- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianne"The secular set could have delusions of thinking they are free and such when in reality they are bound by God's rules just as much as the deluded religious set."
There, fixed that for you.
The notion that God is the personification of society is interesting.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0020ReligiousOrigins.php
The Social Origin of Religion: God as Society
PS there is a nice quote at that page:
"Better not believe in a deity at all than to cringe before gods who are worse than the worst of men. Unbelief does not so much dishonour the deity whose existence it denies."
Plutarch
25 Oct 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34I believe you are referring to the ROMAN Catholic Church leaders. However, they do not accept the theory of evolution as I understand it. They still believe man was created by God and not descended from apes. They accept that adaptation and selective breeding and such can be called evolution, but it is still restricted within kinds as I understand them.
".....like evolution for the atheist."
What are you talking about RJ?
The last time I looked the Church accepted evolution saying it was the natural
will of God. It was/is all part of God's plan.
Christianity are always doing this anytime something new happens along they cannot refuted.
They adopt it and say it was God's way.
Just like they ...[text shortened]... has been made from him.
The annoying thing is, he was so close, it nearly happened.
I would refer you to a link to a Christian who believes as I do, but you have said you do not look at links, so I will leave it at that and you can believe what you wish and I will believe as I wish. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
25 Oct 12
Originally posted by JS357Yes, we are all bound by God's physical laws of the universe, regardless if we believe in God or not. So to think you are free simply by not believing in God is naive.
"The secular set could have delusions of thinking they are free and such when in reality they are bound by God's rules just as much as the deluded religious set."
The notion that God is the personification of society is interesting.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0020ReligiousOrigins.php
The Social Origin of Religion: God as Society
PS there is a ...[text shortened]... of men. Unbelief does not so much dishonour the deity whose existence it denies."
Plutarch
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThus I have heard: “Neither from itself, nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise”.
Many spiritual traditions speak of "delusion". How is "delusion" defined in your spiritual tradition? It would be helpful if you could cite a few examples illustrating some common "delusions".
I understand delusion mainly as a product of one’s inability to perceive the nature of one’s self and of the world around him, and also as a result of the projection of one’s self-centered fears and desires. This perceptual distortion triggers a false understanding of reality and blocks one’s mindful awareness.
It is my knowledge that one overcomes delusion when one’s mindful awareness is activated. Mindful awareness evolves from a mental condition that allows an entangled with a given situation individual to get to know what exists not (holds not etc.), by means of knowing what exists (holds etc.). Failing to do so, one ends up with evaluations that are based on ignorance; insisting that these evaluations hold, one ends up delusional.
An example: Each sentient being perceives, decodes, understands and evaluates everything solely according to its cognizant apparatus. It follows that there are as many realities as many sentient beings, due to the fact that each cognizant apparatus can merely perceive, decode, understand and evaluate solely specific slivers (of the given “reality” of the kosmos that surrounds it) that it can detect;
And a further discussion: Methinks insisting that objectivity is something more than a specific result of a specific consensus between individuals that they use their cognizance the same way under specific circumstances as regards a specific observed cause-effect field, is a thesis that does not hold
😵
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by black beetleCan you cite a few concrete examples of common "delusions"? I think that will help me better understand exactly where you're coming from.
Thus I have heard: “Neither from itself, nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise”.
I understand delusion mainly as a product of one’s inability to perceive the nature of one’s self and of the world around him, and also as a result of the projection of one’s self-centered fears and desires. This perce ...[text shortened]... cumstances as regards a specific observed cause-effect field, is a thesis that does not hold
😵
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by black beetleActually I was looking for something much more concrete. Any change you can provide it?
Methinks the so called "Objectivity" and "Absolute Truth" are delusions
😵
Earlier you said, "This perceptual distortion triggers a false understanding of reality and blocks one’s mindful awareness."
Can you explain exactly what this "reality" is that one has a "false understanding of"? If no "absolute truth" exists, then it would seem that there subsequently couldn't be a "false understanding" either.
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHow much more concrete? You will get neither metaphysics nor religious doctrines from me;
Actually I was looking for something much more concrete. Any change you can provide it?
Earlier you said, "This perceptual distortion triggers a false understanding of reality and blocks one’s mindful awareness."
Can you explain exactly what this "reality" is that one has a "false understanding of"? If no "absolute truth" exists, then it would seem that there subsequently couldn't be a "false understanding" either.
Edit: “Can you explain exactly what this "reality" is that one has a "false understanding of"? “
Yes. It is the reality of our inner world, the reality of the physical world that surrounds us, and the reality of the world of the ideas the reality that many have a "false understanding" of. For example, accidents on the road happen all the time because the drivers and the pedestrians come up with false evaluation as regards the conditions (and their nature) that take place within the part of the physical world at which they happen to be the time that the accident finally takes place;
Edit: “If no "absolute truth" exists, then it would seem that there subsequently couldn't be a "false understanding" either.”
Although there is no absolute truth, there are conventional truths (for example: If i crash on a wall headfirst, I will probably suffer).
Furthermore, the false understanding is a product of false evaluation, which in turn is a result of lack of mindful awareness as regards a specific sliver of reality that we observe;
😵
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by black beetleAs concrete as you can make it. I'm not looking for either metaphysics or religious doctrines.
How much more concrete? You will get neither metaphysics nor religious doctrines from me;
Edit: “Can you explain exactly what this "reality" is that one has a "false understanding of"? “
Yes. It is the reality of our inner world, the reality of the physical world that surrounds us, and the reality of the world of the ideas the reality that many ...[text shortened]... ack of mindful awareness as regards a specific sliver of reality that we observe;
😵
Specifically what is the "nature of one’s self " that one has an inability to perceive? Does this "nature" objectively exist?
Specifically what is this "reality of our inner world"? Does this "reality" objectively exist?
Are you saying that "false understanding" only applies to "conventional truths"?
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneEdit: “Specifically what is the "nature of one’s self " that one has an inability to perceive? Does this "nature" objectively exist?”
As concrete as you can make it. I'm not looking for either metaphysics or religious doctrines.
Specifically what is the "nature of one’s self " that one has an inability to perceive? Does this "nature" objectively exist?
Specifically what is this "reality of our inner world"? Does this "reality" objectively exist?
Are you saying that "false understanding" only applies to "conventional truths"?
The nature of one’s self is the nature of one’s mind. This nature exists since the mind is existent;
Edit: “Specifically what is this "reality of our inner world"? Does this "reality" objectively exist?”
Our inner world is our mental/ psychological world, the world of our feelings of pain and pleasure, of our thoughts, decisions, perceptions and observations. This world is the world of our subjective experiences.
The reality of this world is the plexus of our differ mental/ psychological states and processes, which in turn triggers into existence differ realities according to the evaluation of the mind. This world, its reality and the realities that creates, exists since the human being is existent;
Edit: “Are you saying that "false understanding" only applies to "conventional truths"?”
There are no truths that are not conventional. Each sentient being is the Truth;
😵
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere is no absolute truth to black beetle because he does not know the truth.
Actually I was looking for something much more concrete. Any change you can provide it?
Earlier you said, "This perceptual distortion triggers a false understanding of reality and blocks one’s mindful awareness."
Can you explain exactly what this "reality" is that one has a "false understanding of"? If no "absolute truth" exists, then it would seem that there subsequently couldn't be a "false understanding" either.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
(John 14:16 NKJV)
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsJust another case of hypostatization; your mind makes substances and things out of fictions, and it is so conditioned as to make you disposed to utter words like John’s verse 14:16. Memory traces in your brain make you speak of John 14:16; these memory traces and the words of the verse exist, however you speak of the verse as if it was one of the de facto existing things instead of being a product of John’s mind (or, for the sake of the conversation, a product of Jesus’ mind). Well, feel free to go ahead and prove that the verse is indeed an absolute truth; answers like “Jesus said so”, John said so”, “it is written in the Holy Book” etc. are not answers at all;
There is no absolute truth to black beetle because he does not know the truth.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
(John 14:16 NKJV)
And from another perspective: Methinks your experience of the verse depends on a specific sequence of events in your brain. Your experience ceases to be when these brain events are interfered. Your motivation to evaluate the words of the verse as “absolute truth” is solely a product of your conscious experiences and your conscious and/ or unconscious expectation to live wonderful, exciting and divine experiences. I understand that you in person, without the meaning of the verse the way you conceive it as a Christian, you would find yourself in the middle of nowhere in a world of lifeless and senseless waste; however, this fear does not justify your idea that the verse is the “absolute truth”
😵
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by black beetleIs wisdom synonymous with truth?
Edit: “Specifically what is the "nature of one’s self " that one has an inability to perceive? Does this "nature" objectively exist?”
The nature of one’s self is the nature of one’s mind. This nature exists since the mind is existent;
Edit: “Specifically what is this "reality of our inner world"? Does this "reality" objectively exist?”
Our in ...[text shortened]... There are no truths that are not conventional. Each sentient being is the Truth;
😵