The Goal

[Godless]

I find it strange that they were effective. They sound boring, empty, trite, soulless, passionless and rather dead for the most part.

As do I, but nevertheless it has worked, millions of individuals have been manipulated by the concept of eternal bliss or damnation given by the context of their respective religious beliefs, all western religions have the concept of heaven & hell, hell is used as a threat for not following the religious laws or ideals, morality is dictated, by a reward vs punishment after death depending on behavior of these laws or ideals set by religions.

Well most religions do not have this concept. That moral edge is the focus of the monotheisms and to differing degrees.

Name but a few? I've yet to find any western religion that does not mention hell or damnation, or burning in eternal fire, for not following or believing such and such as they dictate! Monotheism specifically should I quote the bible to you? or the Qua'ran?

 

[lightgigantic]

There are certainly patterns. But these patterns do not have to come from obediance to rules. I do not have to check some internal or external list of rules. Have you never had the sudden urge to gently touch a loved one's cheek? As one example amongst thousands, millions.

certainly
but if I haven't washed my hands after having unblocked the toilet, the act bears a different result


BTW - just to say there are rules doesn't necessarily mean that they are carved in stone and have to be consulted at every moment

 

[lightgigantic]

The concepts of heaven and hell are tools made to manipulate the ignorant masses, I see that it has worked very well, when even thousands of years after the concepts where made up people are still contemplating how one arrives at either end of the spectrum of Yin & yang!

There's no heaven or hell. Though many believe that heaven and hell are in your interpretation of how you live, I'm sure many dieing of starvation consider this earth hell, while others are so freaking filthy rich, consider earth heaven, where they can basically do whatever the hell they want. But the concept that when one dies will be either punished or rewarded is just simply a tool used by religion.

so IOW a god that didn't have any issue with activity in the universe would be more credible for you?
:scratchin:

 

[Grantywanty]

certainly
but if I haven't washed my hands after having unblocked the toilet, the act bears a different result

After having unblocked the toilet I always feel the urge to wash my hands. I have never felt, right after unblocking the toilet, the sudden urge to stroke a loved one's cheek. You are stretching and twisting and distracting.

My urge to stroke the cheek comes from love that is in no way being obedient to anyone or any rules. I need no mediation or authority to guide my love there or in thousands of other actions that are expressions of love and urges.

BTW - just to say there are rules doesn't necessarily mean that they are carved in stone and have to be consulted at every moment.

You've shifted the focus from obedience to rules. 'Rules' is even more abstract. I certainly feel 'patterns' covers the ground. But you can come back and say it is a rule, because you feel rules must be there to control our urges - ground we have covered adn disagreed about over and over. If you want to look at those patterns as rules, fine go ahead. Perhaps that metaphor works for you. On the issue of obedience I think it is even more clear. I do not need to obey anyone or an abstract principle to love or express that love (lovingly).

I am going to drop this tangential topic from now on in this thread.

 

[Grantywanty]

Name but a few? I've yet to find any western religion that does not mention hell or damnation, or burning in eternal fire, for not following or believing such and such as they dictate! Monotheism specifically should I quote the bible to you? or the Qua'ran?

I didn't say Western Religions. Though with many pagan religions in Europe and the americas I do not think afterlife had this reward punishment aspect. Eastern religions also do not have this aspect. I think even the ideas of heavens and hells you go to forever are pretty tied in to the Western Monotheisms.

 

[Godless]

so IOW a god that didn't have any issue with activity in the universe would be more credible for you?

No, a god that does show issue with the activity of the universe would be more credible to me, so far no issue has been shown, therefore no god exists that has issues with the universe!

 

[Godless]

I didn't say Western Religions. Though with many pagan religions in Europe and the americas I do not think afterlife had this reward punishment aspect. Eastern religions also do not have this aspect. I think even the ideas of heavens and hells you go to forever are pretty tied in to the Western Monotheisms.

Forgive me for assuming that; when one speaks of religion on a public forum they mean major religions of the world which are btw christianity of any variance of sects or Islamic of any variant of sects of which all of them have the concept of heaven & hell! :shrug:

 

[Grantywanty]

Forgive me for assuming that; when one speaks of religion on a public forum they mean major religions of the world which are btw christianity of any variance of sects or Islamic of any variant of sects of which all of them have the concept of heaven & hell! :shrug:

I wasn't upset or angry that you misunderstood, so I never thought it was the kind of mistake that needs to be forgiven. I don't really get your sarcasm here. I simply told you what I did not say.

I don't know who 'they' are, but even if 'they' are talking about, as you say, major religions of the world, 'they' should certainly include Buddhism and Hinduism. Even on charts like this one:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

you can see that tribal, shamanism, animism actually comes in pretty high as does Chinese folk religions which share many of the characteristics. Since my original post included 'enlightenment' it should have been clear that assuming I meant only Islam and the big C would be rather odd.

Perhaps 'one' and 'they' or even 'we' should not find it suprising that on a religion forum a wide range of religions might be discussed. In light of your sarcasm, I now find your wrong assumptions irritating.

 

[Godless]

If I was being sarcastic, that one flew over my head! I was merely making the point of where the concept of heaven & hell had it's root origin. As for all the other religions they do have some variance of bliss or damnation in one form or another. I.E. Yin & Yang, Nirvana, yada,yada, reincarnation, bla,bla, yada, yada, nothing of which can be shown by evidence of course!

 

[lightgigantic]

After having unblocked the toilet I always feel the urge to wash my hands. I have never felt, right after unblocking the toilet, the sudden urge to stroke a loved one's cheek. You are stretching and twisting and distracting.

My urge to stroke the cheek comes from love that is in no way being obedient to anyone or any rules. I need no mediation or authority to guide my love there or in thousands of other actions that are expressions of love and urges

.
since you have the common sense to wash your hands from foul smelling substances before you act, its clear you have the ability to ruminate on proper and improper acts - and in this case, the broader category of rules is not merely to wash one's hands before one gets romantic, but more along the lines of treating others how one wishes to be treated

You've shifted the focus from obedience to rules.

is there the question of obedience without rules?
is there the question of rules without obedience?

'Rules' is even more abstract. I certainly feel 'patterns' covers the ground. But you can come back and say it is a rule, because you feel rules must be there to control our urges - ground we have covered adn disagreed about over and over. If you want to look at those patterns as rules, fine go ahead. Perhaps that metaphor works for you. On the issue of obedience I think it is even more clear. I do not need to obey anyone or an abstract principle to love or express that love (lovingly).

if you want to continue a relationship with any person you love, it would probably pay to be obedient to proper and improper behavior

 

[Cris]

lg,

the foundation of love and compassion or discerning the nature of the self is obedience

This is utter nonsense.

Obedience: Various interpretations and implications.

submissive to the will of another
implies compliance with the demands or requests of one in authority
implies a predisposition to submit readily to control or guidance
suggests having a character that permits easy handling or managing
suggests a willingness to yield or to cooperate either because of a desire to be agreeable

Why claim any of those things are the foundation of love and compassion?
Why is the discerning nature of the self dependent on any of those things?

Love and compassion are emotionally driven desires that some people find important and others do not. Within the human race we see personalities that range from the wild emotional to the cold and heartless. Much of these styles are derived from their hereditary DNA and some to a lesser extent from the environment and conditioning. Whether one experiences either or pursues either is their free choice. Neither is dependent on obedience of any form.

Your assertion appears to have originated from your fantasy that a god is an ultimate source and that love and compassion are the ultimate goals of its requirements. From that you imagine that love and compassion can only be optimized and delivered through obedience to this alleged higher and ultimate authority. A concept that is not untypical of many mainstream religions.

These characteristics become embroiled in religious beliefs because they are usually highly attractive attributes that most people desire so they are set on a pedestal as if they are the ultimate rewards. Since religions are developed by man then naturally he has defined what he thinks a god could provide. The obedience component is introduced as the method of authoritarian control through the fear of denial, i.e. if you do not obey your ruler than love and compassion will be denied you.

There is nothing mystical or surprising about this primitive religious concept, even though you attempt to confuse this simplicity through the use of your confusing pseudo intellectual double-speak.

The discerning nature of self – I can perhaps guess at your inadequate implications here as to what this means but how it needs to be dependent on obedience seems even more obscure than love and compassion. I can predict though that as your fantasy requires a god as an ultimate controller then you would see that anything worthwhile could only be provided by that source and that it would demand obedience in return.

 

[Cris]

lg,

if you want to continue a relationship with any person you love, it would probably pay to be obedient to proper and improper behavior

That's a really bizarre perspective. One does not obey a behavior since "behavior" has not issued a command that can be obeyed or disobeyed.

 

[lightgigantic]

cris

“
if you want to continue a relationship with any person you love, it would probably pay to be obedient to proper and improper behavior
”
That's a really bizarre perspective. One does not obey a behavior since "behavior" has not issued a command that can be obeyed or disobeyed.

be•hav•iour (BrE) (NAmE be•hav•ior) / Ñ bI'heIvjJ(r); NAmE Ñ / noun 1 the way that sb behaves, especially towards other people:
good / bad behaviour Ç social / sexual / criminal behaviour Ç His behaviour towards her was becoming more and more aggressive.

perhaps you should inform your nearest etymologist

:shrug:

“
the foundation of love and compassion or discerning the nature of the self is obedience
”
This is utter nonsense.

Obedience: Various interpretations and implications.

submissive to the will of another
implies compliance with the demands or requests of one in authority
implies a predisposition to submit readily to control or guidance
suggests having a character that permits easy handling or managing
suggests a willingness to yield or to cooperate either because of a desire to be agreeable

Why claim any of those things are the foundation of love and compassion?

bolded a few key words to give you a few hints

Why is the discerning nature of the self dependent on any of those things?

there are rules governing consciousness - IOW if I don't meet the criteria for being self aware that just means I am meeting the criteria for being lusty/wrathful/etc

Love and compassion are emotionally driven desires that some people find important and others do not. Within the human race we see personalities that range from the wild emotional to the cold and heartless. Much of these styles are derived from their hereditary DNA and some to a lesser extent from the environment and conditioning. Whether one experiences either or pursues either is their free choice. Neither is dependent on obedience of any form.

so if ten people decide to express their love for you by beating you with shoes that's perfectly ok with you?
(you wouldn't want to infringe their DNA or something perchance?)

Your assertion appears to have originated from your fantasy that a god is an ultimate source and that love and compassion are the ultimate goals of its requirements.

lol
Its got nothing to do with that at all
Its got to do with the fact that if a group of people want to express their love for you by beating you with shoes would probably be difficult due to you running away from them

The discerning nature of self – I can perhaps guess at your inadequate implications here as to what this means but how it needs to be dependent on obedience seems even more obscure than love and compassion. I can predict though that as your fantasy requires a god as an ultimate controller then you would see that anything worthwhile could only be provided by that source and that it would demand obedience in return.

once again, you are jumping the gun
the systems for discerning the nature of the self involve dealing with issues of envy/lust/wrath etc (and not the claims of certain material reductionists - aka dna and electrons - that remain as tenable as the claims of sci-fi writers)
there are disciplines that address this and do not involve any concepts of god eg - buddhism and various yoga paths (although I would argue the issue is addressed incompletely or partially - but only against persons who were capable of maintaining their half of the argument however - which excludes you)