What makes you think you are right about belief?

Gordian Knot said:
Dan said: There are things you can do to influence your emotions, but they can't be controlled in the sense that one's actions can be controlled.

Of course one can control one's emotions. Anyone telling you otherwise has something they want to sell you! We all have emotions and we all have willpower. Either can rule the other. Pretending one doesn't have a choice is fiction. A very popular fiction. But fiction never the less.
Click to expand...

To have a choice is akin to free will and we all have it, and mind you, almost in absolute terms. The "almost" here owes its relativity because of death.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"We all have emotions and we all have willpower. Either can rule the other."

--> It's not that simple. My area of study is personality disorders. Two good examples of 'uncontrollable emotions' are when a person goes into a rage and when a person engages in compulsive behavior. Two more good examples are anxiety and depression (which we don't usually think of as emotions but they are.) Yes, these emotions can be eventually controlled, but it takes a lot more (and a quite different intervention strategy) than just trying to control them via willpower.

If anyone thinks they can control anxiety and depression mainly by using willpower is just kidding themself and they may be setting themselves up for a disaster. (And any friend or relative who tells the person to just 'snap out' of their depression and anxiety -- via the person's own willpower -- is doing more harm than good.)
Click to expand...

We must focus on the fact that we are discussing this point within the context of a healthy person. Of course, an ill person mental or physically sometimes becomes an exception to the rule.
 
Thomas said:
Of course you can.
Click to expand...

Of course you can as we can say any thing we please. But you must be joking if you expect us to believe that it is possible to say, "I'll love you tomorrow" and tomorrow we are in love with whoever we said we would.

When it happens it's called metanoia, 'a change of heart'. The first step in being an authentic Christian. It's an act of will.

I think the kind of love you're talking about is the love of those who love you. This is not the order of love Christ talks about.
Click to expand...

The order of love Jesus spoke about is honor or respect and homage paid to another, not love per se.

"For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? Do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:46-48.)
Click to expand...

If you call that "love", that's bribe based on the reward promised in the afterlife to those who believe in it.

He's talking about an act of will, the free gift of self to the other, a gratuitous gift, that is given without counting the cost, without demanding or waiting for the other to make the first move.
Click to expand...

A gift akin to bribe as I have just mentioned above.
Click to expand...
 
Shibolet said:
But you must be joking if you expect us to believe that it is possible to say, "I'll love you tomorrow" and tomorrow we are in love with whoever we said we would.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my bad. I keep forgetting you're talking in cultural terms, whereas I'm coming from a spiritual sense.

Shibolet said:
The order of love Jesus spoke about is honor or respect and homage paid to another, not love per se.
Click to expand...
Well it's obviously more than honour, respect and homage, because we can do that for those we do not love. Again, I think the love of which He speaks is not the 'love per se' to which you refer. That still looks like desire to me.

Shibolet said:
If you call that "love", that's bribe based on the reward promised in the afterlife to those who believe in it.
Click to expand...
That may well be your interpretation. My experience says otherwise.



A gift akin to bribe as I have just mentioned above.[/QUOTE]
 
Thomas said:
Sorry, my bad. I keep forgetting you're talking in cultural terms, whereas I'm coming from a spiritual sense.

Well it's obviously more than honour, respect and homage, because we can do that for those we do not love. Again, I think the love of which He speaks is not the 'love per se' to which you refer. That still looks like desire to me.

That may well be your interpretation. My experience says otherwise.

A gift akin to bribe as I have just mentioned above.
Click to expand...

No, not really! I am talking in physiological terms. And since you are coming from a spiritual sense, don't forget to add faith because there is no evidence that one can love another as he loves himself.

Love is always based on desire and satisfaction of the desire. Nobody loves for the sake of love. As bribe is in the essence of all gifts, the soul of every act of love is fed by bribes.
 
Shibolet said:
And since you are coming from a spiritual sense, don't forget to add faith because there is no evidence that one can love another as he loves himself.
Click to expand...
Says you. Sorry, but that's a silly statement ... unless you can evidence it?

Shibolet said:
Love is always based on desire and satisfaction of the desire. Nobody loves for the sake of love. As bribe is in the essence of all gifts, the soul of every act of love is fed by bribes.
Click to expand...
I think you judge everyone according to yourself. You're wrong.
 
Love is always based on desire and satisfaction of the desire. Nobody loves for the sake of love.

Gee, Shib I hope you don't really believe that. How extraordinarily sad a world you must live in if you do believe that.
 
Thomas said:
Says you. Sorry, but that's a silly statement ... unless you can evidence it?

:eek:I think you judge everyone according to yourself. You're wrong
Click to expand...

Thomas, the point here is that I am talking from the logical point of view of reality while you are talking from the romantic point of view. It is impossible to love another as one loves him or herself. Evidence? Even our own children; we can't love them as we love ourselves. Neither do they us. That's nature. We have no other option but to stop embellishing whatever we feel for another as for instance respect... or mercy in the case of our enemies.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Love is always based on desire and satisfaction of the desire. Nobody loves for the sake of love.

Gee, Shib I hope you don't really believe that. How extraordinarily sad a world you must live in if you do believe that.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the world of reality, you are right. I live in a sad world. Have you ever watched an episode of that TV series "Law and Order?" When detectives are invited to solve a crime, they usually start at the home of the victim because 95% of the crimes are committed in ones' own house. This is a primal evidence that man, in nature, cannot love another as he loves himself.
 
Look people! He's talking about reality! Like Law and Order. So stop arguing against him because you're automatically wrong since he used the word Logic again! Get a grip!
 
If you are referring to the world of reality, you are right. I live in a sad world.

There is not but one reality. Do you think Thomas, or Wil, or I live in the same reality you do? Or that we each live in the reality of each other? Reality is perception, and perception is individual to each of us. You should know that, Shib.
 
I just joined this forum, and I only read some of this thread, but I think this is relevant:

testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot (dot) com

It is a big compilation of spiritual experiences and conversion stories from people of lots of different religions. I can't help but feel like these people have had profound experiences, regardless of their religions, and they all believe they are right. Experiences like these are very convincing to the individuals.
 
Shibolet said:
Have you ever watched an episode of that TV series "Law and Order?" When detectives are invited to solve a crime, they usually start at the home of the victim because 95% of the crimes are committed in ones' own house. This is a primal evidence that man, in nature, cannot love another as he loves himself.
Click to expand...
You mean your reality and your logic is derived from TV detective dramas?

That's your evidence? :eek:

I agree that 90+% of crimes are committed within the home, but what, do you think, is the percentage of those homes compared to the total number of homes in, for the sake of argument, the US?
 
Gordian Knot said:
If you are referring to the world of reality, you are right. I live in a sad world.

There is not but one reality. Do you think Thomas, or Wil, or I live in the same reality you do? Or that we each live in the reality of each other? Reality is perception, and perception is individual to each of us. You should know that, Shib.
Click to expand...

You say in your first statement above that "there is not but one reality." Then at the end, you say that "reality is perception and perception is individual to each of us." Well, is reality but one or there are as many realities as there are people on earth? As you can see, we are not sailing in the same boat of reality. I am not talking about the private reality of every individual but the concept of Reality per se.
 
Thomas said:
You mean your reality and your logic is derived from TV detective dramas?

That's your evidence? :eek:

I agree that 90+% of crimes are committed within the home, but what, do you think, is the percentage of those homes compared to the total number of homes in, for the sake of argument, the US?
Click to expand...

No, but that detective dramas do point to the reality that most crimes are committed at home. Then, you admit 90+% of crimes are committed within the home. Thank you for agreeing with me.
 
Gordian Knot said:
There is not but one reality. Do you think ... that we each live in the reality of each other? Reality is perception, and perception is individual to each of us.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's both ways: that part of reality is shared, and does not depend on individual perception. Because perception isn't reality, even if reality is perception. Then, part of reality is private, not shared and known only to each individual. I'm not sure I perceive everything about myself, much less about another person. I don't imagine my own beliefs are right. More likely, they are wrong in serious ways. :eek:

Thomas said:
Love as spoken of in Christianity, is not the same thing as society generally determines it to be.
Click to expand...

I think that's true. If the NT is correct, Paul forewent domestic partner and family to serve Christ. Christian faith can require that one give up their own life for its sake, in some cases. I doubt I've measured up yet. :eek:
 
Shib said "You say in your first statement above that "there is not but one reality."

You misunderstood my meaning. But then again it is a really crappy sentence on my part. The statement is not wrong but it is confusing. I should not have put the 'but' in there. Which would have made my meaning clear.

There concept of reality is extremely difficult to pin down. Especially when we are learned enough to understand that we can sense but a fraction of the reality around us. Being as limited as we are, I do not think we have a choice, except to compare how each of us sense reality. It does seem to me to be different for each individual.
 
Hatshepsut said "I wonder if it's both ways: that part of reality is shared"

Yeah I ponder this a lot, too. If part of reality is shared, what part do you suppose it would be? I look at the world around me, from my closest to people halfway around the world and individual reality seems to rule the day every time.

What objective reality we do understand, seems to me, is only that which has come from science. And even science has given us but a small sliver of the whole. Even here though, there is a sizable group of people even in industrialized nations who reject the portion of reality science has been able to prove. So where does that leave us?

Seems to come back again to the individual. No?
 
Certainly not intended as an attack. One part of shared reality is obvious. If I step in front of a moving bus, something bad will happen. And that's not a matter of individual preference or perception; rather, failure to perceive the bus correctly will be a disaster.

I suspect that's a danger with individualistic versions of reality. Actions have consequences. On ourselves, but also on other people. If I act out my perceptions without an attempt to perceive it from other viewpoints, then I may hurt people. And not even perceive I have done so.

That doesn't give me a license to assume there is only one truth, or that I would know that truth even if there were. I think you're right in that sense; it's hard to pin down. And people will see and experience different aspects of the world.

You're also right that some realities are private, as when Thomas Nagel asked, "is there a thing that it is like to be a bat?" He said that kind of experience would only be accessible to the bat, no matter how much we knew about the bat's anatomy and brain from the outside. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top