and what is the precise problem with such statistics?
(how many hundreds of thousands of people in jails through out the world do you think are there for valid reasons?)
I actually pointed out the precise problem, and needless to say it has nothing to do with jails in the world. I shall run you through it one more time:
There are trillions upon trillions of immaterial beings that are full of knowledge and free will, living an immaterial life serving the gods 24/7. These trillions of immaterial beings chose by using their knowledge and free will that they would be better off not serving these gods 24/7 but living a material existence instead.
Nobody remembers
why they chose to leave and seemingly wont give thought in the matter the time of day. You were once an immaterial being that served god. You decided that you would be better off elsewhere. You were either an idiot, forced into it, or had a very good reason for doing so. We shall label these possibilities 1, 2 and 3.
So, let's look at 1:
You are are an idiot.
If this is the case we can establish certain things. Firstly being an immaterial being is clearly not the most beneficial of places because you're an idiot there. Why would one want to be an immaterial idiot? Secondly you have stated that immaterial beings are "full of knowledge". That knowledge can't be of much value if you cannot even work out that it's better to serve god as an immaterial being 24/7 instead of becoming a stinky mucus bag that dies and gets disease. The problem with 1 is that to claim an immaterial being is an idiot actually negates the claim that they are full of knowledge.
Number 2:
Forced into it
Unfortunately this is actually clearly attested to in scripture. This completely negates free will, and means that we are only here living this material existence and suffering because the gods want us to.
Number 3:
A very good reason to do so
This is a problem area simply because nobody remembers being an immaterial wafty thingy serving the gods 24/7. It comes down to whether you actually trust yourself. The question is, if you're going to trust yourself as an ignorant stinky mucus bag why would you not trust yourself as a full of knowledge immaterial being? (you need to answer this). I think, if your gods exist, that we all need to answer this. Do we trust us now in our current state or trust the choices we made during our enlightened, liberated, full of knowledge state? To be honest with you, I know which one I would choose.
If you have a serious response to this then it is welcomed. This whole 'you're not a theist so you can't talk about theist issues' and other such garbage that you come out with really isn't wanted or warranted. So, kindly without delving into pointless and largely irrelevant analogies, give me an answer to the question posed in 3, your thoughts on 1, 2 and 3 and anything else that is actually pertinent to this discussion.
the "knowledge" is "certainty" - in other words the uncertainty which is a regular part of our material existence is conspicuous by its absence.
It is quite unsettling how you just casually change the meaning of words when you realise you need to change tact. However for the sake of this nonsense I shall use your current statement and definition.
When you were an immaterial, enlightened, liberated being you were
certain that you were better off in a material existence away from the gods. If that certainty was based upon nothing, then there seems to be little value in being an enlightened, liberated immaterial being. You will go through a billion material lives, figure out the problem and then become elevated to immaterial existence once more.. You then find yourself with a certainty that you'd be better off in a material existence and you're up shit creek once again. That certainty has to be based upon something tangible to have any worth.
Let's look at your earlier statement once more:
"if you had the choice of inhabiting a body that is ephemeral, ignorant an d subject to macro, micro and mesocosmic miseries or accepting a body that is eternal, full of knowledge and bereft of any trace of distress, which would you prefer ?"
The problem is that clearly being the latter is of little difference to the former in respect to complete and utter ignorance. Whether a material being or an immaterial one, you would seem to now espouse that you're still just plain bloody ignorant. That's quite the predicament.
why one decided to make the choice is one of the first things that become apparent
Oh really, do tell.
it certainly was folly to leave the medium of certainty
Are you certain about that? So much for leaving the medium of certainty.
these things can be discussed and answers can be found, but only amongst persons with a strong foundation of theistic theory and practice
I don't mind theist idiocy such as a banana being a sign that the universe was created, but I do seriously object to the absolute intellectual cowardice prevalent in quotes such as yours. I need say no more, we're both aware of the idiocy of your escape tactic.
gven that we are struggling with the exact significance of words as primary as "lust" and "desire", venturing into such discussions at this..
I would then strongly suggest that you stop redefining words whenever you stumble blindly into a problem.
if they are merely a sub group of an infinite set, its less than a drop in the ocean
That's a massive "if", and something you know you could never ever support.
actually the verse is talking about how the material energy operates in the material world on materially conditioned entities
And then mentions how the gods specifically and purposefully delude us into desiring the material.
what is the point in me answering this if you don't have the ground work in knowledge that is already established?
Over some dozen posts I asked you if you had direct perception or not. If you honestly did you would have just said yes instead of doing your utmost to avoid answering. I have seen it many times, it is the action of a person that cannot bring themselves to give the truthful answer - stuck between living a lie and accepting who they are. You'll ask an alcoholic if he has a drink problem. Instead of facing up to reality, (yes), or indeed outright denying it, (no), he will mask the subject in a fog hoping that the questioner forgets he asked the question.
You're pulling the exact same tactic and I find it amusing. I've seen it hundreds of times from hundreds of people. You're an open book lg giving away so much but saying so little. I am qualified, you should know better than to try it with me.
I will try one last time in the hope that you can find it in yourself to be honest. It's not important to me that you be honest but it's certainly important to yourself. If you cannot tell the truth to yourself then there is a serious problem. If you can't bring yourself to be honest then just ignore this part. Ignoring it is certainly better than weak excuses and irrelevancies.
Do you have any first hand experience of the spiritual world, (that you remember)?
What is the point in me asking whether you have direct perception of atoms if i am bereft of the knowledge by which atoms are properly defined
As you saw when the issue was actually raised, I told you that I did without hesitation. I explained the hows and whys. Whether you understand what I am explaining is a later issue - and to get to would really require you to answer the question posed.
You state that we all start off as liberated beings which means we are attached to the gods. You state that we are full of knowledge and certainty and yet cannot explain why we then chose to be away from this being that we were attached to. This goes back to the first post in this thread so be very careful not to now contradict yourself.
(BTW do you understand the distinction between "full of knowledge" and "complete knowledge"?)
That's dependant upon how many times you completely redefine every word you use. As an example, 5 minutes ago you changed "full of knowledge" to mean "certainty". Who can keep up when you're clearly so confused?
why is that?
(at the very least, practicing theists disagree)
Cultivate = to prepare and work on.
Every single human being, theists included, fall under this definition. Everything they do and have is material and everytime they use anything in this world they are cultivating the material. When you open your scripture and read it, you are cultivating the material. It's simply unavoidable in a material existence. Btw, you're typing on a computer.. that's cultivating the material. If practicing theists disagree it's because they're idiots. I shall wait for you to redefine it.
judging by your posts you seem quite predictable
Which would therefore prove my point unless you consider yourself as also predictable, in which case your attempted petty insult fails. You see, by me being predictable, (but you apparently not), it means I am different to you. Ergo my very statement that "I'm just different to you. Could you imagine that?"
£1000 says you're not very good at chess.
well if you think the platform of being free from lust involves ogling vaginas, one can only wonder what twist you are putting on the words "name, fame, adoration, wealth, power, etc
Pots, kettles and all that. What I do know that you clearly don't is that there is an observable difference between someone that lusts and someone that likes. Your bullshit just doesn't wash lg.
Actually I didn't state that - I did state that it impossible for a conditioned soul to cease having material desire however
It is impossible for a conditioned soul to cease having material desire. The default position of a conditioned soul is to cultivate material desire and it's impossible to for him to cease having the desire to cultivate that material desire which means he's always up shit creek.
I do apologise for not using the word "conditioned" earlier, I just figured you were smart enough to get what I was saying. My mistake.
You can actually give somebody something that is not one's own - it happens at lost and found depots all the time
Sure, are god and lost and found even remotely similar? (the answer is no). god is everywhere and everything is his. If you pick up an apple it is actually his. It's not a lost apple, it's his property that he is currently occupying. You say: "here you go, have an apple". He already was.
So can you now please explain how one can renounce something that isn't one's own - like for instance if you walk up to the bank and tell the bank teller that you have renounced the 10 000 000 dollars in the vault, is that a sign or sanity?
You would have to show how in this instance that 10 mill isn't yours. You see, all this "it's not yours" is completely unsubstantiated. You've never even seen or heard from a god, so what would you know?
thats because we desire (in fact plead and beg god) to be infected in such a way
Ok, so the gods infect us because we have this desire - which in YOUR words is all we can do, ("the living entity can only desire"). It is impossible for us not to desire. For it to be impossible to avoid, it must have been given to us. In either case, conditioned or unconditioned, it's impossible to cease having desire, (you've argued back and forth on this one with your ever changing opinion). Now, if one should "make a mistake" when he is full of knowledge and attached to the gods, it is impossible for him to cease having a desire for the material and thus cultivating the material, (lust is a sin, not just the action). Therefore to have is to cultivate. I specifically asked you dozens of times and every single time you stated that the lust is the sin aswell as any possible resulting action. You also stated that every being in existence has lust.
In saying, it is an absolute impossibilty to not have a desire, an absolute impossibility to not cultivate that desire and an absolute impossibility to escape from that desire once you have it and cultivate it, (which is always).
Furthermore, the passage you quoted supports no such claim that we have begged and pleaded to be infected in such manner.
and it just happens to be about god
you on the other hand have no clear evidence that god didn't create the natural elements that we require to exist - so 1-0
Which one? Clearly odin didnt create the natural elements, clearly tiamat didn't and clearly brahma or whatever other freaky man-invented being didn't either. The problem here is that
you have no evidence. Just a guess, an assumption, a hope and a wish and yet think you can sit there and tell me it's all real while happily instantly dismissing anyone that claims anything else. You are guaranteed to always lose on this basis alone.
actually no I don't
(I don't live cultivating material desire with no understanding of god)
Actually you do. According to you every human has lust. You are currently cultivating a material desire which means you have no understanding of god.
at a guess I would say you live a material life
Certainly. I eat material food, wear material clothes, and type on material computers. I challenge you to name me one person that doesn't.
if you want you can try and take everything I say out of context, and construct vicious assaults on such a strawman, but it doesn't make your sharpness appear greatly astute
"Wakey wakey" is a vicious assault? Lol. Are you perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill? What's amusing is that in your sentence accusing me of making a vicious assault you seemingly try your utmost to assault me. I hereby give you an e-slap: *slaps lg*.
if you thought your wife was a red t-shirt, simply because she wore a red t-shirt, it would indicate the substance of your relationship was close to nil
The substance of our "relationship" heh.. So you are now concurring that there is indeed a relationship. I am so glad we cleared that up.
(compared to the substance of relationships between persons who can clearly perceive the distinctions between themselves and the t-shirts they wear)
So they too are indeed in relationships. I am so glad we cleared that up.
for instance look what can be read into your statement
I happily use, (because you're the one with the crapola beliefs
Seemingly you make up what you "can read" as you go along. A smart man might have been able to figure out that I was stating that I have used your defintions because it is your beliefs we are talking about. I wont make the mistake again.
You did what? I stated that you're still here in a material existence because you're a failure. You still have lust etc etc etc and you can't deny that given your earlier statements. As a result, your theory, practice and whatever else clearly failed.
a high school drop out would say the exact same thing (ok maybe not the exact same thing - they would probably say "what a bunch of crappola") in their resistant stance to the science of physics
Not really, no. Of course if the statements made were unsubstantiated drivel then sure, he might very well say it. The thing is that this high school drop out is currently talking to someone that has clearly shown they have no actual first hand knowledge of the subject. They're guessing based upon personal... desire. I have never seen an atom. I have no actual knowledge concerning atoms. I read some crap in a book. Of what use am I to the high school dropout or to anyone else?
lust is not a tantrum of the mind?
No. It's an emotion that has it's uses. Fear is more a "tantrum of the mind" but also has distinct uses and value.
In both cases, yes.. it can blow all out of proportion - which is exactly why people have written about it. That does not make "lust" or "fear" in themselves an actual problem but shows that they can be dependant upon the person. In itself lust can cause people to try harder and thus get further - whether that be worshipping gods or trying to get a job.
I have already explained to you the distinct problem in your 'black and white' view of the world. This ultimately is where you're going wrong. If we were to sit down and work on your problems, that's where I would focus my attention.
forgetting, particularly in regards to god, means that you forget one's relationship with god and the means that are required to maintain one's relationship with god
Forgetting is clearly a distinct problem with the brain but ultimately isn't our fault. I have never met anyone that purposely decided to forget where they put their car keys. It is an unintentional error due to a flaw in design. So, a person forgets and he's sinned? It's a ridiculous notion that only a twat would come up with. Here's where you undoubtedly redefine the word "forget".
the idea is that we need to make sure we only seek enjoyment through god's enjoyment
I see. So because the gods don't enjoy hamburgers, we can't?
gods enjoyment is eternally increasing
I'm... pleased for him I guess.
You actually agree? Damn that shit lol.
sounds like you are endeavoring for mundane things that ar e very difficult to attain
Horse manure. Punching someone in the face is neither mundane or difficult to attain.
an emotion brought to expression by service
just like despair is an emotion brought to expression by loss
No, love exists before and separate to service. Despair generally only comes about because of someone else. They are largely different emotions. Neither actually requires "service"... unless you're going to redefine service - which is likely, considering its you.
if however you do absolutely nothing for your wife, it raises questions on the validity of your love
Not really. That's the point, we're talking about an emotion, not an action. I would choose to do things for my wife because I love her, but those actions do not affect the emotion, they merely let others see it.
I scratch your back if you scratch mine is not love - it is commerce
Once again: love is an emotion, a feeling.. nothing else. The scratching of backs comes as part of the later service that follows the emotion.
you cannot conceive of any conditions that would cause you to break off your relationship with your wife
Certainly. But see, you said that every other personality falls short except for god. But there's the thing.. trillions of beings left service and love for god to pursue material issues. Indeed we "live under the notion that god doesn't even exist" which shows, when it comes down to it, that your statement is clearly wrong.
Now, I can conceive of reasons that would cause me to break off my relationship with my wife. Ask yourself what reasons there are that
you as a full of knowledge, liberated, enlightened, certain, entity would have decided to break off your relationship with god. In both cases you'll probably find that the reason is warranted.
so you have changed your stance that love can be determined as something bereft of a service attitude betwen now and the previous 2 posts?
Eh? All I did was point out that your statement was irrelevant to anything actually said, because.. it was irrelevant to anything actually said.
then why do you waste your valuable time doing stuff for her when the relationship of love doesn't ultimately require it?
Because doing so means I get what I want. I still have the exact same emotion but now also get food and sex.
then ditch your wife and family (and your boss too) - they are all taking big slices of the cake that are meant for numero uno
Not really, no. The sacrifice that is given is generally small potatoes in comparison to the benefits reaped.
You live in a cave with 5 other cavemen. Now, you could kill them all or leave and find your own cave. Alas you're not very good at starting fires, and that other caveman, the one you left behind, was excellent at it. You don't know how he did it, (you're a cave school dropout), and soon find yourself freezing to death because you left. The benefit you get from staying with the others is readily apparent and simply indisputable. You get the sex, get the heat, get the help in killing woolly mammoth.. The benefits outweigh the cake slice.
it offers the highest standard of happiness (even though it may be difficult for you to conceive of a higher happiness than that of serving your wife and boss)
But that is clearly debateable considering trillions of us, (yourself included), decided otherwise. You didn't consider it the highest standard or happiness just before you left it, but now think you're in a position to call it the highest state of happiness when you don't even remember it? I call that stupid.
no, but if one is the habit of sniffing other people's crotches, its a difficult idea to grasp
I said: Do these blessed people still die, get old, get diseased, die in earthquakes and find it impossible to remove desire? ”
You said: compared to the conditioned soul's future - no, no, no , no and no
You claimed that blessed people don't die or get old etc etc but clearly you were lying. They do die, their soul doesn't and yet that's
exactly the same for unblessed people. They die, their soul doesn't.
Clearly we hit a snag. Neither the conditioned soul or the unconditioned soul ever dies, gets diseased or dies in earthquakes. The position is the same. All people - atheists and saintly persons die, get disease, get old etc etc. All people's souls - atheists and saintly persons, never die, get disease or old etc. Where is the difference? Of course now you'll say that the saintly person ends up in an immaterial existence which is clearly beneficial.. without then noticing that you, me and all these saintly people decided otherwise some time ago.
if you like a vagina you must accept the degraded atmosphere that enables you to take such delight.
You clearly don't like vagina and are still in the exact same degraded atmosphere. You die, get old etc etc. Now you need to show how my like for vagina is resonsible.
You have brainwashed yourself into thinking I made such a statement
Incorrect. Years upon years of training provided me with the answer. You're a high school drop out, don't expect me to explain it. You can say "thats crapola", but that's typical for a high school dropout.. and you have no choice but to agree considering you said it.
pay attention
just like there is no scope for you to discuss atoms...
Not if I don't have direct perception. There's the problem. You don't have direct perception of gods and yet think you can discuss them and tell others they exist even though you yourself haven't confirmed it.
like for instance if everytime you mention the word "atom" I chime in "in your mind dipshit", there is no scope for you to discuss your direct perception
You're getting confused. That wasn't the point of the question you never answered. Answer it and you'll see the point.
No you don't, and without direct perception you never will.
we have not even arrived at the point of my direct perception
Me, (the qualified) has. You, the person that can't even be honest with himself, hasn't. Well you have, you just don't dare voice it.
and the first step to god taking that step is when the conditioned living entity realizes the futility of trying to externally manipulate the world when they are internally manipulated at the hands of lust, greed, avarice etc
That's great, except you already told me they have no control over their mind - so if they ever realise that futility, it was not a choice of theirs.
P.S How's the squeezing going?
P.P.S You know, we've written thousands upon thousands of words to each other. What I don't get is why you didn't just save all that energy and say "only a theist can discuss theist issues" right at the beginning instead of just now. Why do you even talk to atheists? Surely, given your own statements, you'd be better off on a forum where everyone agrees with you?
