Originally posted by Raithere
No 'authority' or assistance can make you stop such behavior without the willing participation of the individual.
I said; “do so through strong will power, the power,” we agree on this.
According to whom?
To you of course.
Those things inside myself that some people call God I attribute to other factors
What things do you mean?
You keep assuming there is something I do not know or have not tried
Its not that, its that you don’t seemed relaxed with yourself, you seem to search for answers outside of your experience, this shows lack of confidence.
I believe I understand quite well those factors people attribute to God and I believe there are better explanations.
There are better explanations for everything if you get the right person to explain it, but explanations means squat, unless you can relate them to your own self experience, and when you can, you can see through bogus explanations very easily.
Love is a nebulous concept containing a tremendous variety of factors and definitions.
That is a strange description, do you mean love is sort of gaseus?
But no definition was proffered that lent itself to proof or disproof.
That is because one cannot define love in a general sense, it is a personal feeling. All we can do is say what love is to us as individuals, and compare our definitions. Like love, God can only be proven satisfactorily to ourselves.
One cannot test or prove an undefined hypothesis.
Love is not a hypothesis, theory or fact, it is a truth, you can only experience it when it is a part of you.
Still, I believe that I did and can give evidence of love: 1) My first-hand account of my own emotions. 2) The fact that I tell the people I love that I love them. 3) The history of my actions which demonstrate "loving" behavior. 4) The opinion of those people who have first-hand experience to my words and behavior.
But I cannot experience those things you tell me of. People tell people they love them all the time, it doesn’t mean its true, only they know if its true.
What is a loving behaviour?
Those people may have first hand experience of your words and behaviour, and express their opinion, but it still does not prove what love is to me, but you say you love. It is not different from me telling you what God means to me, do you get my point?
Which begs the question of why we would need to be perfect to "see" God.
Because He is perfect.
Try and imagine what a perfect person is.
Bad example, if they were natural behaviors they would not be commandments they would be instincts.
They are instincts, but our natural instincts have become perverted due to societal pressure.
Fact is, most religion seeks to constrain aspects of our instinctual behavior that are disruptive to the society in which we live.
Take a look at society today, is it any wonder?
But thought is intrinsic to meaningful action. Action based purely upon desire is bestial.
I agree totally with the first part, but the second part is too general, it depends what the desire is. It all boils down to whether our mind is our friend or enemy.
I enjoy work. I enjoy and value those things that I accomplish through effort.
I can apreciate that, but some things don’t require work, it actually requires calm, relaxation and enjoyment. When we work, we tend to focus the mind on the job at hand, when we relax we can focus on our mind.
I think you just have a very negative perception of work.
No, I realise that we have to work in this life, that is integral to our survival, my point is though, outside of that, why do we work so hard?
At it's primary level, life is a pattern of organization that replicates, adapts, and grows.
Just for now, forget what life is at its primary level, just tell what you think it is from your own perspective, now, as you read this. I know you must have one, because you are alive and therefore have firsthand experience of life.
No. Actually, I find blasphemy to be one of the more absurd religious notions.
But for now that is what we have to go on, right? It says in all major religions that blaspheme is a sin, and your present stance is based on religions, so whether you accept it or not, that is the standard. If you change the religion, then it is no longer religion, and we have no subject matter.
I do not believe in blasphemy nor in sin but I do agree that we cannot escape the consequences of our actions;
You do not believe in God either, but we are discussing Him in light of religion, sin is explained in all religion, so you must accept (at least for purpose of discussion), the descriptions as laid out.
I do not agree that abiogenisis took place, but I cannot change the explanations as put forward by the authorities, to suit my whims.
It is this truth that I believe lies at the heart of the concept of sin but sin is an authoritative expression of it.
That make a lot of sense to someone who doesn’t believe in God, I know you don’t believe in God, but at least accept what religion is.
Any concept of God that I find worthy of admiration and respect and even the title of 'God' would not be offended by honest actions, thoughts, and expressions even if they were wrong.
You’re right, God would not be offended, but that is not what I implied, sin implies that you offend yourself, see it as a form of self-abuse. God is only offended when his devoted lovers are offended, then you really piss Him off.
This is why Jesus said; “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.”
Love
Jan Ardena.
