anthony Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Greg, The more you try to transcend "intellect and emotion", the more you demonstrate that you possess them both. You gonna use it, you gotta admit to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Greg, The more you try to transcend "intellect and emotion", the more you demonstrate that you possess them both. I do, Tony... ...and the distinction is that I possess them... they do not possess me. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I hope you are aware, Greg, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind about anything. Of course not, Brant. I fully understand that you disagree with my view because it is not the one you chose. No mere words on any monitor could ever rise to the level of changing anyone's view. Only real life has the power to do that. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I hope you are aware, Greg, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind about anything.Of course not, Brant. I fully understand that you disagree with my view because it is not the one you chose. No mere words on any monitor could ever rise to the level of changing anyone's view. Only real life has the power to do that.GregREAL!!? Am I not real?--Brantsort of quoting someone who got pissed off in 1967 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Greg, The more you try to transcend "intellect and emotion", the more you demonstrate that you possess them both. I do, Tony... ...and the distinction is that I possess them... they do not possess me. Greg That's a step in my direction. Next, entertain for a moment the idea that not only do you "possess" them, but that they are what you are, in total. Seem mundane and simplistic next to your spiritual belief? Maybe, until one begins to realise that that's all she wrote. Our full capacity. Which one cannot fully explore in a lifetime. Only asking that you imagine it. So- the religious believe in God's existence. (Duh.) Self-evidently again, once any person has made his final metaphysical choice, there isn't much more to debate. However, outcomes matter also. If you believe that (in you) there is 'something there'. Although you arrived at certain convictions and character based upon a huge, arbitrary fallacy - that God created all this, and yourself - but, it resulted in the certainty that your life has meaning and purpose - and that God helps those who help themselves - and that all other life is uniquely individual and precious ... I would know (as it occurs to me talking to religious-rational* friends) that you still achieved it all by yourself; obviously, since I don't believe in God. And critically, I'd think that you are wrong and wrong, but over all -- right. A step or two ahead of the secular-skeptic who is right, right, but over all disastrously wrong, to my mind. (i.e Those who assert that man is merely body-plus-brain-atop). Thing is I don't live in your consciousness. What you believe true is no skin off my nose. And nobody is out to convert anyone. You and I independently have to live with our own decisions and 'faiths', and when contradictions in reality crop up, either re-adjust our convictions, or try to coexist uncomfortably with them. Long as what's in my head does not interfere in your life - and vice-versa - you and I could get along like a house on fire in any Society.;) *(not always a contradiction in terms.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I hope you are aware, Greg, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind about anything. Of course not, Brant. I fully understand that you disagree with my view because it is not the one you chose. No mere words on any monitor could ever rise to the level of changing anyone's view. Only real life has the power to do that. Greg REAL!!? Am I not real? I don't need to answer that... But compare virtual words on a monitor with the power of a direct personal real-life altering experience. The virtual world cannot ever rise to that level of impact. The real world trumps the virtual world every time... in a very similar manner that action trumps thought every time. The internet is like a virtual mind with trillions of neurons firing but without anything actually happening in the real world. Only when we actually do something about what we read or see does it become manifest. Until then it's only virtual... an unrealized potential. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Greg, The more you try to transcend "intellect and emotion", the more you demonstrate that you possess them both. I do, Tony... ...and the distinction is that I possess them... they do not possess me. Greg That's a step in my direction. Next, entertain for a moment the idea that not only do you "possess" them, but that they are what you are, in total. I'll take your comments one at a time so that we don't need to backtrack for clarification. If you believe that you are only thought and that is all you are... how can you explain the ability to act contrary to your thoughts. How can your actions be contrary to the totality of your being if that is all you are? The I who owns my thoughts is me. Thoughts are merely my possessions. See now? The real me makes the moral choice to act upon one thought while leaving others unresponded. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I hope you are aware, Greg, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind about anything.Of course not, Brant. I fully understand that you disagree with my view because it is not the one you chose. No mere words on any monitor could ever rise to the level of changing anyone's view. Only real life has the power to do that.Greg REAL!!? Am I not real?I don't need to answer that... But compare virtual words on a monitor with the power of a direct personal real-life altering experience. The virtual world cannot ever rise to that level of impact. The real world trumps the virtual world every time... in a very similar manner that action trumps thought every time. The internet is like a virtual mind with trillions of neurons firing but without anything actually happening in the real world. Only when we actually do something about what we read or see does it become manifest. Until then it's only virtual... an unrealized potential.GregSo, we don't need no stinkin' thinkin'?--Brantoff to the shower(I really enjoy chopping you up and putting you out for OL animal feed, but don't worry, it's only virtual.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Greg, The more you try to transcend "intellect and emotion", the more you demonstrate that you possess them both. I do, Tony... ...and the distinction is that I possess them... they do not possess me. Greg That's a step in my direction. Next, entertain for a moment the idea that not only do you "possess" them, but that they are what you are, in total. I'll take your comments one at a time so that we don't need to backtrack for clarification. If you believe that you are only thought and that is all you are... how can you explain the ability to act contrary to your thoughts. How can your actions be contrary to the totality of your being if that is all you are? The I who owns my thoughts is me. Thoughts are merely my possessions. See now? The real me makes the moral choice to act upon one thought while leaving others unresponded. Greg The "moral choice" (you refer to frequently) is a consequence of your thoughts - it is not somehow conferred on you over and above your consciousness. The content of consciousness (and subconsciousness) IS the consciousness itself. The "I" is the aggregate of all one's experience, knowledge, morality, aspirations etc. As fresh data and information arrive existentially, one processes it; the same way, when one introspects the memory of prior thought and emotion, which awakens new thoughts and emotions, one rates or evaluates them by the standards of life and one's own life. At any instant, with either form of stimulus, a different direction of thought may be chosen -or discarded - aligned to those moral, consciously-created, principles. (Or - not). Check out the Free Will debate for the arguments put forward that this, *man's volitional consciousness* is inseparable from his *self-awareness*. That should explain your question of "the ability to act contrary to your thoughts". I'm getting at this: it is not "contrary to thought" - it is still a thought, ONE thought selected above many other thoughts. Or another one... and so on. You can't get behind consciousness - you can only introspect it in operation, and view its consequences. (Ha - no doubt, the same response you'd give me if I asked you who or what created God, and how you know He exists.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So- the religious believe in God's existence. (Duh.) Self-evidently again, once any person has made his final metaphysical choice, there isn't much more to debate. While it's true that many religious people believe in God's existence... there are also some who know by their own direct personal experience. For them it is no longer a matter of religious faith but the fully aware acknowledgement of objective self evident reality. It's the fulfillment of a moral Covenant between God and whoever loves what's right enough to do it. Belief in God is not even necessary to uphold our end of the Covenant. Just loving what's good and true and right enough to manifest it in your own life. Anything could happen from that point on... ...and it will. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So- the religious believe in God's existence. (Duh.) Self-evidently again, once any person has made his final metaphysical choice, there isn't much more to debate.While it's true that many religious people believe in God's existence... there are also some who know by their own direct personal experience. For them it is no longer a matter of religious faith but the fully aware acknowledgement of objective self evident reality. It's the fulfillment of a moral Covenant between God and whoever loves what's right enough to do it. Belief in God is not even necessary to uphold our end of the Covenant. Just loving what's good and true and right enough to manifest it in your own life. Anything could happen from that point on......and it will.GregJoan of Ark (sic, sic, sick [sic]) had a "direct personal experience" with "God" (I think she was crazy), but I don't think you expect the same outcome for yourself.--Brantgathering some word-wood--pay me no attention--it doesn't actually burn not being "real" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 While it's true that many religious people believe in God's existence... there are also some who know by their own direct personal experience. For them it is no longer a matter of religious faith but the fully aware acknowledgement of objective self evident reality. It's the fulfillment of a moral Covenant between God and whoever loves what's right enough to do it. Belief in God is not even necessary to uphold our end of the Covenant. Just loving what's good and true and right enough to manifest it in your own life. Anything could happen from that point on......and it will.GregHow does one distinguish this from an hallucination or a delusion?The "covenant" is a convention. Very useful and very beneficial in some cases, but a convention none the less. In short it is all made up.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 When rationality sanctions irrationality* the latter always wins.--Brant*arguing with it sanctions it, while illustrating or identifiying it does not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So- the religious believe in God's existence. (Duh.) Self-evidently again, once any person has made his final metaphysical choice, there isn't much more to debate. While it's true that many religious people believe in God's existence... there are also some who know by their own direct personal experience. For them it is no longer a matter of religious faith but the fully aware acknowledgement of objective self evident reality. It's the fulfillment of a moral Covenant between God and whoever loves what's right enough to do it. Belief in God is not even necessary to uphold our end of the Covenant. Just loving what's good and true and right enough to manifest it in your own life. Anything could happen from that point on... ...and it will. Greg Joan of Ark (sic, sic, sick [sic]) had a "direct personal experience" with "God" (I think she was crazy), but I don't think you expect the same outcome for yourself. --Brant gathering some word-wood--pay me no attention--it doesn't actually burn not being "real" While you're talking about the dead past, I'm talking about right here and now in America. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 How does one distinguish this from an hallucination or a delusion? In exactly the same way you distinguish a good thought from a bad one. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 How does one distinguish this from an hallucination or a delusion?In exactly the same way you distinguish a good thought from a bad one.Greggood/bad in what sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 How does one distinguish this from an hallucination or a delusion? In exactly the same way you distinguish a good thought from a bad one. Greggood/bad in what sense? Yes, of course. That should be clarified. Thoughts which are the true, and thoughts which are lies. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So- the religious believe in God's existence. (Duh.) Self-evidently again, once any person has made his final metaphysical choice, there isn't much more to debate.While it's true that many religious people believe in God's existence... there are also some who know by their own direct personal experience. For them it is no longer a matter of religious faith but the fully aware acknowledgement of objective self evident reality. It's the fulfillment of a moral Covenant between God and whoever loves what's right enough to do it. Belief in God is not even necessary to uphold our end of the Covenant. Just loving what's good and true and right enough to manifest it in your own life. Anything could happen from that point on......and it will.GregJoan of Ark (sic, sic, sick [sic]) had a "direct personal experience" with "God" (I think she was crazy), but I don't think you expect the same outcome for yourself.--Brantgathering some word-wood--pay me no attention--it doesn't actually burn not being "real"I got my popcorn this time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 While you're talking about the dead past, I'm talking about right here and now in America.GregYou have failed to traduce my metaphor (by not taking it as one).--BrantI'm only doing this for fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So- the religious believe in God's existence. (Duh.) Self-evidently again, once any person has made his final metaphysical choice, there isn't much more to debate. While it's true that many religious people believe in God's existence... there are also some who know by their own direct personal experience. For them it is no longer a matter of religious faith but the fully aware acknowledgement of objective self evident reality. It's the fulfillment of a moral Covenant between God and whoever loves what's right enough to do it. Belief in God is not even necessary to uphold our end of the Covenant. Just loving what's good and true and right enough to manifest it in your own life. Anything could happen from that point on... ...and it will. Greg Hmmm. So, why...God? Why not ignore Him and go straight to the awareness and "acknowledgment of objective self evident reality"? Accomplished by our corresponding faculty of reason? Some come with Faith, while others arrive at the same place with reason. Is that what you're pointing to? That worship of God Himself - and the 'worship' of His creation - are synonymous in His view? Can't help thinking there's some special pleading in this argument. Not that I don't appreciate that some of the early sages were indeed intelligent men who spent their lives trying to lay down a Code of behavior - for man's existence in the face of a harsh reality and with other men. There is no doubt, however you would prefer to personally frame it, that the direct worship of and obedience to God was not central to the Covenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So- the religious believe in God's existence. (Duh.) Self-evidently again, once any person has made his final metaphysical choice, there isn't much more to debate. While it's true that many religious people believe in God's existence... there are also some who know by their own direct personal experience. For them it is no longer a matter of religious faith but the fully aware acknowledgement of objective self evident reality. It's the fulfillment of a moral Covenant between God and whoever loves what's right enough to do it. Belief in God is not even necessary to uphold our end of the Covenant. Just loving what's good and true and right enough to manifest it in your own life. Anything could happen from that point on... ...and it will. Greg Hmmm. So, why...God? Why not ignore Him and go straight to the awareness and "acknowledgment of objective self evident reality"? Accomplished by our corresponding faculty of reason? Acknowleging objective self evident reality is not ignoring God. Some come with Faith, while others arrive at the same place with reason. Is that what you're pointing to? Those two are not antithetical, for not all faith is unreasonable, just as not all "reason" is reasonable. That worship of God Himself - and the 'worship' of His creation - are synonymous in His view? No. They are not. Can't help thinking there's some special pleading in this argument. Not that I don't appreciate that some of the early sages were indeed intelligent men who spent their lives trying to lay down a Code of behavior - for man's existence in the face of a harsh reality and with other men. Instead of making an argument, I like to describe a choice. There is no doubt, however you would prefer to personally frame it, that the direct worship of and obedience to God was not central to the Covenant. Yes. It's not your duty to acknowledge God, or even to try to believe in Him for that matter... just to love what's right enough to do it. It is God's job to reveal Himself to you because loving what's good and right and true is loving God. A Covenant is never one sided. There is giving on both sides. Your side is only to do what's right even if you do it for the wrong reason. Right reasons always come later as you learn. It's God's job to reveal Himself to you... not your job to acknowledge Him. When He does, you will never have to wonder about it. It'll be a forehead slapper, because you'll realize that He's always been right here and now. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Greg's "God" stuff works if you drop "God" and substitute "reality."--Brantwhich means drop "faith" too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Greg's "God" stuff works if you drop "God" and substitute "reality." Absolutely. No one is required to acknowledge God when they don't actually know for themselves by their own direct personal experience that He exists, because to do so would constitute lying. Jesus said: "The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who really loves Me; and whoever really loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and will reveal Myself to him. I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him." which means drop "faith" too Works for me. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Sorry for top post: Are we not all brothers in the Tribe of Man???I don't think this is an important point at all except that it tends to promote tribalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Sorry for top post: Are we not all brothers in the Tribe of Man???I don't think this is an important point at all except that it tends to promote tribalism.Bob,Ha!The problem isn't that particular tribe. It's the members...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now