You always ask challenging questions and I have little doubt that John will be eager to talk to you about God's only begotten son as long as you will listen. Have you spent time pondering the New Testament? Does it embrace your own ideas? I find John 3:16 to be incompatible with The Second Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7. I interpret many of the scriptures as based on ancient beliefs and not factual in the sense of concrete, objective, and verifiable statements. Put another way, the vast majority of humanity do not accept John 3:16 as fact, but an expression of faith in Jesus as the embodiment of the Eternal…maybe not distinct from the rest of us, just able to articulate fundamental truths.
Have I spent time pondering the New Testament? Nope.
The other day I wondered how it happened that I moved from begin a roommate that used some precious study hours to take Hebrew lessons from a looking-to-be rabbi to where I am today. No significant mind-altering experiences, but certainly influenced by the people I interacted with at Bell Labs, in the IEEE group writing Software Engineering Standards, in software development organizations around the world and in Silicon Valley, in a small Methodist College in moonshine country, and at Montana Tech; not to mention three wives from widely different backgrounds. And also by various teachers, writers, and speakers.
I’m sure some of my intellectual and emotional positions have been better expressed by others. I think of myself as this incredible lucky life-form existing in a mind-blowing universe. This is my current subjective reality. Yes, there is the ultimate mystery of how/why it all came to be. Most humans crave a supernatural answer. I have no quarrel with such. I don’t think any rational, sentient being in our universe will ever know for certain, but even considering the wonder of it all, I believe humankind has a role that they can play; either well or not-so-well. But we can’t play our role to the end unless we survive to the end. Our current models of how it all hangs together are such that there is no guarantee one way or another; but how we play our role concerns a lot of us.
My focus is on how we act. There are some belief systems that probably lead to our sooner-rather-than-later demise, but such are rare. Most human belief systems motivate life, both for individuals and for our species, both in the present and in the future.
"We accept these truths. That all men are created equal." -- Declaration of Independence
“God created man in his image. In his image, God created man.” Genesis
(The word Adam (man) is used in the Torah. It could be translated as "human," "mankind," "humanity," man, or "a man." The word for a male human, Ish, was not use. Isha is a female human. The word "men" in the Declaration might mean human males but could also mean "human," "mankind," or "humanity.")
An argument was made by John Locke that the earthly rulers of humans were not created by the Eternal, but devised and developed by humans, either self-appointed or chosen by some or all of their fellow humans. In other words, we did not arise in nature as subject to rule by others, but that humans developed systems of rule.
The phrase used in the Declaration references the rule of King George of the UK as the ruler of the American colonies and the people living there. God had not made him king over them. They were entitled to let him rule them (the "consent of the governed") or to choose their own government. It did not mean that all humans were equal to each other. What followed were arguments that King George, by his own actions, had disqualified himself.
When the Torah declared that all humanity was made in the image of the Eternal, it did not mean that all humans were the same. Obviously they weren't. It did mean that governments instituted by humans over tribes or cities or states were all subject to the Eternal rule of all humanity, that no "god"-like ruler was a substituted for the one Eternal.
The statement was made in the context in which humanity was described as "created" along with all forces of nature, beginning with light, and all living things, ending with humanity. The order of creation implied that humanity, in a sense, ruled the earth and all living things, just as the Eternal ruled all things…but the similarity did not make humans god-like or the Eternal human.
How could this be?
In creating, as if out of nothing, the Eternal caused light to be, as if by speaking in words. Clearly, the authors of Genesis and all of Torah knew that, before humans were created, there was no speech and no human language. Without them, the Eternal could not have "said, let there be light." Why is this written in this way?
For the ancients (and for me, too, to some extent) the power of speech, the conception of words and language, and the ability to "imagine" things using words was beyond their understanding. It was obviously needed by the time the sentence was written, but the path by which it came to be was obscure. Not only that, it was equally difficult to explain how different groups of humans had different languages and used words differently and how, even within a single group, the meanings of words overlapped and lacked specificity.
The Eternal's ongoing creation was similarly obscure. How could "light" be created? How could the regular cycling of light and darkness get started? Why was it a constant? In telling the creation story, the ancients wove together a story that has parallels in the evolution of life on our planet, as if early humans recognized how it happened. What they accurately understood was that once they were created they tended to persist. That, too, was mysterious, clearly related to reproduction in animals, less clearly explained by the production of seeds in plants, and utterly inexplicable in nature. They did not know how streams kept flowing, the winds blew, earthquakes and volcanoes shook and fumed, storms erupted, and rains drenched them. What they knew was that these things were out of their own control and, presumably under the control of some remote, invisible power.
They attributed all the "creative" force to the one Eternal and came to believe, expect, and hope that the Eternal would be mostly benevolent and avoid using the creative force to treat them badly if they behaved as humans learned to do to each other when they wanted their fellow humans to be kind – to show appreciation, ask politely, and control their own aggression. This did not mean that they thought of the Eternal as a human. They knew they could not control the Eternal or expect it to make wise, just, and kind decisions, so much as to be reliably, impartially, and constantly creative and supportive of the entirety of creation without selecting any individuals for favor.
One justification for making a statement about human equality is that, unlike other living things, humanity has created systems of governance. Other living things are all free to do as they choose unless they are threatened or overpowered by other creatures.
One justification for making a statement about humans being "created in the image of the Eternal" is to help us remember our ability to encompass all that is with our minds, unlike other animals. In that sense, we are like the Eternal.
However, our minds cannot create with the power and scope of the Eternal. We can produce children, grow plants, nurture livestock, capture, kill, and collect things and we can channel energy, but all of what we do is no match for the Eternal's creations. We can endure for up to a century or so. The Eternal will last forever.
Thank you for this thoughtful message. As is my modus operandi, to fully digest it, I make this reply.
It is my fundamental truth that every one of us operates from our own subjective reality, that this situation is a fundamental aspect of the particular universe in which we find ourselves, and that no one’s subjective reality fully captures what is, or what is in every aspect “correct”.
I, like any other life form on this planet, care first of all about my own being. As nearly as I can tell, for some life forms this is the extent of their caring. For most, however, their sphere of caring extends beyond themselves. My own sphere extends out to the 8 billion of us presently inhabiting this planet, and to all of our possible homo sapiens’ decedents. Right now, I take our cosmologist’s notion of our planet’s future to be true, and think that homo sapiens will someday cease to be. It is possible that we may some day send humans to other planets, but the nature of things is that in a different ecosystem they will become a different species. All this is just to say that my sphere of caring extends to you and yours, and considers your view of things as legitimate as mine. Of course, the strength of my care is modulated by proximity and longevity.
Now to try to understand what you are saying ---
You: “An argument was made by John Locke that the earthly rulers of humans were not created by the Eternal, but devised and developed by humans, either self-appointed or chosen by some or all of their fellow humans. In other words, we did not arise in nature as subject to rule by others, but that humans developed systems of rule.”
Me: I’m not familiar with much of Locke, but I think I understand these statements.
You: “The phrase used in the Declaration references the rule of King George of the UK as the ruler of the American colonies and the people living there. God had not made him king over them. They were entitled to let him rule them (the "consent of the governed") or to choose their own government. It did not mean that all humans were equal to each other. What followed were arguments that King George, by his own actions, had disqualified himself.”
Me: OK. But aren’t we still arguing over: “It did not mean that all humans were equal to each other.”
You: “When the Torah declared that all humanity was made in the image of the Eternal, it did not mean that all humans were the same. Obviously they weren't. It did mean that governments instituted by humans over tribes or cities or states were all subject to the Eternal rule of all humanity, that no "god"-like ruler was a substituted for the one Eternal.”
Me: OK. I take it that most of the Torah/Talmud scholars say this is so.
You: “The order of creation implied that humanity, in a sense, ruled the earth and all living things”
Me: The implication is not obvious to me, but I’ll take your word for it.
You: “How could this be?
Me: I’m lost here. I probably won’t fully understand what follows. But I’m forging ahead nonetheless.
You: “In creating, as if out of nothing, the Eternal caused light to be, as if by speaking in words. Clearly, the authors of Genesis and all of Torah knew that, before humans were created, there was no speech and no human language. Without them, the Eternal could not have "said, let there be light." Why is this written in this way?
For the ancients (and for me, too, to some extent) the power of speech, the conception of words and language, and the ability to "imagine" things using words was beyond their understanding. It was obviously needed by the time the sentence was written, but the path by which it came to be was obscure. Not only that, it was equally difficult to explain how different groups of humans had different languages and used words differently and how, even within a single group, the meanings of words overlapped and lacked specificity.”
Me: I take it that this is imaging the thoughts of the original Hebrew story tellers, but OK.
You: “For the ancients (and for me, too, to some extent) the power of speech, the conception of words and language, and the ability to "imagine" things using words was beyond their understanding. It was obviously needed by the time the sentence was written, but the path by which it came to be was obscure. Not only that, it was equally difficult to explain how different groups of humans had different languages and used words differently and how, even within a single group, the meanings of words overlapped and lacked specificity.
The Eternal's ongoing creation was similarly obscure. How could "light" be created? How could the regular cycling of light and darkness get started? Why was it a constant? In telling the creation story, the ancients wove together a story that has parallels in the evolution of life on our planet, as if early humans recognized how it happened. What they accurately understood was that once they were created they tended to persist. That, too, was mysterious, clearly related to reproduction in animals, less clearly explained by the production of seeds in plants, and utterly inexplicable in nature. They did not know how streams kept flowing, the winds blew, earthquakes and volcanoes shook and fumed, storms erupted, and rains drenched them. What they knew was that these things were out of their own control and, presumably under the control of some remote, invisible power.
They attributed all the "creative" force to the one Eternal and came to believe, expect, and hope that the Eternal would be mostly benevolent and avoid using the creative force to treat them badly if they behaved as humans learned to do to each other when they wanted their fellow humans to be kind – to show appreciation, ask politely, and control their own aggression. This did not mean that they thought of the Eternal as a human. They knew they could not control the Eternal or expect it to make wise, just, and kind decisions, so much as to be reliably, impartially, and constantly creative and supportive of the entirety of creation without selecting any individuals for favor.
Me: OK.
You: “One justification for making a statement about human equality is that, unlike other living things, humanity has created systems of governance. Other living things are all free to do as they choose unless they are threatened or overpowered by other creatures.”
Me: Justification for who? The framers? But I’m assuming you.
You: However, our minds cannot create with the power and scope of the Eternal. We can produce children, grow plants, nurture livestock, capture, kill, and collect things and we can channel energy, but all of what we do is no match for the Eternal's creations.
Me: ChatGPT just confirmed my belief that the unit of all rational thought, at least in the West, is the proposition. But not for me. I take entities as being the fundamental elements of all thought, rational and otherwise. So, in my mental model of your subjective reality, there is an entity labeled “Eternal” that is fundamental.
In your comment above you assign various attributes to the Eternal and posit various relationships to other entities in your reality. I’d be happy to offer my own idiosyncratic observations on your reality, but for now I’ll just comment that as nearly as I can tell, such an entity does not inhabit my own subjective reality. By positing The Eternal you provide an answer to a legitimate question about my subjective reality: “Where did the Big Bang come from, or put another way, what caused the Big Bang Since my primary concern is with the long-term future of humankind, I’m content to leave this question unanswered. Some cosmologists answer this question by positing an infinite number of universes.
You: We can endure for up to a century or so. The Eternal will last forever.”
Me: By definition, The Eternal lasts forever. But apparently for you The Eternal is not concerned that Its creation have a really long-term existence. It would appear that in this we agree. In my present model of physical reality, our species will continue to inhabit the Earth as long as advanced life can thrive, but if we do not take care, not only will the present First Worldwide Civilization cease to exist in “a century or so”, but that there is a chance that we will have so damaged our nest that this will be the last civilization on this planet.
This person seems rather aggressive. My feeling is they have very little true understanding of their own religion. It is easy to do minor research to see that they don't see that this is a universal sentiment across many religions.
1. Sikhism - God is love, and through love, union with God is attained.
2. Zoroastrianism - O Ahura Mazda, through Your radiant light You give life to all.
3. Kabbalistic / Mystic Judaism - The Holy One, blessed be He, is the light that flows to all worlds, giving life to all.
Unfortunately I think the person you are talking to will fall back on the God Told Me idea, missing the fact that most Protestant religions start with the basic primus that God is personal to each man or woman. They truly felt the idea "No man shall come between me and my god" thus they were extremely resistant to other people telling them how to interact with God.
Thanks for your message. My memory may not be correct, but I think you said a while back that I could post messages from you here. I plan to write some bits about the people I interact with, so I’m using a pseudonym. I can easily change this.
One of my fundamental truths is that every intelligent being lives in their own unique subjective reality. One of my long-time interlocutors claims this is not so, but I have yet to understand his position. So, I’ll first try to enter your reality and then describe mine.
I seems to me that from my little story you’ve assumed that my zealot[1] has certain mental positions. You may well be correct. You say; “It is easy to do minor research to see that they don't see that this is a universal sentiment across many religions.”
It seems to me that this assertion can be broken down into two parts:
1) That the sentiment expressed in John 3:16 is universal across many religions, and
2) that “they” don’t see this.
I asked ChatGPT[2] to comment on the above breakdown. My summary of its reply:
The above quote can be naturally decomposed into:
1. The proposition being asserted: The sentiment expressed in John 3:16 is a universal sentiment across many religions.
2. The claim about the people under discussion ("they"): They do not recognize (or "don't see") that this is so.
ChatGPT claims that the cited verse contains several distinct ideas:
• God loves humanity.
• God acts sacrificially on humanities behalf.
• Jesus is God’s unique Son.
• Salvation comes through belief in Jesus.
• Eternal life is offered through Christ.
It notes that these ideas are not all universal.
ChatGPT sees the second point as a claim about the beliefs of a particular group that is a personal inference rather than an established fact. It claims that many Christians who emphasize John 3:16 are quite aware that similar ethical themes occur in other religions, but nevertheless regard the Christian message is, in several aspects, unique.
I was surprised by the response to this post. I chalk this up to my quoting Christian scripture, and my agreeing to memorize it.
Since I probably heard this verse scores of times in my youth it would hardly require much effort to memorize it. I’m leaving my motivation for setting the stage for possible further connection with John for another time, but my above reply to Dan’s comment might provide a clue.
Thanks again for your remarks. Responding to them helps me get the most out of this experience.
Frank
Notes:
[1] ‘zealot’ – I struggled with this word choice. While it can be just an objective description, for many people it is pejorative. But from just this brief, limited interaction, I could not think of a better word. It’s emotional power probably skewed my reader’s thoughts.
[2] I made my first request of ChatGPT more than three years ago. As its capabilities have matured my usage has increased. It seems to me that in the long run near universal access to AI will have as great effect on human civilization as all the ways we have amplified/supplanted/replaced human muscle power. For me AI is now a powerful tool that I use daily for exploration into, and analysis of, humankind’s social reality and my own thoughts and feelings.
From it’s browser interface it is clear that ChatGPT “remembers” previous requests and its responses. It seems to me that it is also building up a model of my interests and ways of thinking. A few months ago I had it help me with “Essay: Tools For Corralling Truth I: Introduction to Formal Argument”. I was surprised that here it concluded its reply with:
A logical reconstruction
If one wanted to make the reasoning explicit, it might be expressed as:
1. The central sentiment of John 3:16 appears in many religions.
2. The people you describe apparently fail to recognize this.
3. Therefore, they have only a limited understanding of their own religion.
Notice that premise (2) does not follow from premise (1); it requires its own evidence.
My present focus on ChatGPT is just personal convenience. I have no reason to assume that it is superior to some other free, publicly available AI.
Thank you #1 daughter. Most of my posts are quite cerebral. I thought this one might have more appeal. It did! Quite a few comments. Even an oral comment from Hwe’s brother-in-law!
But my intent was to post something personal. Instead the comments were either about zealotry or the biblical verse.
My grandfather had an expression, "No one is a more rabid Christian than a reformed whore." I find it often applies to zealots--they are trying to make up for having committed some great sin or harm. Sometimes they continue the sin and the harm, believing that faith alone will save them. Of course this explanation rather begs the question, for why do they believe the Bible as truth or Christian god as an entity to begin with? Perhaps we can blame it on their upbringing or simply a lack of intelligence. But these and other explanations do violence to what appear to be supremely intelligent, well-acting people who are devout nonetheless. I think here of people such as Thomas Merton or Wendell Berry, or perhaps even Barack Obama.
None of us have absolute answers to our most basic questions. As nearly as I can tell, a belief in the existence of supernatural entities of any sort is as valid as a belief that such entities do not exist. What is important is the actions one takes that affect other people. It seems to me that you are saying that there is only a loose coupling between such beliefs and the believer’s actions.
Based on only two encounters, I don’t even know if I’ll even encounter John again. If I do, my first objective will be to attempt to make a connection of any sort. If I can, then perhaps I can start to form answers to your questions.
When I was in my mid twenties and a teacher back in the 70s I commuted with a guy who taught math in the same school I taught English. He was proud of being a doper and said he spent his evenings in a lounge chair with a headset on while his wife took care of their baby.
I have no idea what we talked about but we lived near each other and had this 50 mi round trip commute. my husband and I did try pot with him and his wife... once.
One Monday he got in the car after having found Jesus over the weekend. From that day forward the commute was torture. he lectured me because i was not a Christian and pontificated the whole trip, and said I didn't need to worry because I would go to heaven after all because I was such a good person that he was confident that at the last minute I would accept Christ as my savior and all would be well. He made me so mad. All I could think of until I stopped commuting with him was how much nicer he was when he was just a plain loser doper.
Thanks for the comment. Sorry about the tortuous commute. I’m sure hundreds of people have similar stories.
What interests me in my present oldie old age is the processes/states of your torturer’s brain/mind. What was his reality like before he became an obnoxious zealot, and why and how did it change, seemingly over a single weekend?
Although many don’t agree, there’s now a fair amount of scientific evidence that everything we are conscious of is the result of some electromagnetic activity in our physical brain.[1]
I don’t want to dismiss the angst you had to experience from this fellow, but fundamentally it was the result of brain/mind changes. Similar changes are happening in the brain/minds of millions of our fellow citizens and causing not only a lot of angst for the rest of us but are driving detrimental changes that will take years to recover from, if indeed we can.
By definition, validity means that true premises lead to a true conclusion. If there is not evidence for a claim (other than some subjective "feeling"), the claim is by definition invalid. Take your pick: (1) Mark Twain: "Faith is believing what you know ain't true." or (2) Emo Philips: "I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
As nearly as I can tell, very few people are aware that their mental/emotional models of what is are just idiosyncratic constructions of their minds as constructed first by their genes, then by their ever-ongoing living experience, and then by a intelligence directed by their will. It “macht nichts” that this is so until a brain/mind initiates actions based on its current model. This assertion is just a construction of my own brain/mind.
A lifetime of teaching logic and other philosophy courses led me to equate idiosyncratic with simply "idiot". Idiot derives from the Greek noun idiōtēs (ἰδιώτης), which simply meant someone not involved in public life. For Athenians, active civic participation--as with Socrates discussions in the marketplace--was part of being fully human. Today we have Substack :-)
From Dan via email:
Frank:
You always ask challenging questions and I have little doubt that John will be eager to talk to you about God's only begotten son as long as you will listen. Have you spent time pondering the New Testament? Does it embrace your own ideas? I find John 3:16 to be incompatible with The Second Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7. I interpret many of the scriptures as based on ancient beliefs and not factual in the sense of concrete, objective, and verifiable statements. Put another way, the vast majority of humanity do not accept John 3:16 as fact, but an expression of faith in Jesus as the embodiment of the Eternal…maybe not distinct from the rest of us, just able to articulate fundamental truths.
Best
Dan
Dear Dan,
Have I spent time pondering the New Testament? Nope.
The other day I wondered how it happened that I moved from begin a roommate that used some precious study hours to take Hebrew lessons from a looking-to-be rabbi to where I am today. No significant mind-altering experiences, but certainly influenced by the people I interacted with at Bell Labs, in the IEEE group writing Software Engineering Standards, in software development organizations around the world and in Silicon Valley, in a small Methodist College in moonshine country, and at Montana Tech; not to mention three wives from widely different backgrounds. And also by various teachers, writers, and speakers.
I’m sure some of my intellectual and emotional positions have been better expressed by others. I think of myself as this incredible lucky life-form existing in a mind-blowing universe. This is my current subjective reality. Yes, there is the ultimate mystery of how/why it all came to be. Most humans crave a supernatural answer. I have no quarrel with such. I don’t think any rational, sentient being in our universe will ever know for certain, but even considering the wonder of it all, I believe humankind has a role that they can play; either well or not-so-well. But we can’t play our role to the end unless we survive to the end. Our current models of how it all hangs together are such that there is no guarantee one way or another; but how we play our role concerns a lot of us.
My focus is on how we act. There are some belief systems that probably lead to our sooner-rather-than-later demise, but such are rare. Most human belief systems motivate life, both for individuals and for our species, both in the present and in the future.
Fond regards, Frank
Via email from Dan:
Letter to Frank 7 5 2026
"We accept these truths. That all men are created equal." -- Declaration of Independence
“God created man in his image. In his image, God created man.” Genesis
(The word Adam (man) is used in the Torah. It could be translated as "human," "mankind," "humanity," man, or "a man." The word for a male human, Ish, was not use. Isha is a female human. The word "men" in the Declaration might mean human males but could also mean "human," "mankind," or "humanity.")
An argument was made by John Locke that the earthly rulers of humans were not created by the Eternal, but devised and developed by humans, either self-appointed or chosen by some or all of their fellow humans. In other words, we did not arise in nature as subject to rule by others, but that humans developed systems of rule.
The phrase used in the Declaration references the rule of King George of the UK as the ruler of the American colonies and the people living there. God had not made him king over them. They were entitled to let him rule them (the "consent of the governed") or to choose their own government. It did not mean that all humans were equal to each other. What followed were arguments that King George, by his own actions, had disqualified himself.
When the Torah declared that all humanity was made in the image of the Eternal, it did not mean that all humans were the same. Obviously they weren't. It did mean that governments instituted by humans over tribes or cities or states were all subject to the Eternal rule of all humanity, that no "god"-like ruler was a substituted for the one Eternal.
The statement was made in the context in which humanity was described as "created" along with all forces of nature, beginning with light, and all living things, ending with humanity. The order of creation implied that humanity, in a sense, ruled the earth and all living things, just as the Eternal ruled all things…but the similarity did not make humans god-like or the Eternal human.
How could this be?
In creating, as if out of nothing, the Eternal caused light to be, as if by speaking in words. Clearly, the authors of Genesis and all of Torah knew that, before humans were created, there was no speech and no human language. Without them, the Eternal could not have "said, let there be light." Why is this written in this way?
For the ancients (and for me, too, to some extent) the power of speech, the conception of words and language, and the ability to "imagine" things using words was beyond their understanding. It was obviously needed by the time the sentence was written, but the path by which it came to be was obscure. Not only that, it was equally difficult to explain how different groups of humans had different languages and used words differently and how, even within a single group, the meanings of words overlapped and lacked specificity.
The Eternal's ongoing creation was similarly obscure. How could "light" be created? How could the regular cycling of light and darkness get started? Why was it a constant? In telling the creation story, the ancients wove together a story that has parallels in the evolution of life on our planet, as if early humans recognized how it happened. What they accurately understood was that once they were created they tended to persist. That, too, was mysterious, clearly related to reproduction in animals, less clearly explained by the production of seeds in plants, and utterly inexplicable in nature. They did not know how streams kept flowing, the winds blew, earthquakes and volcanoes shook and fumed, storms erupted, and rains drenched them. What they knew was that these things were out of their own control and, presumably under the control of some remote, invisible power.
They attributed all the "creative" force to the one Eternal and came to believe, expect, and hope that the Eternal would be mostly benevolent and avoid using the creative force to treat them badly if they behaved as humans learned to do to each other when they wanted their fellow humans to be kind – to show appreciation, ask politely, and control their own aggression. This did not mean that they thought of the Eternal as a human. They knew they could not control the Eternal or expect it to make wise, just, and kind decisions, so much as to be reliably, impartially, and constantly creative and supportive of the entirety of creation without selecting any individuals for favor.
One justification for making a statement about human equality is that, unlike other living things, humanity has created systems of governance. Other living things are all free to do as they choose unless they are threatened or overpowered by other creatures.
One justification for making a statement about humans being "created in the image of the Eternal" is to help us remember our ability to encompass all that is with our minds, unlike other animals. In that sense, we are like the Eternal.
However, our minds cannot create with the power and scope of the Eternal. We can produce children, grow plants, nurture livestock, capture, kill, and collect things and we can channel energy, but all of what we do is no match for the Eternal's creations. We can endure for up to a century or so. The Eternal will last forever.
Dear Dan,
Thank you for this thoughtful message. As is my modus operandi, to fully digest it, I make this reply.
It is my fundamental truth that every one of us operates from our own subjective reality, that this situation is a fundamental aspect of the particular universe in which we find ourselves, and that no one’s subjective reality fully captures what is, or what is in every aspect “correct”.
I, like any other life form on this planet, care first of all about my own being. As nearly as I can tell, for some life forms this is the extent of their caring. For most, however, their sphere of caring extends beyond themselves. My own sphere extends out to the 8 billion of us presently inhabiting this planet, and to all of our possible homo sapiens’ decedents. Right now, I take our cosmologist’s notion of our planet’s future to be true, and think that homo sapiens will someday cease to be. It is possible that we may some day send humans to other planets, but the nature of things is that in a different ecosystem they will become a different species. All this is just to say that my sphere of caring extends to you and yours, and considers your view of things as legitimate as mine. Of course, the strength of my care is modulated by proximity and longevity.
Now to try to understand what you are saying ---
You: “An argument was made by John Locke that the earthly rulers of humans were not created by the Eternal, but devised and developed by humans, either self-appointed or chosen by some or all of their fellow humans. In other words, we did not arise in nature as subject to rule by others, but that humans developed systems of rule.”
Me: I’m not familiar with much of Locke, but I think I understand these statements.
You: “The phrase used in the Declaration references the rule of King George of the UK as the ruler of the American colonies and the people living there. God had not made him king over them. They were entitled to let him rule them (the "consent of the governed") or to choose their own government. It did not mean that all humans were equal to each other. What followed were arguments that King George, by his own actions, had disqualified himself.”
Me: OK. But aren’t we still arguing over: “It did not mean that all humans were equal to each other.”
You: “When the Torah declared that all humanity was made in the image of the Eternal, it did not mean that all humans were the same. Obviously they weren't. It did mean that governments instituted by humans over tribes or cities or states were all subject to the Eternal rule of all humanity, that no "god"-like ruler was a substituted for the one Eternal.”
Me: OK. I take it that most of the Torah/Talmud scholars say this is so.
You: “The order of creation implied that humanity, in a sense, ruled the earth and all living things”
Me: The implication is not obvious to me, but I’ll take your word for it.
You: “How could this be?
Me: I’m lost here. I probably won’t fully understand what follows. But I’m forging ahead nonetheless.
You: “In creating, as if out of nothing, the Eternal caused light to be, as if by speaking in words. Clearly, the authors of Genesis and all of Torah knew that, before humans were created, there was no speech and no human language. Without them, the Eternal could not have "said, let there be light." Why is this written in this way?
For the ancients (and for me, too, to some extent) the power of speech, the conception of words and language, and the ability to "imagine" things using words was beyond their understanding. It was obviously needed by the time the sentence was written, but the path by which it came to be was obscure. Not only that, it was equally difficult to explain how different groups of humans had different languages and used words differently and how, even within a single group, the meanings of words overlapped and lacked specificity.”
Me: I take it that this is imaging the thoughts of the original Hebrew story tellers, but OK.
You: “For the ancients (and for me, too, to some extent) the power of speech, the conception of words and language, and the ability to "imagine" things using words was beyond their understanding. It was obviously needed by the time the sentence was written, but the path by which it came to be was obscure. Not only that, it was equally difficult to explain how different groups of humans had different languages and used words differently and how, even within a single group, the meanings of words overlapped and lacked specificity.
The Eternal's ongoing creation was similarly obscure. How could "light" be created? How could the regular cycling of light and darkness get started? Why was it a constant? In telling the creation story, the ancients wove together a story that has parallels in the evolution of life on our planet, as if early humans recognized how it happened. What they accurately understood was that once they were created they tended to persist. That, too, was mysterious, clearly related to reproduction in animals, less clearly explained by the production of seeds in plants, and utterly inexplicable in nature. They did not know how streams kept flowing, the winds blew, earthquakes and volcanoes shook and fumed, storms erupted, and rains drenched them. What they knew was that these things were out of their own control and, presumably under the control of some remote, invisible power.
They attributed all the "creative" force to the one Eternal and came to believe, expect, and hope that the Eternal would be mostly benevolent and avoid using the creative force to treat them badly if they behaved as humans learned to do to each other when they wanted their fellow humans to be kind – to show appreciation, ask politely, and control their own aggression. This did not mean that they thought of the Eternal as a human. They knew they could not control the Eternal or expect it to make wise, just, and kind decisions, so much as to be reliably, impartially, and constantly creative and supportive of the entirety of creation without selecting any individuals for favor.
Me: OK.
You: “One justification for making a statement about human equality is that, unlike other living things, humanity has created systems of governance. Other living things are all free to do as they choose unless they are threatened or overpowered by other creatures.”
Me: Justification for who? The framers? But I’m assuming you.
You: However, our minds cannot create with the power and scope of the Eternal. We can produce children, grow plants, nurture livestock, capture, kill, and collect things and we can channel energy, but all of what we do is no match for the Eternal's creations.
Me: ChatGPT just confirmed my belief that the unit of all rational thought, at least in the West, is the proposition. But not for me. I take entities as being the fundamental elements of all thought, rational and otherwise. So, in my mental model of your subjective reality, there is an entity labeled “Eternal” that is fundamental.
In your comment above you assign various attributes to the Eternal and posit various relationships to other entities in your reality. I’d be happy to offer my own idiosyncratic observations on your reality, but for now I’ll just comment that as nearly as I can tell, such an entity does not inhabit my own subjective reality. By positing The Eternal you provide an answer to a legitimate question about my subjective reality: “Where did the Big Bang come from, or put another way, what caused the Big Bang Since my primary concern is with the long-term future of humankind, I’m content to leave this question unanswered. Some cosmologists answer this question by positing an infinite number of universes.
You: We can endure for up to a century or so. The Eternal will last forever.”
Me: By definition, The Eternal lasts forever. But apparently for you The Eternal is not concerned that Its creation have a really long-term existence. It would appear that in this we agree. In my present model of physical reality, our species will continue to inhabit the Earth as long as advanced life can thrive, but if we do not take care, not only will the present First Worldwide Civilization cease to exist in “a century or so”, but that there is a chance that we will have so damaged our nest that this will be the last civilization on this planet.
From JackD via email:
Frank,
This person seems rather aggressive. My feeling is they have very little true understanding of their own religion. It is easy to do minor research to see that they don't see that this is a universal sentiment across many religions.
1. Sikhism - God is love, and through love, union with God is attained.
2. Zoroastrianism - O Ahura Mazda, through Your radiant light You give life to all.
3. Kabbalistic / Mystic Judaism - The Holy One, blessed be He, is the light that flows to all worlds, giving life to all.
Unfortunately I think the person you are talking to will fall back on the God Told Me idea, missing the fact that most Protestant religions start with the basic primus that God is personal to each man or woman. They truly felt the idea "No man shall come between me and my god" thus they were extremely resistant to other people telling them how to interact with God.
Jack
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your message. My memory may not be correct, but I think you said a while back that I could post messages from you here. I plan to write some bits about the people I interact with, so I’m using a pseudonym. I can easily change this.
One of my fundamental truths is that every intelligent being lives in their own unique subjective reality. One of my long-time interlocutors claims this is not so, but I have yet to understand his position. So, I’ll first try to enter your reality and then describe mine.
I seems to me that from my little story you’ve assumed that my zealot[1] has certain mental positions. You may well be correct. You say; “It is easy to do minor research to see that they don't see that this is a universal sentiment across many religions.”
It seems to me that this assertion can be broken down into two parts:
1) That the sentiment expressed in John 3:16 is universal across many religions, and
2) that “they” don’t see this.
I asked ChatGPT[2] to comment on the above breakdown. My summary of its reply:
The above quote can be naturally decomposed into:
1. The proposition being asserted: The sentiment expressed in John 3:16 is a universal sentiment across many religions.
2. The claim about the people under discussion ("they"): They do not recognize (or "don't see") that this is so.
ChatGPT claims that the cited verse contains several distinct ideas:
• God loves humanity.
• God acts sacrificially on humanities behalf.
• Jesus is God’s unique Son.
• Salvation comes through belief in Jesus.
• Eternal life is offered through Christ.
It notes that these ideas are not all universal.
ChatGPT sees the second point as a claim about the beliefs of a particular group that is a personal inference rather than an established fact. It claims that many Christians who emphasize John 3:16 are quite aware that similar ethical themes occur in other religions, but nevertheless regard the Christian message is, in several aspects, unique.
I was surprised by the response to this post. I chalk this up to my quoting Christian scripture, and my agreeing to memorize it.
Since I probably heard this verse scores of times in my youth it would hardly require much effort to memorize it. I’m leaving my motivation for setting the stage for possible further connection with John for another time, but my above reply to Dan’s comment might provide a clue.
Thanks again for your remarks. Responding to them helps me get the most out of this experience.
Frank
Notes:
[1] ‘zealot’ – I struggled with this word choice. While it can be just an objective description, for many people it is pejorative. But from just this brief, limited interaction, I could not think of a better word. It’s emotional power probably skewed my reader’s thoughts.
[2] I made my first request of ChatGPT more than three years ago. As its capabilities have matured my usage has increased. It seems to me that in the long run near universal access to AI will have as great effect on human civilization as all the ways we have amplified/supplanted/replaced human muscle power. For me AI is now a powerful tool that I use daily for exploration into, and analysis of, humankind’s social reality and my own thoughts and feelings.
From it’s browser interface it is clear that ChatGPT “remembers” previous requests and its responses. It seems to me that it is also building up a model of my interests and ways of thinking. A few months ago I had it help me with “Essay: Tools For Corralling Truth I: Introduction to Formal Argument”. I was surprised that here it concluded its reply with:
A logical reconstruction
If one wanted to make the reasoning explicit, it might be expressed as:
1. The central sentiment of John 3:16 appears in many religions.
2. The people you describe apparently fail to recognize this.
3. Therefore, they have only a limited understanding of their own religion.
Notice that premise (2) does not follow from premise (1); it requires its own evidence.
My present focus on ChatGPT is just personal convenience. I have no reason to assume that it is superior to some other free, publicly available AI.
From Gwen via email:
Super interesting, Dad. Love this post.
Gwen
Thank you #1 daughter. Most of my posts are quite cerebral. I thought this one might have more appeal. It did! Quite a few comments. Even an oral comment from Hwe’s brother-in-law!
But my intent was to post something personal. Instead the comments were either about zealotry or the biblical verse.
My grandfather had an expression, "No one is a more rabid Christian than a reformed whore." I find it often applies to zealots--they are trying to make up for having committed some great sin or harm. Sometimes they continue the sin and the harm, believing that faith alone will save them. Of course this explanation rather begs the question, for why do they believe the Bible as truth or Christian god as an entity to begin with? Perhaps we can blame it on their upbringing or simply a lack of intelligence. But these and other explanations do violence to what appear to be supremely intelligent, well-acting people who are devout nonetheless. I think here of people such as Thomas Merton or Wendell Berry, or perhaps even Barack Obama.
Hi Pat,
Thanks much for your comment.
None of us have absolute answers to our most basic questions. As nearly as I can tell, a belief in the existence of supernatural entities of any sort is as valid as a belief that such entities do not exist. What is important is the actions one takes that affect other people. It seems to me that you are saying that there is only a loose coupling between such beliefs and the believer’s actions.
Based on only two encounters, I don’t even know if I’ll even encounter John again. If I do, my first objective will be to attempt to make a connection of any sort. If I can, then perhaps I can start to form answers to your questions.
Fond regards, Frank
When I was in my mid twenties and a teacher back in the 70s I commuted with a guy who taught math in the same school I taught English. He was proud of being a doper and said he spent his evenings in a lounge chair with a headset on while his wife took care of their baby.
I have no idea what we talked about but we lived near each other and had this 50 mi round trip commute. my husband and I did try pot with him and his wife... once.
One Monday he got in the car after having found Jesus over the weekend. From that day forward the commute was torture. he lectured me because i was not a Christian and pontificated the whole trip, and said I didn't need to worry because I would go to heaven after all because I was such a good person that he was confident that at the last minute I would accept Christ as my savior and all would be well. He made me so mad. All I could think of until I stopped commuting with him was how much nicer he was when he was just a plain loser doper.
Hi Jeri,
Thanks for the comment. Sorry about the tortuous commute. I’m sure hundreds of people have similar stories.
What interests me in my present oldie old age is the processes/states of your torturer’s brain/mind. What was his reality like before he became an obnoxious zealot, and why and how did it change, seemingly over a single weekend?
Although many don’t agree, there’s now a fair amount of scientific evidence that everything we are conscious of is the result of some electromagnetic activity in our physical brain.[1]
I don’t want to dismiss the angst you had to experience from this fellow, but fundamentally it was the result of brain/mind changes. Similar changes are happening in the brain/minds of millions of our fellow citizens and causing not only a lot of angst for the rest of us but are driving detrimental changes that will take years to recover from, if indeed we can.
Fond regards, Frank
Note
[1] The Great Courses, “Understanding the Brain”, https://plus.thegreatcourses.com/understanding-the-brain
Thanks for your comment.
By definition, validity means that true premises lead to a true conclusion. If there is not evidence for a claim (other than some subjective "feeling"), the claim is by definition invalid. Take your pick: (1) Mark Twain: "Faith is believing what you know ain't true." or (2) Emo Philips: "I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
As nearly as I can tell, very few people are aware that their mental/emotional models of what is are just idiosyncratic constructions of their minds as constructed first by their genes, then by their ever-ongoing living experience, and then by a intelligence directed by their will. It “macht nichts” that this is so until a brain/mind initiates actions based on its current model. This assertion is just a construction of my own brain/mind.
A lifetime of teaching logic and other philosophy courses led me to equate idiosyncratic with simply "idiot". Idiot derives from the Greek noun idiōtēs (ἰδιώτης), which simply meant someone not involved in public life. For Athenians, active civic participation--as with Socrates discussions in the marketplace--was part of being fully human. Today we have Substack :-)