such definitions [by actions, behaviorisms etc] are human not religious, that is to say, they can be defined by non religious means, such as e.g. societal conditioning.
Ah, therein lies part of our difference. I see religion as a social thing- an aspect of society and culture. So to me it makes sense that defining a religion is just the same as defining any other social group- by norms, standards, customs, cultural models, and so forth. I think religion is only tangentially related to the spirit. That is, it is only related in so much as the individual makes it so.
me too, in a continuum we don’t have a creation moment as such, but we do have continual creation ~ in a manner. the other idea of god i have is based on the awen and the circles of abred caugant etc.
I believe every moment is a moment of creation.
i see, yes. my view is that we are mainly concerned with earthly matters which is completely normal. there are many reasons for this, none of which are turning away from god, as god has made the manifest world to which we turn our gaze. equally we are descended from apes so our genetic history tells us to be aware of the now in real terms ~ survival terms.
I see no difference in being concerned with the earth and being concerned with God. God is in and through and beside us. I don't see the earth as being separate from God at all, so why would being concerned with earthly matters be irreligious or unspiritual? It is how we are concerned that makes the difference.
union is ‘one’ness. if we are told to act like this and like that, then we are all acting like so. there may be some difference but it is greatly diminished by having standard ways of being. can we have a single rule for all things specific? only if that rule is universal yes.
Not sure I completely understand you. What is a standard way of being? I found that in my most definitive peak experience, "I" was annihilated, yet, found an endless variety of diversity in that unity with all. Very much like everything was part of one piece of music, but had its own vibrations, its own sound, its own unique creative energy. I found that to be much more diverse and yet much more unified than our usual ways of being- with all our trappings of exclusivity and categories and ideas about ourselves.
oh i see i got you wrong then. hmm well, what i was mainly referring too was the polarising effect of being with or not with god. interesting neural networks you must have. mine must be boring as happines is just that for me etc etc
I don't think my choice to turn toward or away from God is black/white. Of course I can kind of glance at the light over my shoulder as I continue to choose to wallow in darkness.
What can I say? I'm a girl. I have a capacity for a huge range of emotions all at once.
same here, but that’s because i am damaged emotionally, past experiences make me bottle things up. usually the lack of the ability to give ones self fully is due to having done that and been hurt. i don’t know many/any people to whom love has not had this effect.
Loving others has hurt me profoundly at times. But the pain and suffering is an opportunity to transform. I hurt because of my desire and expectation for a particular outcome or because I think more highly of myself and my capacity to give than is honest. Those expectations are not actually very loving at all, and neither is my dishonesty with myself. When I really am loving, I am free from expectation- I offer myself, the other, everything up to God. When I am in an awareness of God's presence, I find I am not hurt. I am able to stop desiring a particular outcome and find joy in my own love toward others, no matter what comes back to me. This doesn't mean I'm a doormat, but it means I care for my own psychological, physical, and other needs as I would for another person... I see us as equals. I neither see myself as more than I am (and therefore harm myself), nor do I see you as something that exists for my benefit (and therefore expect something from you). I just observe and embrace what is with compassion.
r u sure?
i would say it is an emotion when expressed and otherwise a vessel shared [an emotion field], like we are spirits in a vessel or soul body, then when two people fall in love there exists a vessel between them. hmm maybe one can have a vessel with everything or be in such a vessel if such a thing is already there, i don’t know as i have not experienced this.
To me, love is not an emotion, no. The things we say we "love" in English defy any type of common categorization of what the word means. I love my dogs, my husband, God, Gaia, trees, painting, broccoli, and Discovery Channel. LOL I'm pretty sure sometimes I'm saying I have an emotion, and others I'm stating my preferences or tastes, and others, I'm saying an action.
As for falling in love- LOL- well, people have very different ideas about what THAT is. My observation is that one thing that makes divorce easy is to fall "out of love" which ignores that love is work- an action, a choice. Most studies show that people fall and stay in love about as long as it takes human beings to hook up, procreate, and get the kid to a year or two old without birth control... notice how this is how long we need to jointly raise a very dependent being. Hence, the seven-year itch... but if we stick it out, so long as we've been respectful and *acted* loving- choosing to love the other- we fall in love all over again. And we also know from psychological studies that we can choose our emotions. If we act happy, we *feel* happier. If we act loving, we *feel* more loving. We can train our emotions... they do not just happen to us.
are we supposed to love all the time? i think we have a multitude of natures and all must have their say.
I believe we are supposed to be loving all the time. What that looks like depends on the context. My own experience is that the more I choose to love, the easier it becomes and the more my other natures are transformed in a positive way. If others find anger, fear, or other such natures useful or beneficial, I can't speak to that. I've not found them to be of much use. I can love and still have a very good awareness of injustice, danger, and so forth. But my approach to them is very different.
very good point, buit life is a journey. an infantile balance can be found easily but is not adept at coping with or working with the worlds complexities, so imbalance is a way to redraw the balance in an ever increasing way until ma’at is found. we find balance then it is thrown apart in cycles, creating diversity within us and the world, a profound imbalance ultimately augers a profound balance.
...for some not reached in this world.
Not entirely sure what you mean. I still am trying to understand what you mean by a balance. Balance between what and what? To have balance, it seems we need categories of what to balance, things that are oppositional to one another. I think I've been trying to get beyond this for a while. It's natural for people to see categorical opposites, but I'm not sure it's the most effective way to see things.
no i don’t, but christianity is, just as most if not all religions are. i see it in your thinking but i don’t think you are that kind of person -if i may.
Okey-dokey.
I'm not sure what righteousness means. It seems to mean different things to different people.
all-time perhaps? i think time is linear, from the big bang one thing follows another - loosely speaking..., nothing goes backwards or into a different time, ...of that which does, it would not exist in this world [at least not in an overtly affectual manner]. i have problems with all-time, its a bit of a bubble ~ if you see what i mean. i look at the sun and all-time means there are billions all in their own frozen moments going back to its birth and forwards to its death, yet they dont interact with each other!
I think everything just exists at the same time. But we perceive it as linear. When I look at a star, I am seeing the past. But I'm seeing it in this moment. Sometimes I dream of something that happens later, or I experience deja vu. I am experiencing that moment as the past, but it was at one point the future... and I'm experiencing both of them in the present moment. My memories are the past, but they only exist right now in this moment when I think of them. My goals are the future, but they only exist right now in this moment when I think of them. Nothing really exists outside of each moment. It's all in our heads, and our heads are right now. What about literature, you say? You're reading the Bible- that's from the past! Not really. It only exists because I'm here reading it. It is my observation that makes the moment real. Other things
might be real, but we can't really know, can we?
tangents and general themes. you give your children goals yes, equally you have goals of having a family and 3 or whatever children, some goals are easily reached. then you would want things for your children but would have to recognise that they may not fit the image of what you wanted them to be. so the goals may or may not change, nevertheless they are there and are very relevant.
I would say these are actually desires. I desire children and for them to do this or that. A goal is just a desire that we've put a lot of expectation and attachment toward. Which, in my opinion, is a short journey to suffering unnecessarily. By attaching ourselves to desires, we stop appreciating what we have in the moment and we create unnecessary suffering for ourselves. I make lots of goals, and see them lead to suffering all the time. I still do it, but I recognize its futility and pointlessness.
That old saying... I stared so long at the closed door that I didn't notice the open window.
i am glad you find beauty, if you truly believe your way is not hampered by duality, then good for you ~ but it jumped out at me ‘tis all, so i said it.
That's OK- I welcome your thoughts.
