Communion

[Lori_7]

...one of the major tenets of the bible. the purpose of christ, and the ultimate goal. assumes that something that could be described as a "collective conscience" would be recognizable, attainable, and demonstrable, and whose concern would always be the greater good. the outcome being the elimination of all suffering and eternal life for all who would submit.

this concept implies a segregation between those who would submit and those who would not for pretty obvious reasons...victimization...contamination if you will.

so my question is, who would submit? why or why not?

 

[birch]

this is a matter of personal philosophy and how one lives their life based on their moral values. it's a numbers game as greater numbers have a greater chance of fulfilling their agenda or creating a 'collective conscience'. collective consience changes in a society over time. what was considered acceptable before may not be acceptable now and vice versa. this is also not an issue of "submitting" as people do according to their nature. if more people wish to "eliminate suffering" (eternal life is a belief that is beyond this issue) or work for the greater good, then that is what will happen. for instance, such as social workers, doctors, police, activists, human and animal rights advocates etc.

there is no spiritual 'segregation' since you can't segregate people based on their moral values except put them in prison or execute them when they act out in serious ways. unfortunately, people can cause damage even before it gets this overt or obvious as there are many avenues.

you also get things backward, as it's perpetrators or predators that would cause more suffering and create the victimization and contamination.

 

[Lori_7]

this is a matter of personal philosophy and how one lives their life based on their moral values. it's a numbers game as greater numbers have a greater chance of fulfilling their agenda or creating a 'collective conscience'. collective consience changes in a society over time. what was considered acceptable before may not be acceptable now and vice versa. this is also not an issue of "submitting" as people do according to their nature. if more people wish to "eliminate suffering" (eternal life is a belief that is beyond this issue) or work for the greater good, then that is what will happen. for instance, such as social workers, doctors, police, activists, human and animal rights advocates etc.

there is no spiritual 'segregation' since you can't segregate people based on their moral values except put them in prison or execute them when they act out in serious ways. unfortunately, people can cause damage even before it gets this overt or obvious as there are many avenues.

you also get things backward, as it's perpetrators or predators that would cause more suffering and create the victimization and contamination.

i'm not talking about moral values, but a higher order of consciousness, the source of which was something much greater than yourself. i'm talking about law, as in the laws that govern the universe, like a math problem, or a physics problem, the answer to what is right and correct for the greater good is always identifiable and attainable.

would you be in? why or why not?

 

[birch]

i'm not talking about moral values, but a higher order of consciousness, the source of which was something much greater than yourself. i'm talking about law, as in the laws that govern the universe, like a math problem, or a physics problem, the answer to what is right and correct for the greater good is always identifiable and attainable.

would you be in? why or why not?

you said demonstrable. you would first need to define what this higher order is as well as what you consider the greater good first before asking who would submit or not.

let's start with this: what are the laws that govern the universe that you recognize?

 

[Lori_7]

you said demonstrable. you would first need to define what this higher order is as well as what you consider the greater good first before asking who would submit or not.

let's start with this: what are the laws that govern the universe that you recognize?

all of the ones that are recognizable, just like you.

in this thread, you're going to have to accept as a given, that the correct answer, in regards to your behavior, is always attainable, and who's concern is the greater good, the outcome of that behavior is always the greater good, and you submit to that knowledge and resulting behavior voluntarily. the source of that knowledge is something much greater than yourself, but you submit to, and make it a part of you.

 

[birch]

all of the ones that are recognizable, just like you.

in this thread, you're going to have to accept as a given, that the correct answer, in regards to your behavior, is always attainable, and who's concern is the greater good, the outcome of that behavior is always the greater good, and you submit to that knowledge and resulting behavior voluntarily. the source of that knowledge is something much greater than yourself, but you submit to, and make it a part of you.

your statement is actually irrevelant. you are basically saying it is what it is and what can't be answered, can't be answered. everyone is aware of that at least.

the concept of "greater good" is a matter of personal opinion. the reality of outcome is another matter. what someone thinks in an existential sense of where they find themselves is also another matter.

for example, i notice that disease ravages other lifeforms but those diseases are predating to live. i find it sad that it is designed to not care if the other dies or causes it suffering but i recognize that there is nothing i can do about the inherent system. it's a program that i did not write.

for example, i notice that the predator/prey scenario is a system that is often a function of culling/controlling numbers. i find it sad that it's designed that way and it must employ it due to it's design. i accept i have no control over this design.

for example, i find it sad that wars exist and people kill and even torture eachother. i accept that i have no control over that.

for example, i find it sad that slavery exists and people use others for gain, even out of greed. what is even further sad is that the situation may not even have to be unfair.

for example, i find it sad that we one can focus on being happy while another is suffering.

for example, i find it sad that people can and do abuse animals as well as people.

for example, if i had to kill someone in self-defense and agree that i had to do that, that doesn't mean i won't find that the situation itself to be disagreeable that i had to that. i would find it sad that it is that way.

for example, i realize that an asteroid can knock this planet to oblivion and i accept that i have no control over that. one day science may.

for example, i accept i have no control over an inherent system but only myself and what i can do or not do, to some extent.

i do not think that nature automatically has a greater good or plan. imo or what i see is that everything is in a power struggle to survive. even worse, even for redundant greed or gain at the expense of another unnecessarily.

for instance, i don't see myself essentially more important than an ant. i am important to myself. i don't personally agree or like the system/laws of nature and find it inherently based on what i find morally reprehensible but i accept that i have limited control.

i also don't equate the meaning of a higher "good" necessarily with the universe as you do. what i find good can be specific which nature may not place any importance on, one way or another.

i observe nature works on an inherently predatorial system which on a purely conceptual level i may disagree with but i also know i have no control over it's inherent process.

 

[Yosef]

Communion is a major tenet in Islam too. In fact, most teachings call for a harmonious society where common good is valued highly. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:

‘Believers are like a single person; if his eye is in pain his whole body pains, and if his head is in pain his whole body pains.’

‘Allah is beautiful and loves beauty.’

"There is no Muslim who planteth a tree, or soweth a field, and man birds or beast eat from them, but it is charity for him."

Muhammad said, "That person will not enter Paradise who hath one atom of pride in his heart." And a man present said, "Verily, a man is fond of having good clothes, and good shoes." Muhammad said, "God is Beauty and delighteth in the beautiful; but pride is holding man in contempt."

“Do not disdain any good deed, even your meeting with your brother (Muslim / believer) with a cheerful face.”

"By Him in Whose Hands is my soul, a man does not believe until he wishes for his brother (in faith) what he does for himself."

I am not saying that Muslims today live their lives according to the these thoughts and teachings above. I wish they did. There is much jealousy and disagreement. Many people think only of their personal interests. They think that by doing that they can secure a better personal lives.

I believe the contrary. I think that joy of the heart is achieved by doing that which God and His Messenger ask for and like. Nothing good or bad happens without the knowledge and permission of God. Being a righteous and obedient believer secures the Love of God. Nothing compares to that Love and grace. On a manner, yes, you need to experience it personally in order to know what I mean.

Of course, being good to one's neighbor has evident benefits. He / she would most likely return that good back, directly or indirectly, sooner or later. The same applies to the man on the street that the Prophet of God calls to greet, whether you know him or not (stranger).

I would conclude that my love to God (and the love I seek from him) + plus the good feeling that a good deed leaves the heart with, are my greatest motivators.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i'm not talking about moral values, but a higher order of consciousness, the source of which was something much greater than yourself. i'm talking about law, as in the laws that govern the universe, like a math problem, or a physics problem, the answer to what is right and correct for the greater good is always identifiable and attainable.
would you be in? why or why not?

Failure of understanding.
If it's a law of nature (as you claim) then we have no "choice" as to whether to submit or not. It's akin to deciding you want to ignore gravity for the day - it just doesn't work.

I would suggest that the simple fact that we don't all "submit" to this idea is a good indicator that it isn't a law of nature.
Problem solved.

 

[birch]

in this thread, you're going to have to accept as a given, that the correct answer, in regards to your behavior, is always attainable, and who's concern is the greater good, the outcome of that behavior is always the greater good, and you submit to that knowledge and resulting behavior voluntarily. the source of that knowledge is something much greater than yourself, but you submit to, and make it a part of you.

my, my, isn't this exhibit so typical. all the makings of a "cult" (brainwashing/exploitation). don't question, don't think and just submit. how sick. it is offensive just reading it, and motivates me to want to e-punch you right in your e-face. how about that for laws of nature?

 

[Lori_7]

my, my, isn't this exhibit so typical. all the makings of a "cult" (brainwashing/exploitation). don't question, don't think and just submit. how sick. it is offensive just reading it, and motivates me to want to e-punch you right in your e-face. how about that for laws of nature?

Well aren't we testy.

And no. The premise is that it has been questioned, it has been tried and tested, it has been established, documented, and determined, in the same way we've determined many other things scientifically.

Now if you would like to stop throwing a tantrum and actually answer the question, that would be great.

 

[birch]

Well aren't we testy.

And no. The premise is that it has been questioned, it has been tried and tested, it has been established, documented, and determined, in the same way we've determined many other things scientifically.

Now if you would like to stop throwing a tantrum and actually answer the question, that would be great.

amazingly crazy. i'm throwing a "tantrum" because you make zero sense and are extremely vague but expect others to know what you mean.

answer what question? what has been tried and tested? what has been established, documented, and determined?

you gave no information and you didn't even give any indication what that is.

you don't even reason, which could be construed as a mental health issue.

 

[Lori_7]

Failure of understanding.
If it's a law of nature (as you claim) then we have no "choice" as to whether to submit or not. It's akin to deciding you want to ignore gravity for the day - it just doesn't work.

I would suggest that the simple fact that we don't all "submit" to this idea is a good indicator that it isn't a law of nature.
Problem solved.

ok, take the law of gravity for example, which has been determined scientifically, we now can base decisions on this knowledge, like what kind of engineering is required to build an airplane, or whether it's a good idea to jump out of one without a parachute, etc.

now in this world, i think it's obvious that there's a disconnect in the knowledge required to determine the far-reaching and ultimate, comprehensive consequences of all of our actions. i also think it's obvious that even when those consequences are known, and in no way perpetuate the greater good, that people ignore that, and do whatever the hell they want to anyway.

so the premise is, that we are able to tap into an all-knowing source, that can and does determine what the far reaching and ultimate consequences of all of our actions are in relation to the greater good. would you submit to this knowledge?

the atheists in this thread are going to have to step out of the box to be able to participate in this hypothetical. i have no desire to argue about the given premise in this thread. i only want to know whether or not you would submit, given the premise, and why or why not.

 

[Lori_7]

Communion is a major tenet in Islam too. In fact, most teachings call for a harmonious society where common good is valued highly. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:

‘Believers are like a single person; if his eye is in pain his whole body pains, and if his head is in pain his whole body pains.’

‘Allah is beautiful and loves beauty.’

"There is no Muslim who planteth a tree, or soweth a field, and man birds or beast eat from them, but it is charity for him."

Muhammad said, "That person will not enter Paradise who hath one atom of pride in his heart." And a man present said, "Verily, a man is fond of having good clothes, and good shoes." Muhammad said, "God is Beauty and delighteth in the beautiful; but pride is holding man in contempt."

“Do not disdain any good deed, even your meeting with your brother (Muslim / believer) with a cheerful face.”

"By Him in Whose Hands is my soul, a man does not believe until he wishes for his brother (in faith) what he does for himself."

I am not saying that Muslims today live their lives according to the these thoughts and teachings above. I wish they did. There is much jealousy and disagreement. Many people think only of their personal interests. They think that by doing that they can secure a better personal lives.

I believe the contrary. I think that joy of the heart is achieved by doing that which God and His Messenger ask for and like. Nothing good or bad happens without the knowledge and permission of God. Being a righteous and obedient believer secures the Love of God. Nothing compares to that Love and grace. On a manner, yes, you need to experience it personally in order to know what I mean.

Of course, being good to one's neighbor has evident benefits. He / she would most likely return that good back, directly or indirectly, sooner or later. The same applies to the man on the street that the Prophet of God calls to greet, whether you know him or not (stranger).

I would conclude that my love to God (and the love I seek from him) + plus the good feeling that a good deed leaves the heart with, are my greatest motivators.

so does that mean you're in? that you would submit?

what if your religious orientation is entirely irrelevant? what if those who you were in communion with were not all muslims? what if your opinions, emotions, and current beliefs were not necessarily relevant according to this greater source of knowledge?

 

[birch]

so the premise is, that we are able to tap into an all-knowing source, that can and does determine what the far reaching and ultimate consequences of all of our actions are in relation to the greater good. would you submit to this knowledge?

how strange. evidently people are motivated by something and doing exactly what you insinuate. the first post answered how that happens BUT greater good is subjective beyond survival and that is what motivates everyone. for others, this extends beyond themselves to other humans and even animals. as for some unknown being in the sky or wherever, that is irrevelant because it can't be established, documented and determined!

 

[Lori_7]

your statement is actually irrevelant. you are basically saying it is what it is and what can't be answered, can't be answered. everyone is aware of that at least.

no. what i'm saying is that everything can be answered.

the concept of "greater good" is a matter of personal opinion. the reality of outcome is another matter. what someone thinks in an existential sense of where they find themselves is also another matter.

no. what i'm saying is that, because of this knowledge source, your opinion is no longer relevant.

for example, i notice that disease ravages other lifeforms but those diseases are predating to live. i find it sad that it is designed to not care if the other dies or causes it suffering but i recognize that there is nothing i can do about the inherent system. it's a program that i did not write.

what i'm suggesting is that the source of knowledge can determine the requirements necessary to eliminate disease.

for example, i notice that the predator/prey scenario is a system that is often a function of culling/controlling numbers. i find it sad that it's designed that way and it must employ it due to it's design. i accept i have no control over this design.

for example, i find it sad that wars exist and people kill and even torture eachother. i accept that i have no control over that.

you are suggesting here, that you would rely on your limited knowledge, and the resulting belief that these things are inevitable, and you have no control over it. what i am suggesting, is that there is a source of knowledge that is much greater than you and yours, and would determine the elimination of these things which you think are sad. if you think these things are so sad, then would you submit to this knowledge?

for example, i find it sad that slavery exists and people use others for gain, even out of greed. what is even further sad is that the situation may not even have to be unfair.

for example, i find it sad that we one can focus on being happy while another is suffering.

for example, i find it sad that people can and do abuse animals as well as people.

for example, if i had to kill someone in self-defense and agree that i had to do that, that doesn't mean i won't find that the situation itself to be disagreeable that i had to that. i would find it sad that it is that way.

eliminated, eliminated, eliminated...

for example, i realize that an asteroid can knock this planet to oblivion and i accept that i have no control over that. one day science may.

for example, i accept i have no control over an inherent system but only myself and what i can do or not do, to some extent.

eliminated, eliminated...

i do not think that nature automatically has a greater good or plan. imo or what i see is that everything is in a power struggle to survive. even worse, even for redundant greed or gain at the expense of another unnecessarily.

for instance, i don't see myself essentially more important than an ant. i am important to myself. i don't personally agree or like the system/laws of nature and find it inherently based on what i find morally reprehensible but i accept that i have limited control.

i also don't equate the meaning of a higher "good" necessarily with the universe as you do. what i find good can be specific which nature may not place any importance on, one way or another.

i observe nature works on an inherently predatorial system which on a purely conceptual level i may disagree with but i also know i have no control over it's inherent process.

you're stuck in the box. you are only reiterating what is our current state, which has nothing to do with what i'm suggesting. i am suggesting that a source of knowledge exists, and is accessible, which takes the limits off of your control, while at the same time, requires that your actions always benefit the greater good.

 

[Lori_7]

amazingly crazy. i'm throwing a "tantrum" because you make zero sense and are extremely vague but expect others to know what you mean.

answer what question? what has been tried and tested? what has been established, documented, and determined?

you gave no information and you didn't even give any indication what that is.

you don't even reason, which could be construed as a mental health issue.

how strange. evidently people are motivated by something and doing exactly what you insinuate. the first post answered how that happens BUT greater good is subjective beyond survival and that is what motivates everyone. for others, this extends beyond themselves to other humans and even animals. as for some unknown being in the sky or wherever, that is irrevelant because it can't be established, documented and determined!

THE PREMISE IS THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE ANYMORE!

now listen, this isn't rocket science here ok? it's a fairly simple premise and a straight-forward question in regards to it. you may not like the premise or the question, but this is not the place for you to continue to throw tantrums in response to that. now either answer the question, or leave the thread. :shrug:

 

[Dywyddyr]

so the premise is, that we are able to tap into an all-knowing source, that can and does determine what the far reaching and ultimate consequences of all of our actions are in relation to the greater good. would you submit to this knowledge?

the atheists in this thread are going to have to step out of the box to be able to participate in this hypothetical. i have no desire to argue about the given premise in this thread. i only want to know whether or not you would submit, given the premise, and why or why not.

I see you're STILL failing to understand.
If nature is such that this thing is a law then it's NOT a question of "would you submit?" because whatever one does (whether atheist or not) would be in accordance with that law.
I.e. "submission" would be as involuntary (and as natural) as submitting to the law of gravity.

 

[Lori_7]

I see you're STILL failing to understand.
If nature is such that this thing is a law then it's NOT a question of "would you submit?" because whatever one does (whether atheist or not) would be in accordance with that law.
I.e. "submission" would be as involuntary (and as natural) as submitting to the law of gravity.

are you able to make a choice as to whether or not you jump out of an airplane without a parachute given what you know about gravity dy?

 

[birch]

you're stuck in the box. you are only reiterating what is our current state, which has nothing to do with what i'm suggesting. i am suggesting that a source of knowledge exists, and is accessible, which takes the limits off of your control, while at the same time, requires that your actions always benefit the greater good.

i am stuck in the box? if, hypothetically, there was a source that could eliminate all suffering and want, you are asking if people would submit to it?

of course they would, just even because for themself! what kind of useless question is that?

it's like asking if people don't want to starve. kookoo.

the deceptive part of your query is that you know that you can't establish what this source is or you have not directly stated what it is as well as you've implied that the source is more important in and of itself, that is why your point is contradictory and moot.

your first post is even contradictory as you implied that victims or the damaged would not submit. why wouldn't they? and why do you use the word "submit" which further has the connotation of a disregard for oneself which would be the the antithesis of your idea that all suffering would be eliminated.

it's like asking that one jump off a bridge and assure them they will be caught, without given any knowledge or evidence to that claim.

it's also like me selling you a fabulous property that you've never seen but that you would have to take my word for it.

 

[Lori_7]

i am stuck in the box? if, hypothetically, there was a source that could eliminate all suffering and want, you are asking if people would submit to it?

of course they would, just even because for themself! what kind of useless question is that?

it's like asking if people don't want to starve. kookoo.

the deceptive part of your query is that you know that you can't establish what this source is or you have not directly stated what it is as well as you've implied that the source is more important in and of itself, that is why your point is contradictory and moot.

your first post is even contradictory as you implied that victims or the damaged would not submit. why wouldn't they? and why do you use the word "submit" which further has the connotation of a disregard for oneself which would be the the antithesis of your idea that all suffering would be eliminated.

it's like asking that one jump off a bridge and assure them they will be caught, without given any knowledge or evidence to that claim.

it's also like me selling you a fabulous property that you've never seen but that you would have to take my word for it.

it's called a hypothetical birch. :bugeye:

and yet, it's not so hypothetical that you can't relate it to our current state. you are suggesting that the answer is a no-brainer, and that all would submit due to their own self-interest, but what we see in our current state, is that many, many people choose to ignore the far-reaching consequences of their actions even as they are known to be a detriment to the greater good, in order to gain short-term benefits for themselves. :bugeye:

hey, here's an idea...why don't you answer the question i'm asking in this thread?