies who were standing before him listening to his sermon.

So what will you new lie be in an attempt to hide your st-pidity?

MayCaesar

maxx said:

many times you also fail to make yourself clear to others. regardless i agree that amporisim looks great on paper; yet i doubt it would work. Just human nature alone would make it impossible; too many conflictions. I and i am sure that you have seen ; not only on this site, but in society as well, how mad Christians get when non believers push the right buttons. I think that would happen in amorisim as well when they interact with society. If the whole world was based upon amorism then perhaps; yet i still think human nature basic instincts would cause problems. myself, i think i would gladly join such a religion, where love, helping other, living life without stress, being good; yes;  such a religion; if it worked i would join. Yet there is too much evil in this world, too many people yelling "me first" too many who do not care, who have no consideration; too many people who simply refuse to better themselves and to even try to raise above their animalistic behaviorisms. These are the people who would never join, and if they did, would simply either drop out quickly, or remain and create havoc.  @MayCaesar ; @MayCaesar

When something is unclear, you are welcome to ask clarifying questions. It is more productive than assigning your own interpretation to text that does not explicitly support it, then criticizing that interpretation, and when I say that the interpretation is wrong, persisting in saying that it is right.

Regarding Christians getting mad, since the very essence of Amorism is universal love and acceptance, a priest yelling at the crowd and promising them eternal torture in hell is the very antithesis to it. An Amorist who gets mad when a non-Amorist pushes a button has a long road to walk yet.

Once again, Amorism is about the journey, not the destination. Amorism does not require everyone to declare themselves an Amorist, nor does it require everyone to not commit evil acts: all of that is part of the journey. Just like the scientific method or stoicism, it cannot be extinguished for it is an idea, a spirit, not a movement with N members which, once they are all dead, is dead.

maxx

as usual you do not understand. christainanity is not based on love or any emotion; it is an effect of the religion; a by-product. Christainity is based on faith. Without faith, all jesuss teaching would be worthless including love that he talked of. What Is Faith as the Bible Defines It? (learnreligions.com)  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

As usual you do not understand.

I undersrand perfectly which is why I corrected you on your ridiculous misinterpreted piece on the Sermon on the mount.

christainanity is not based on love or any emotion

Christianity central theme is a love of God,  please stop saying silly things.

; it is an effect of the religion; a by-product

So what? What are you even trying to say?

Christainity is based on faith.

No it's not faith is required to be a christian you silly person


Without faith, all jesuss teaching would be worthless including love that he talked of. What Is Faith as the Bible Defines It? (learnreligions.com)  @Dee

Maxx deflects yet again after making several s-upid statements 

maxx

sure.  Faith in Christianity - Wikipedia  now go earn your worthless points elsewhere.   @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Maxx states christianty and the love of god and fellow man as believed by 2 billion christians is in fact wrong as christianity  is not about love at all, well done Maxx .....

maxx

i never said that; i said it is not "based" on love. as normal you can not read. it is based upon faith. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

I corrected you several times as in faith is required to believe but the core teaching is love , I know you keep saying 2 billion Christians are wrong but that's your thing isn't it?

Dee

@maxx

MAXX SAYS 2 BILLION CHRISTIANS GOT IT WRONG AND HES GONNA SET THEM STRAIGHT......ROFLMAO

MayCaesar

maxx said:

as usual you do not understand. christainanity is not based on love or any emotion; it is an effect of the religion; a by-product. Christainity is based on faith. Without faith, all jesuss teaching would be worthless including love that he talked of. What Is Faith as the Bible Defines It? (learnreligions.com)  @Dee

Would you say that also about the religion professed by so-called "cultural Christians", ones that do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of god, or that the god even necessarily exists - but that see the Bible as a source of a good moral code one of the tenets of which is "love your neighbor as you do yourself"?

It is a strange sentiment that without faith someone's teachings are worthless. I am not aware of anyone who has faith in divinity of Marcus Aurelius; does that mean that everything Marcus has wrote on stoicism is worthless?