Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion
- Thread starter river
- Start date
You come here making claims on the topic of "God," "truth," "reality" and such.
A standard reply (throughout history of mankind, not just at Sciforums) to such claims is skepticism, manifested in a wide range from ignoring to challenging to aggressiveness.
The moment one person starts telling another "how things really are," said person should expect resistance.
(And I am sure you are experiencing resistance to my words right now. Can you tell me more about this resistance?)
Yes, go right ahead and use flippancy to deflect truths you do not wish to face. Funny how you never answer questions such as: "Actions speak louder than words, so if the actions only indicate serving these ulterior motives, why should I believe the incongruity?"
look there is alot of bickering about , define , it blah blah
I think I'm familar enough about the Abrahamic and Gnostic and Toth to say this;
All of them talk about either a god or godess
Although Gnostic came the closest , it is actually a pretty good way to be
however , its too lovey - dovey for me , I would rather use respect and honour
anyway
it is possible there are both god(s) and godesses
but that does matter to me so much
what was looking for was an attitude and/or thinking , that had nothing to do with either , didn't happen
so thinking further , I thought of yin-yang
and with the Gnostic , godess and god
so it is possible that there is a cycle of the god and godess
now lets just say that there such a thing , this cycle
then there is only one way to break this cycle and that is for Us Humans to get inbetween these two , so to speak
so that we see both sides , lucidly
as I said above , there could very well some sort of god or godess , in the spirt world and in the Universe
fine
but that doesn't mean that there has to be loss to our psychology and intellect . make US , Humans first and foremost and our survival
this attitude , philosophy , is what we need , I think
I think I'm familar enough about the Abrahamic and Gnostic and Toth to say this;
All of them talk about either a god or godess
Although Gnostic came the closest , it is actually a pretty good way to be
however , its too lovey - dovey for me , I would rather use respect and honour
anyway
it is possible there are both god(s) and godesses
but that does matter to me so much
what was looking for was an attitude and/or thinking , that had nothing to do with either , didn't happen
so thinking further , I thought of yin-yang
and with the Gnostic , godess and god
so it is possible that there is a cycle of the god and godess
now lets just say that there such a thing , this cycle
then there is only one way to break this cycle and that is for Us Humans to get inbetween these two , so to speak
so that we see both sides , lucidly
as I said above , there could very well some sort of god or godess , in the spirt world and in the Universe
fine
but that doesn't mean that there has to be loss to our psychology and intellect . make US , Humans first and foremost and our survival
this attitude , philosophy , is what we need , I think
lol
and you don't?
I don't understand.
Are you trying to say this makes theistic discussions typical of ontological debate or distinct?
"telling people how things are" is part of the human condition.
Its the integral nugget (that goes through various shades of worth) of human civilization, regardless whether you want to talk of the goings on between two people or an entire international community
Oh you mean my skepticism?
Kind of hard to proceed without falling back on "telling someone how things are", huh?
On the contrary, I think its you who wants to talk of the said second party being absolved of absolutely any responsibility or any sort of criteria.
When it is pointed out how completely absurd this is since absolutely nothing functions like that in world, you say that in the case of god it should be different since god can do anything (or alternatively twist it to "god's follower can do (almost) anything so since you haven't done it to me or him or her you are not a follower).
The idea of god adopting "let me drop everything and work on your problem" is not a vaisnava concept
(although, funnily enough, the notion of the guru "zapping" the prospective disciple from "zero to hero" status crops up commonly in impersonalist doctrines)
I don't claim to know God or to know the truth about God.
You, on the other hand, do.
Moreover, you tend to read into other people's posts a certainty or objectivity that they do not propose to have.
I make sure to qualify my statements with "In my opinion" or "I think" and such, whereas you do not shy away from speaking in a tone of utmost certainty.
What is there not to understand?
Many people simply get pissed off when yet another smug, self-assured person comes onto the public stage and claims to know The Truth.
That doesn't make it alright to tell people "how things really are" and it certainly doesn't do away with the problems that arise from when one person tries to get the metaphysical upper hand over the other.
Unlike some theists, or even you, I don't think I have God on my side, or that God will get those who oppose me.
Last edited:
You are avoiding the topic I raised, and you are strawmaning, badly.
Here are my posts for you, again:
I think we are not in a Vaisnava context here, and I doubt any other poster thinks we are.
You are the only one thinking this is a Vaisnava context.
We are not your fellow devotees. We are not on warm and fuzzy terms with you to have six loving exchanges between us.
Some posters here experience you as a hostile, forceful instance, and they are defending themselves against you.
Last edited:
you are full to the brim of things that you claim to know as truth (and don't hesitate to throw them around as complex questions ... like you do at the end of this post for example).
I don't think this makes you unique. I think its necessary for consciousness to revolve around core truths. What i do think deserves mention however is how you try and play this up as a unique situation that develops with theism or theists or something that inevitably grants you victim status or something.
Sure.
Plenty of posters react in the same manner when you (or any other poster on sci for that matter) take the stage too.
Do you see their aggressiveness to you a consequence of your inability to lodge a competent argument or do you sometimes think that the other individual has core issues that send them over the edge?
Yet here you are, telling everyone how "how things really are" and should be delivered and presented?
How do you propose to tell everyone "how things really are" without making them angry or disturbing them in any way or in such a way that practically everyone agrees with you (since anything less would obviously indicate that you really aren't in a position to tell people about how "how things really are" should be delivered and presented)
so tell me, is this how things really are?
Oh wait - never mind - you already have
I thought it was pretty accurate
and again, no models of investing change in another are totally divorced from factoring in the state and attitude of the other person. In fact as a common standard on most things (and especially in terms of ideology) its accepted that the desire for change arises from an individual as opposed to being superimposed by some second or third party
(the only exception I can think of is the guru zapping disciple phenomena which crops up quite a bit in impersonalist doctrine)
I only said it because you are letting rip with things about me and my context which I tend to disagree with
eg : If you are the one who wants others to change, and you want others to change in a particular way,
then the majority of responsibility for their change is on you.
IOW this statement of yours operates on a bogus principle (IMHO).
If I (or even god for that matter) want you to change (as far as ideas, outlooks, attitudes etc) and you don't, you don't change.
Why?
Because you have your own individuality.
Once again, I have to ask whether you think this is typical of ontological discussions or distinct?
hardly.
You have been on the offense on god and his representation amongst theistic communities for quite some time now ....
What deserves mention is your tendency to downplay religion into yet another mundane phenomenon.
Of course, that was my point. And things get even more vehement when someone claims to know The Truth.
That will depend on what my intention is for saying what I say.
I think it requires that the speaker have a completely pure intention, before any wrongness can be ascribed to the other party.
I have anticipated this kind of reply from you. I'm glad.
Just like you don't like to be told by random strangers "how things really are" and you resent taking their criticism on board, so other people don't like to be told by you (in this case, a random stranger) "how things really are" and they resent taking your criticism on board.
We are not friends, nor are the discussions here usually on the level of Prosblogion, so things are bound to get ugly.
hence ... When it is pointed out how completely absurd this is since absolutely nothing functions like that in world, you say that in the case of god it should be different since god can do anything (or alternatively twist it to "god's follower can do (almost) anything so since you haven't done it to me or him or her you are not a follower). which you less than two seconds ago declared to a strawman ...
so what is your problem with it precisely.
Do you find it strange that people develop values from their models of perceiving the world?
so are you a completely pure person?
wait up?
earlier you just said it depends entirely on your intentions and whether you are pure.
Now you are bringing in issues of their being some sort of framework of relationship.
So who's court does the ball land in?
the speaker or receiver?
Or is it more a synchronization of the two?
Not even remotely.
But you don't factor in the state and attitude of the other person!
You want that other person to change, right now, on your terms.
Sure.
No brownie points for this iffy connection to Buddhism.
And you resent other people's individuality!
That's why you call them rascals and fools and think they deserve to be spat at and have shoes thrown at them.
It is an adequate principle.
Every desire entails a responsibility.
Not every desire is a wise or wholesome desire.
The desire for others to change (and in a particular way at that) is a suspicious desire.
To the extent to which one desires another to change, one is responsible to bring about that change in another, or else renounce the desire to change them.
Could be both.
Read my post above, 317.
My problem with it is that 1. I can't reconcile why God allows that people get to say and do all kinds of things in His name; and 2. that I don't know the truth about God.
I wasn't suggesting that I was.
As it is sometimes said - Admirable friendship is the whole of the holy life.
The existence of admirable friendship mitigates against the usual problems that arise due to impurity, as both parties have agreed to follow the same standards, so among such two parties, the competition and hostility that otherwise exist among people, do not exist, or to a significantly minimized extent.
In situations where friendship does not exist, and where one party desires to get the upper hand, said party is responsible for the other party to change.
That doesn't mean that the other party should or will just sit and wait. It simply comes with the desire to get the upper hand that the person with that desire assumes responsibility for the other person to change. In reality, such people, known by their bossy and patronizing demeanor, of course refuse to take any responsibility for the other person to change, they just demand the change, and in fact, such bossiness is counterproductive to the other's wellbeing and change.
Theists have started it.
If God thinks I offended Him, he is free and welcome to strike me down.
But I will not ease into fideism.
Apparently, nothing is easier than offend a patronizing, bossy, eager-to-take-offense theist.
His representation? His representation??
Who are His representatives? Anyone who claims "I am a representative of God"??
Anyone who claims "My scriptures are (more) authoritative than yours"?
And what exactly have I said against God?
Does questioning a particular theistic tradition equal offending God?
Does refusal to blindly submit myself to anyone who claims to be telling the truth about God equal offending God?