C
cyberpi
Guest
Matthew 25 says the sheep render people assistance (especially, assistance to the goats)... does it not?
Before or after the "maidens" with lamps of oil...?
nope, not one thing about sheep rendering assistance to anyone...
Matthew 25 is a WARNING to those to keep vigilant about the coming of the Bride Groom...
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I take hate to be a form of evil. I understand hate as an emotional reaction, or `mindset' (since it is rooted in the very selfishness, or sense of separteness being discussed) ... and NOT the flip side of love as if love is just another emotion (2nd-hand even, but that's Ike & Tina, sex & so forth).
I would say, Love is both an Aspect, or Quality, of our true self, the real Being (Esse, essential self) of Humanity (as also of the Angels). Thus, evil, in terms of this framework, is - yes - the absence of Love. But we experience it ... as a negative, or personality-centered emotion. And it divides, or separates us (further, by amplifying the sense of separateness which we alredy experience, here, in incarnation).
Malice, as ill-will, is like concentrated hate; yet it involves the will power, or `desire nature' (the inversion, or reflection of Willpower from spiritual levels into the personality). This basically just adds to the karma, for where there is forethought, and brooding, intentional planning brought into play, our transgressions are increased.
I do not take indifference to be the antithesis of emotion, but I think I see what you're saying. Apathy, like aloofness, are a sort of coping mechanism that some people more or less conscoiusly employ. And it is also sort of a side effect, or natural result, of attempting to truly live the separated life, or live for the separated self (personality).
The disciple (or spiritual aspirant), of whatever faith & religious practice/background (or none) ... seeks to live for the Greater Good. And this, fundamentally, will involve a shift in his or her definition of `self,' of being, and thus also it will change his or her self-understanding (and by virtue of this, also one's `other-understanding').
To come to regard all of Humanity, gradually, as one's Brothers & Sisters on the Path ... is one of the most fortunate developments that can occur for us, and a sure sign of progress - indicating that we are drawing near to `the One Life.'
It does not mean that we cease to see differences, distinctions or even disputes. And it does not mean that we cease to believe that these matter. It just means we have a different perspective on WHY these things exist, these differences, and such diversity ... and we begin to ask questions like,`How does this serve the Divine Plan (God's Will)?' Or even, `Does this serve ... the Divine Plan?'
And when the answer is no, or is unclear, then I think we are compelled to act accordingly, just as much as when we see how a thing does serve the Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number. What is God's Will? The question is almost always slightly different, for every different situation. The response, GG, GN ... just tries to give us a formula, to work with ...
C
cyberpi
Guest
So the goats are prudent? The sheep foolish?
I take hate to be a form of evil. I understand hate as an emotional reaction, or `mindset' (since it is rooted in the very selfishness, or sense of separteness being discussed) ... and NOT the flip side of love as if love is just another emotion (2nd-hand even, but that's Ike & Tina, sex & so forth).
I would say, Love is both an Aspect, or Quality, of our true self, the real Being (Esse, essential self) of Humanity (as also of the Angels). Thus, evil, in terms of this framework, is - yes - the absence of Love. But we experience it ... as a negative, or personality-centered emotion. And it divides, or separates us (further, by amplifying the sense of separateness which we alredy experience, here, in incarnation).
Malice, as ill-will, is like concentrated hate; yet it involves the will power, or `desire nature' (the inversion, or reflection of Willpower from spiritual levels into the personality). This basically just adds to the karma, for where there is forethought, and brooding, intentional planning brought into play, our transgressions are increased.
I do not take indifference to be the antithesis of emotion, but I think I see what you're saying. Apathy, like aloofness, are a sort of coping mechanism that some people more or less conscoiusly employ. And it is also sort of a side effect, or natural result, of attempting to truly live the separated life, or live for the separated self (personality).
The disciple (or spiritual aspirant), of whatever faith & religious practice/background (or none) ... seeks to live for the Greater Good. And this, fundamentally, will involve a shift in his or her definition of `self,' of being, and thus also it will change his or her self-understanding (and by virtue of this, also one's `other-understanding').
To come to regard all of Humanity, gradually, as one's Brothers & Sisters on the Path ... is one of the most fortunate developments that can occur for us, and a sure sign of progress - indicating that we are drawing near to `the One Life.'
It does not mean that we cease to see differences, distinctions or even disputes. And it does not mean that we cease to believe that these matter. It just means we have a different perspective on WHY these things exist, these differences, and such diversity ... and we begin to ask questions like,`How does this serve the Divine Plan (God's Will)?' Or even, `Does this serve ... the Divine Plan?'
And when the answer is no, or is unclear, then I think we are compelled to act accordingly, just as much as when we see how a thing does serve the Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number. What is God's Will? The question is almost always slightly different, for every different situation. The response, GG, GN ... just tries to give us a formula, to work with ...
it is an emotion, deemed to get a response from the recipient. In love "I want something from you", in hate "I want something from you". Either way, the object of the emotive person matters to that person, hence has value.
Indifference is the absense of emotion of any kind. (walk past a homeless person and do not register his/her existence), that, is EVIL (lack of love).
For example I hate when you try to overwhelm me with diatribe (thinking I'm a podunk from the hills), especially when I can see right through you. Doesn't mean I have lack of love or respect for you...quite the contrary. My anger (not lack of love), is that you don't respect me...get it? duh!
I, think I just gave you a FORMULA to work with...
or, maybe not.
C
cyberpi
Guest
Matthew 25:1-13, agreed. Matthew 25:31-46 talks about sheep and goats.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Hmm. I do not believe Love is just an emotion, or that it originates from the same level as hate. Therefore, the kind of Agape Love I believe in does not, actually, WANT ANYTHING when it is sent forth. It is not conditioned, nor conditioned BY circumstances. Only in the sense that it is not always welcome(d), will it meet with resistance, and fail to do "its Work," which is God's Work.
Hate does not rise to the level of Love. Love does not fall ... to the level of "hate" - yet it can give expression via this aspect (the lesser, or personality aspect) of our being. I may be veering from a Christian understanding here, so I'm hesitant to belabor the point ...
Of course, to bless them is definitely a response, and it does involve our emotional being - as a conduit for something greater. If a person simply tosses change at them, it's usually done to shake off that temporary nagging `conscience' that just inconveniently gets in the way.Quahom1 said:
That's not cynicism; that's reality. But some people are moved deeper than that, and I'm not suggesting there aren't kindhearted, charitable souls desirous of helping the homeless. I like to offer to buy a sandwich or cup of coffee (if I can afford it myself!) ... yet oddly, I don't seem to get taken up on it too much. Hmmmm ...
Sometimes, the apparent indifference is actually a conscious choice NOT to tap in to the real motive for why lots of folks have drawn up the sign, and are standing there at the corner to begin with ...
I can be verbose. This time I'm less verbose. Your "seeing right through me," whether or not you intended that as an insult, is no more respectful toward me, even if you meant nothing by it, than my verbosity. See?Quahom1 said:For example I hate when you try to overwhelm me with diatribe (thinking I'm a podunk from the hills), especially when I can see right through you. Doesn't mean I have lack of love or respect for you...quite the contrary. My anger (not lack of love), is that you don't respect me...get it? duh!
I, think I just gave you a FORMULA to work with...
My intent was not to think of you as a podunk from the hills, as that's actually a new one on me! Heaven forbid my relatives should read this forum, as they are wonderful, hard-working people ... and my family!!!
Yet there's plenty of podunk there (my Father's side), truly "hills" there (my Mother's side), and some of what we're discussing, quite frankly, might indeed - be overwhelming.
But I wouldn't want it to be. And you've got my imagined thoughts all wrong!
So you see, the safest thing to assume, would be that between neither of us was - or is - disrespect intended. Amazing how carefully one has to tread, in order even to suggest than more Respect might be called for ... yet I look at it is a 2-sided coin. And diplomacy, and good manners, will never be out of season.
At any rate, thanks for the reminder ...
~andrew
Hmm. I do not believe Love is just an emotion, or that it originates from the same level as hate. Therefore, the kind of Agape Love I believe in does not, actually, WANT ANYTHING when it is sent forth. It is not conditioned, nor conditioned BY circumstances. Only in the sense that it is not always welcome(d), will it meet with resistance, and fail to do "its Work," which is God's Work.
Hate does not rise to the level of Love. Love does not fall ... to the level of "hate" - yet it can give expression via this aspect (the lesser, or personality aspect) of our being. I may be veering from a Christian understanding here, so I'm hesitant to belabor the point ...
Of course, to bless them is definitely a response, and it does involve our emotional being - as a conduit for something greater. If a person simply tosses change at them, it's usually done to shake off that temporary nagging `conscience' that just inconveniently gets in the way.
That's not cynicism; that's reality. But some people are moved deeper than that, and I'm not suggesting there aren't kindhearted, charitable souls desirous of helping the homeless. I like to offer to buy a sandwich or cup of coffee (if I can afford it myself!) ... yet oddly, I don't seem to get taken up on it too much. Hmmmm ...
Sometimes, the apparent indifference is actually a conscious choice NOT to tap in to the real motive for why lots of folks have drawn up the sign, and are standing there at the corner to begin with ...
I can be verbose. This time I'm less verbose. Your "seeing right through me," whether or not you intended that as an insult, is no more respectful toward me, even if you meant nothing by it, than my verbosity. See?
My intent was not to think of you as a podunk from the hills, as that's actually a new one on me! Heaven forbid my relatives should read this forum, as they are wonderful, hard-working people ... and my family!!!
Yet there's plenty of podunk there (my Father's side), truly "hills" there (my Mother's side), and some of what we're discussing, quite frankly, might indeed - be overwhelming.
But I wouldn't want it to be. And you've got my imagined thoughts all wrong!
So you see, the safest thing to assume, would be that between neither of us was - or is - disrespect intended. Amazing how carefully one has to tread, in order even to suggest than more Respect might be called for ... yet I look at it is a 2-sided coin. And diplomacy, and good manners, will never be out of season.
At any rate, thanks for the reminder ...
~andrew
hmmm good point. There are two kinds of love then yes? One is emotional, and the other is what? logical? You're about to open a whole new can of worms...
There can be no "selfishness" in a logical decision to love another (do what is best for another despite personal feelings or beliefs).
Hey dude, I didn't bring it up...
lol...let's continue.
v/r
Joshua
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Hey, don't get me wrong.
I suppose I went a bit too far with the giving and taking thing, especially with what I said with "getting what you want." I kind of steered in the wrong direction there. I do believe, however, that there is something to be gained from loving others, but not in a material sense. True love doesn't demand any material benefit.
The benefit, I believe comes in the form of an experience. Acts and expressions of love are a part of one's life story and will, most likely, lead to a learning experience. This is what you "take" from an act of love. But what you "take" is not necessarily what you want, and in fact, there is no point wanting anything from what you do for and from another person. If you desire or want something, you will most likely be disappointed. It is best not to desire or want anything. But still, there is a benefit. One should have the expectation that there is something to gain from it. The gain is possibly fulfillment of a need we were unaware even existed!!!
That's the blessing of love if we pursue it. We will not come back from the experience empty handed. You reap what you sow.
Self-absorption and self-indulgence are a subset of selfishness. The complement is the pursuit of dignity and self-respect. Selfishness void of self-absorption involves the healthy attitudes of humility, self-respect, love, contentment and the pursuit of personal dignity. Self-absorption and self-indulgence are forms of self-disrespect. Lack of humility and contentment and narcissism are forms of self-disrespect.
When any form of want or desire dominates our love for others, whether it is love of ourselves, or of others, it is no longer true love but a corrupt form of love.
Ah yes . . . utilitarianism. That is to be taken with a grain of salt. Utilitarianism can be impersonal. Love is supposed to be personal. Perhaps what we should pursue is the kind of "utilitarianism" whose approach is personal and addresses the personal needs of the most people.
The idea of the ego, the independent "me-existence" (I, me, mine) ... is what I'm saying we should challenge. To argue that Humanity, that a human being, is only capable of being selfish, in some form or fashion, on one level or another, is, imho, to assert something that is fundamentally flawed, because in truth, unsound. The assumption is, that "I exist, apart from you" and that in fact, all men, all humans, are separate - or separated - lives.
One doesn't have to be a Buddhist, or a New Ager, or even particularly religious to believe that all life is interconnected. .......that all life, all matter, all energy, is interconnected.
But this does not mean that one's highest, or only, motivation, should be, or is, limited to SELF, or self-interest.
I think if we view ourselves as isolated, unconnected entities, love, as motivated by selfishness, we will only see the dark side of it. The self can't be understood without some form of connectedness with the others.
The "Christian collective" (that is, all Christians around the globe) in theory is supposed to be an interconnected nexus, with God as the Bridge that establishes the connection. Love is most meaningful with this sense of connectedness. Adherents of Christianity are seen as the "stones" of a spiritual temple. It is a place where God lives in us and we live in God. This "unity" was shattered long ago due to disagreements and differences in beliefs. Life is much like a process of migration toward that "place" -- a spiritual journey in search of God. With the struggles of life it's often difficult for members of Christian communities to remain connected. But when we do connect, the experience can be uplifting. There is an experience to share.
Love isn't about being Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman or Medicine Woman. The idea of love doesn't necessarily make us powerful. Love may be an admission of weakness -- an admission of need. It's often hard to acknowledge that we're weak. We could, possibly be criticised for being selfish. Love is often talked about in Christian communities, talk of being there for people at all times, all places and going to great lengths to show it -- to be zealous and fanatical about it -- that is, Superman Love. But could some of this talk be premature? Are all members of the community ready for such a thing all at the same time? Could there be times when we can't practice Superman Love? Could Superman Love be too phony and pretentious?
Those capable of the Superman Love ideal are praised while those saying it's too much are criticised and condemned for falling short of the standard or being too selfish to act it out. And so . . . some people start getting hurt in the process. Emotional damage is done. But that's the problem -- what if these people aren't ready to be that fanatical and zealous? Superman Love is obviously the wrong way to love. It can quite obviously be impersonal. How could it not be? It's a form of utilitarianism.
I think it's a fact that we can't always be connected, not at all times nor at all places. But we should connect when we are ready -- when we can. You love because you can, not because you have to love. It is not obligatory, but a part of your journey. It may be that when you connect with someone, and express and show love, it's because your time has come. It's your turn now.
If love is something we do as part of a journey, then it means that love involves the "self." It's a part of one's personality. But because we're also talking about a journey here, and some kind of connectedness, love involves both an individual identity (self) and a collective identity (a nexus, a connectedness). The self is nothing without the nexus and God to which it connects.
I take hate to be a form of evil. I understand hate as an emotional reaction, or `mindset' (since it is rooted in the very selfishness, or sense of separteness being discussed) ... and NOT the flip side of love as if love is just another emotion (2nd-hand even, but that's Ike & Tina, sex & so forth).
I would say, Love is both an Aspect, or Quality, of our true self, the real Being (Esse, essential self) of Humanity (as also of the Angels). Thus, evil, in terms of this framework, is - yes - the absence of Love. But we experience it ... as a negative, or personality-centered emotion. And it divides, or separates us (further, by amplifying the sense of separateness which we alredy experience, here, in incarnation).
Malice, as ill-will, is like concentrated hate; yet it involves the will power, or `desire nature' (the inversion, or reflection of Willpower from spiritual levels into the personality). This basically just adds to the karma, for where there is forethought, and brooding, intentional planning brought into play, our transgressions are increased.
I do not take indifference to be the antithesis of emotion, but I think I see what you're saying. Apathy, like aloofness, are a sort of coping mechanism that some people more or less conscoiusly employ. And it is also sort of a side effect, or natural result, of attempting to truly live the separated life, or live for the separated self (personality).
The disciple (or spiritual aspirant), of whatever faith & religious practice/background (or none) ... seeks to live for the Greater Good. And this, fundamentally, will involve a shift in his or her definition of `self,' of being, and thus also it will change his or her self-understanding (and by virtue of this, also one's `other-understanding').
To come to regard all of Humanity, gradually, as one's Brothers & Sisters on the Path ... is one of the most fortunate developments that can occur for us, and a sure sign of progress - indicating that we are drawing near to `the One Life.'
It does not mean that we cease to see differences, distinctions or even disputes. And it does not mean that we cease to believe that these matter. It just means we have a different perspective on WHY these things exist, these differences, and such diversity ... and we begin to ask questions like,`How does this serve the Divine Plan (God's Will)?' Or even, `Does this serve ... the Divine Plan?'
And when the answer is no, or is unclear, then I think we are compelled to act accordingly, just as much as when we see how a thing does serve the Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number. What is God's Will? The question is almost always slightly different, for every different situation. The response, GG, GN ... just tries to give us a formula, to work with ...
What frustrates you more, someone who says "I can't stand what you do." Or someone who says "I could care less what you do" then walks away in dismissal?
Answer that, and I think you'll understand my concept of "evil".
v/r
Joshua
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Thanks for the long post, Saltmeister ... and your willingness to look at all that I've said!
I'm with you on almost every point you make, especially those about the Superhero form of love. Very good way to point out some of the trouble we can get into when we set out to save the world, btw.
You speak as someone who might have had some experience as a Buddhist! In fact, I can't recall whether or not you've mentioned having tried Buddhist meditation, and having practiced the Buddhist detachment, yet you speak as one who is quite familiar with this technique!
It's not always easy, and it seems so contradictory, when - yes, we tend to think of Love as something quite personal.
I'll disagree with this one point though. It will seem untrue to what we experience. It will seem, when we are truly, deeply loved ... that the Love we are experiencing is very personal. And before I say one more word, I want to agree with something else you said:
The ideas of the nexus, our collective (spiritual) identity, and God as what interconnects and bind(s) us ... stands out so clearly to me, in what you're saying.
Yet what I was wanting to say about love feeling personal, yet not being personal ... was just that. If, and when, we love another person, or group of people - still aware of, or focused on, distinctions ... then yes, there is a personal element. But to me, this is the limit of our Love.
Mother Teresa, who so beautifully was able to love even the non-Christian, did not allow distinctions, or differences, to get in her way. And look what she accomplished ... a woman, a very human woman, yet a Saint (and a Saint because of her Love, I would say).
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is another person who - even in his short lifetime - proved what Great Love all human beings are capable of. He did not simply love those of his same skin color, or religious path, or mindset. If Christ told us that we can, and must, come to love our enemies (for `Only Love conquers hate,' as the Buddha tells us too) ... then Dr. MLK, Jr. proved the truth in Christ's and Buddha's words.
I won't be able to focus in any better on what I'm getting it. I think you understand, maybe better than I do, and it has everything to do with these ideas you've so beautifully framed: a nexus, a collective identity, and God's Presence within, or amidst both of these, as Love.
My beliefs are not at all mainstream Christian, but I do believe that there is a Being, `G-d,' whose very self is Love, and Light, and Divine Will, also the source of all Power, and Potential. Such a Being, I think, does love 100% Universally, Unconditionally, yet truly, utterly impersonally. And I know this does not somehow sit well ... with the Christianity I have always heard preached, and which is today taught.
I dunno, I think part of it might just grow out of a desire that each of us feels ... and that's the universal desire of being loved. We can come to feel this, to experience what Christians usually call "God's Love," or Christ's Love ... so deeply, so intimately, that the FEELINGS we're experiencing - these ARE those of our own, personal being, and they are "selfish" ... not in a bad sense, but just in a descriptive sense. We surely aren't feeling abstractly that "God loves us" - we are feeling it, knowing it, and experiencing its powerful, life-changing effects, deep down.
This IS personal, and again, though I don't usually think of myself as a Christian, what I believe is that God does know each and every individual human soul, and Loves us ALL - even "each and every one!"
So HOW could that be anything but personal?
Just because - NOTHING that we can do "moves" God's Love for us one ounce, in any direction. It is - without "conditions," and without dependencies.
~+~+~+~+~+~
I may have wandered a bit off track at this point; it's late, I can't think clearly at the moment, but the more I read your post, Saltmeister, the more I tend to agree with it. I think you're saying something quite profound about our human journey, as well as our relationship(s) with each other, and with the Divine.
We may have some different assumptions about how each of us relates, deep within, "to" or with the Divine (`God') ... but you effectively cut through all differences when you say things like:
I know I am bothered more when there are perturbations ... therefore, even when I am quite content with my own choices, my own plan of action, etc. - I really find it more bothersome if someone says, "What you're doing is driving me nuts."
To say, "I couldn't care less" - is precisely what I like to hear ... so long as it's not a subtle attempt at manipulation (meaning, I DO care, and I want you to know it, and be grateful for it).
Don't ask me to think too deeply; the psychological approach is the best I can do right now ...
Namaskar
I'm with you on almost every point you make, especially those about the Superhero form of love. Very good way to point out some of the trouble we can get into when we set out to save the world, btw.
You speak as someone who might have had some experience as a Buddhist! In fact, I can't recall whether or not you've mentioned having tried Buddhist meditation, and having practiced the Buddhist detachment, yet you speak as one who is quite familiar with this technique!
It's not always easy, and it seems so contradictory, when - yes, we tend to think of Love as something quite personal.
I'll disagree with this one point though. It will seem untrue to what we experience. It will seem, when we are truly, deeply loved ... that the Love we are experiencing is very personal. And before I say one more word, I want to agree with something else you said:
You said it again, thus:Saltmeister said:
Saltmeister said:
Yet what I was wanting to say about love feeling personal, yet not being personal ... was just that. If, and when, we love another person, or group of people - still aware of, or focused on, distinctions ... then yes, there is a personal element. But to me, this is the limit of our Love.
Mother Teresa, who so beautifully was able to love even the non-Christian, did not allow distinctions, or differences, to get in her way. And look what she accomplished ... a woman, a very human woman, yet a Saint (and a Saint because of her Love, I would say).
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is another person who - even in his short lifetime - proved what Great Love all human beings are capable of. He did not simply love those of his same skin color, or religious path, or mindset. If Christ told us that we can, and must, come to love our enemies (for `Only Love conquers hate,' as the Buddha tells us too) ... then Dr. MLK, Jr. proved the truth in Christ's and Buddha's words.
I won't be able to focus in any better on what I'm getting it. I think you understand, maybe better than I do, and it has everything to do with these ideas you've so beautifully framed: a nexus, a collective identity, and God's Presence within, or amidst both of these, as Love.
My beliefs are not at all mainstream Christian, but I do believe that there is a Being, `G-d,' whose very self is Love, and Light, and Divine Will, also the source of all Power, and Potential. Such a Being, I think, does love 100% Universally, Unconditionally, yet truly, utterly impersonally. And I know this does not somehow sit well ... with the Christianity I have always heard preached, and which is today taught.
I dunno, I think part of it might just grow out of a desire that each of us feels ... and that's the universal desire of being loved. We can come to feel this, to experience what Christians usually call "God's Love," or Christ's Love ... so deeply, so intimately, that the FEELINGS we're experiencing - these ARE those of our own, personal being, and they are "selfish" ... not in a bad sense, but just in a descriptive sense. We surely aren't feeling abstractly that "God loves us" - we are feeling it, knowing it, and experiencing its powerful, life-changing effects, deep down.
This IS personal, and again, though I don't usually think of myself as a Christian, what I believe is that God does know each and every individual human soul, and Loves us ALL - even "each and every one!"
So HOW could that be anything but personal?
Just because - NOTHING that we can do "moves" God's Love for us one ounce, in any direction. It is - without "conditions," and without dependencies.
~+~+~+~+~+~
I may have wandered a bit off track at this point; it's late, I can't think clearly at the moment, but the more I read your post, Saltmeister, the more I tend to agree with it. I think you're saying something quite profound about our human journey, as well as our relationship(s) with each other, and with the Divine.
We may have some different assumptions about how each of us relates, deep within, "to" or with the Divine (`God') ... but you effectively cut through all differences when you say things like:
This, imho, gets at the very heart of it!
I think what I believe in is a `Divine Indifference.' This is the type of God-Consciousness where Free Will is held as the greatest gift, as well as the greatest possible Responsibility, for each & every one of us, and for Humanity as a whole. But anthropomorphisms get the better of me, every time I try to imagine what such "indifference" might be like!Quahom1 said:
I know I am bothered more when there are perturbations ... therefore, even when I am quite content with my own choices, my own plan of action, etc. - I really find it more bothersome if someone says, "What you're doing is driving me nuts."
To say, "I couldn't care less" - is precisely what I like to hear ... so long as it's not a subtle attempt at manipulation (meaning, I DO care, and I want you to know it, and be grateful for it).
Don't ask me to think too deeply; the psychological approach is the best I can do right now ...
Namaskar
I think what I believe in is a `Divine Indifference.' This is the type of God-Consciousness where Free Will is held as the greatest gift, as well as the greatest possible Responsibility, for each & every one of us, and for Humanity as a whole. But anthropomorphisms get the better of me, every time I try to imagine what such "indifference" might be like!
I know I am bothered more when there are perturbations ... therefore, even when I am quite content with my own choices, my own plan of action, etc. - I really find it more bothersome if someone says, "What you're doing is driving me nuts."
To say, "I couldn't care less" - is precisely what I like to hear ... so long as it's not a subtle attempt at manipulation (meaning, I DO care, and I want you to know it, and be grateful for it).
Don't ask me to think too deeply; the psychological approach is the best I can do right now ...
Namaskar
not me Andrew. Hot or cold I can deal with. Luke warm makes me sick at heart (and to the stomach).
Hate or Love (that means that I matter to another in some way). Indifference means I might as well not exist to the other.
And I suppose the reason it bothers me the most, is that I am capable of exactly the same thing towards others. And that is when we ignore those in need, or in peril, or being unrighteously treated...to have no feeling about another's plight, that to me is the greatest Evil. Because that is when we cease to be...human.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
We "can't save the world," thus - Think Globally, Act Locally. This makes all the sense in the world to me. It is Universal, yet Practical.
When it comes to theology, however, I think of Deity as Impersonal, not "uncaring." Indifference would only apply in the Buddhist sense of `detachment,' not the more common, everyday usage in terms of apathy. People tend to be that way, yeah.
I think sometimes our greatest challenge is to find, then stick to, the Middle Ground. Buddha's Noble Middle Way was not the way of either extreme - for a reason, and quite intentionally so.
If we can reconcile that with lukewarm, then I think we'll be getting somewhere. But there's a big difference between fence-sitting, and avoiding life's unhealthy, even dangerous, extremes. Buddha, of couse, didn't mean that we don't have, or strive to fulfil, a Purpose.
Still, where's the balance? How do we decide just how much is "our share?"
This is a question that anyone with a conscience is compelled to ask, over and over and over again. I think our answer changes, but we are also in a slightly different position, each time we ask and answer it.
As far as hate goes, my goal is to hate none, be hated by none. Sure, "if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow" ... but status quo is really not my style.
When it comes to theology, however, I think of Deity as Impersonal, not "uncaring." Indifference would only apply in the Buddhist sense of `detachment,' not the more common, everyday usage in terms of apathy. People tend to be that way, yeah.
I think sometimes our greatest challenge is to find, then stick to, the Middle Ground. Buddha's Noble Middle Way was not the way of either extreme - for a reason, and quite intentionally so.
If we can reconcile that with lukewarm, then I think we'll be getting somewhere. But there's a big difference between fence-sitting, and avoiding life's unhealthy, even dangerous, extremes. Buddha, of couse, didn't mean that we don't have, or strive to fulfil, a Purpose.
Still, where's the balance? How do we decide just how much is "our share?"
This is a question that anyone with a conscience is compelled to ask, over and over and over again. I think our answer changes, but we are also in a slightly different position, each time we ask and answer it.
As far as hate goes, my goal is to hate none, be hated by none. Sure, "if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow" ... but status quo is really not my style.
We "can't save the world," thus - Think Globally, Act Locally. This makes all the sense in the world to me. It is Universal, yet Practical.
When it comes to theology, however, I think of Deity as Impersonal, not "uncaring." Indifference would only apply in the Buddhist sense of `detachment,' not the more common, everyday usage in terms of apathy. People tend to be that way, yeah.
I think sometimes our greatest challenge is to find, then stick to, the Middle Ground. Buddha's Noble Middle Way was not the way of either extreme - for a reason, and quite intentionally so.
If we can reconcile that with lukewarm, then I think we'll be getting somewhere. But there's a big difference between fence-sitting, and avoiding life's unhealthy, even dangerous, extremes. Buddha, of couse, didn't mean that we don't have, or strive to fulfil, a Purpose.
Still, where's the balance? How do we decide just how much is "our share?"
This is a question that anyone with a conscience is compelled to ask, over and over and over again. I think our answer changes, but we are also in a slightly different position, each time we ask and answer it.
As far as hate goes, my goal is to hate none, be hated by none. Sure, "if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow" ... but status quo is really not my style.
neither apparently is respect for the "Christian forum", where Buhdda has no real relevance, but as a passing figure (type) in history.
Need to gage your responses based on where you are at...(lest you unintentionally insult one, or a whole group of people).
The balance in Christianity is Jesus, not some Buhdda. There in is the major difference between your thoughts and most Christians'. Going with the wind, is not a preference. Being "anchored" is.
I'm not angry Andrew, just disappointed that you seem to refuse or are incapable of accepting the fact that there are those that like (cherish), the Christian concept, which states "hot or cold", luke warm is vomitted from the mouth...That is what Jesus said.
Or, like my grand father told me "Que sera, sera is the stupidest explanation I ever heard of. Dig in, plant a post and thether yourself to it, because when the wind blows, you'll be grateful."
I like to sail the seas, but when a storm comes a good anchor and chain is the sailor's best friend.
Christ is my anchor, and faith is my chain. I wish all had such confidence in God...
v/r
Joshua
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Your will-force is not enough for my love force, my friend.
I win ...
You surprise me sometimes, dear one
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
And for the record, Joshua, it's a DISCUSSION BOARD, and we allow dissenting opinions ... IF that's what it all comes down to.
You of all people, a "moderator," should know this.
Or are rules different, when folks post here on THIS board, vs. when they post on `Alt' anything?
Need a lesson? Go look in the mirror ...
You say you're not angry? Well I am.
You took a perfectly good discussion - and RUINED IT.
You of all people, a "moderator," should know this.
Or are rules different, when folks post here on THIS board, vs. when they post on `Alt' anything?
Need a lesson? Go look in the mirror ...
You say you're not angry? Well I am.
You took a perfectly good discussion - and RUINED IT.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Oh and Joshua, btw, you are NOT my father. Not in this world, not in the next. Stop picking FIGHTS, and stop going around treating everyone like they're your children.
Speak to me AS AN EQUAL. Your stories, and your lengthy family history do NOT really have anything to do with your picking fights, and turning a productive discussion into AN OPEN, DIRECT CONFLICT.
There's nothing to hide behind there. You pushed. You even shoved And it WASN'T very gentlemanly of you. I would call it - an act of COWARDICE, in fact. Because you know that you a) set me up, b) have the entire, MASSE/MASS of fellow posters to come running at your rally-call, and c) there is always the "mod-hat."
Well as you even said in your most recent SENSIBLE post, you either want to be LOVED, or HATED. And I know you can be flaky often enough ... I just don't know why you WANT to be hated.
We all have our quirks, but lest I patronize you ... I'll leave YOU to figure out your own mess.
STOP sparring with ANYONE and EVERYONE, for no good reason. Stop INVENTING problems where they don't really exist.
Speak to me AS AN EQUAL. Your stories, and your lengthy family history do NOT really have anything to do with your picking fights, and turning a productive discussion into AN OPEN, DIRECT CONFLICT.
There's nothing to hide behind there. You pushed. You even shoved And it WASN'T very gentlemanly of you. I would call it - an act of COWARDICE, in fact. Because you know that you a) set me up, b) have the entire, MASSE/MASS of fellow posters to come running at your rally-call, and c) there is always the "mod-hat."
Well as you even said in your most recent SENSIBLE post, you either want to be LOVED, or HATED. And I know you can be flaky often enough ... I just don't know why you WANT to be hated.
We all have our quirks, but lest I patronize you ... I'll leave YOU to figure out your own mess.
STOP sparring with ANYONE and EVERYONE, for no good reason. Stop INVENTING problems where they don't really exist.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Now that's interesting.
I didn't know that was the signature of a Buddhist mindset. I have hardly any knowledge of Buddhism, so I'm ignorant of the technique.You might be getting warm in that there is some kind of "detachment." I don't use any technique or method, though. It's not about anything I practice. It's more of an agenda.
Once upon a time I noticed something about the way Christians approached their religion. Because Christianity is about a relationship with God, one of the things we often do is highlight and emphasise what's important. What we consider important is then put together and constructed as like a kind of signpost to lead people in the right direction. As a way of ensuring there is some level of consistency, the same message is repeatedly again and again. But over time, we forget that the real religion is not the signpost. The signpost was just there to point the way. But as if there was some kind of glue between us and the signpost, we couldn't help getting stuck!!! Trouble is, we often don't know we're stuck. Over time, we get used to the idea that the signpost is here to stay. The next generation of Christians will perhaps grow up with the signpost and not realise it's just a signpost.
What develops is an ideology. An ideology defines the structure of a religion. It is upheld by doctrines, tenets and institutions. It is fuelled by conformity. What you get is a culture with a waving of banners, chanting of slogans and labelling with bumper stickers.
I thought, hey, that's not me. That's not who I want to be. I don't want to be a banner holder. I don't want to be caught chanting slogans. Get these bumper stickers off me!!!! I'm a man on the run. I'm being chased around by a crowd of banners, slogans and bumper stickers.
So where do I fit in with Christianity? I fit in somewhere within Christianity, but not necessarily somewhere where I'd easily be found. I still consider myself instrinsically Christian in identity, but it's not my intention to give away any clear definition of that identity, lest someone place a bumper sticker on my back or catch me holding a banner. I uphold "the important things" (so to speak). You may quiz me on what that means.
Depending on how one reads my post, I may sound "traditional" at times and "unconventional" at others. My alignment with the "important things" may make me sound "traditional" while my detachment to the way those "important things" are defined may make me "unconventional."My aim, particularly, is to seek to discover the true meaning of Christianity, a concept and notion which is often vague and abstract. It requires that one be a free-thinker, thinking divergently. But I have to admit, I am not completely detached from a so-called "traditional mindset," as I strive to know and understand the "important things" (big rocks) in Christianity. But big rocks though they may be, I don't have to be conventional or traditional to hold up the big rocks. I know what they mean to me even if no-one else does.
I read the signposts as a kid, but now I'm exploring uncharted territory.
The Christianity I've heard of was about "unconditional love" . . .
Anyway, that was what I believed love was supposed (or should) to be about for a long time. But now I've placed a question mark (???) on that idea. Is unconditional love the best, or the "most right" way to love? I'd like you to be relieved it's still a question mark, although I'm now a bit more polarised to a slightly different view.
I was thinking, are human beings capable of unconditional love? And if unconditional love was impersonal, then what did that mean? Was it logic? Was it head and no heart? (Was it heartless?
) Maybe God giving human beings emotions was a way of making love easier for us. Maybe selfishness can be a blessing as well as a vice. We see value in others because we see a part of ourselves in them. We then suppress the selfish yearnings and use our feelings for others to pursue the natural course of our love. To love by emotions is, therefore, to love naturally and to love unconditionally is to love optimally and maximally. To love by emotions is to love like a tree/plant/river and to love unconditionally is to love like a computer/calculator. (Maybe we can also learn to love linearly, exponentially and sinusoidally.)Anyway, I don't want to pop anyone's party balloon here. Just following the natural flow of things.
This IS personal, and again, though I don't usually think of myself as a Christian, what I believe is that God does know each and every individual human soul, and Loves us ALL - even "each and every one!"
So HOW could that be anything but personal?
Just because - NOTHING that we can do "moves" God's Love for us one ounce, in any direction. It is - without "conditions," and without dependencies.
Could love be motivated by reasons (ie. emotional reasoning)? Could God have a reason to love? The message (by Christian preachers) I most often hear is that God doesn't need one or isn't supposed to have one. But could God be personal? Why is it wrong to have reasons? I think the idea that you love someone because you value them, is one of the most beautiful things imaginable. There might not be a reason why you value them. You just do. In other words, there might not be a reason behind the reason. There is just a reason, for no good reason.
When a flower opens up, why does it happen? Ok, it's physics and chemistry I hear you say. Not the answer I was looking for!!! My view: It's just one of the natural things a flower does. Emotions are like the opening up of a flower. It just happens naturally. No logic behind it to back it up. It just happens. With us and God, there is an element of free will, but could we not, maybe just for a brief moment, respond to our call of nature?