Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2023 21:47:31 GMT -5
Why it is so important if chatBot involved or not? I am communicating my thoughts, that's all. See now if you'd let the chat bot answer that one it would have been a one-word answer starting with the letter 'y'.  😀😀 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 13, 2023 21:56:42 GMT -5
yeah most of it. The idea of the knot, but not that it is the root of all evil. I didn't mean to imply that. I said ignorance is the root of all evil. edit. no I'll need to think about that, hehe  as andy likes to confound a 2nd-mountain mind with the notion that you know the difference between clean and dirty water .. I don't think that we can codify "virtue" with any sort of written morality, although I think we all can recognize it, in motion, in the moment, as it happens. "Evil" is similar, but quite a bit more layered, nuanced and as tricky as what it names. Ultimately, there is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. But some thinking is clear, and some destructive human trances are so deep, we can't help but recognize them for what they are, even in the abstract. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 13, 2023 22:09:36 GMT -5
FWIW, I only talk about THIS to people who are interested in THIS. As I've said before, my name is a place holder for the body/mind organism. I answer to the name, but never imagine that the name refers to a separate volitional entity inhabiting the body and directing its actions. One possible reason that nothing feels personal in the same way that it did 25 years ago is something I've mentioned before. The sense of selfhood is different for different people. Some people have what I call "a hard-core sense of selfhood" whereas other people do not. I've speculated that a hard-core sense of selfhood may be generated by strongly identifying with particular interests, skills, etc. People like that think that they know exactly who they are because they are so strongly identified as X, Y,or Z. People with a diffuse sense of selfhood (one fellow described his sense of selfhood as sort of a vague cloud-like feeling behind his head) do not seem to identify themselves in the same way. In fact, many people will say, "I have no idea who I am." They don't say this in any ND sense; they mean they actually have no idea who they are in the most conventional sense. People with a hard-core sense of selfhood "look inside" to see what they think or feel about things, and that activity of "looking inside" apparently occurs unconsciously and rather frequently. It's almost as if they are looking at something visceral or tangible "inside," and it feels as if they are a distinct entity that can check or affirm their ideas and feelings via the process of looking inside. It's rather hard to explain, but maybe that gives some sense of it. AAR, when that rigid sense of being an entity inside the body and directing the body suddenly vanishes without a trace, it is stunning, a huge shock. When that happens, it becomes instantly obvious that there was never a separate entity that ever did anything. Only then does the past illusion become fully exposed and understood for what it was--some kind of thought structure that existed (as a default mode neural network?) that has totally evaporated (shifted to a non-identified neural network?). People who are used to "looking inside" and checking on what they think or feel are surprised when they "look inside" because there is no longer anything there. When that happens, the whole idea of, or sense of, inside or outside also totally disappears, and all that remains is THIS, undivided. This totally changes the way one relates to the world because there is no longer a distinct or rigid center of experience; the past sense of selfhood is simply gone. This is probably why life then feels less personal and more fluid. The term "self-referential thinking" then no longer applies in the same way as before because there is no longer the same kind of strong identification of a "me" with the organism's interests or activities. When I talk to people about this, some people know exactly what I'm referring to by the term "hard-core sense of selfhood" whereas other people have no idea at all what I'm referring to. This is why some people have no idea what it means to have a sense of selfhood suddenly vanish without a trace. Those people apparently never had that type of self identity. In the future psychologists will probably survey people about this and discover that the sense of selfhood probably is a wide spectrum of experience. When I brought this topic up one night during a ND zoom meeting, peoples' responses made me realize that the sense of selfhood varies enormously from one individual to another even though there are some categories of commonality. This is probably why Satch has made statements in the past that he doesn't understand what it means to penetrate the illusion of selfhood. He apparently never had a hard-core sense of selfhood that suddenly vanished without a trace.  If you don't mind me saying, it often strikes me that the faith you put in the people you speak to, to give an honest evaluation of themselves, sometimes appears to border on the naïve. What I mean is, the answers many folks will give to questions about the level of their sense of selfhood may somewhat ironically be driven by ego. Especially in that sort of setting where it's already on their radar that selflessness is some sort of perceived goal. We often see folks on the forums claiming to have seen through selfhood and have no ego who are then acting highly reactively at any sense of challenge or slight and it doesn't add up. Mostly, getting a clear idea of someone's psyche is a process of evaluation of their behaviour over time, rather than taking what they tell you about themselves at face value. If it's the call that I'm thinking it might be, I've listened in a few times. Self-honesty is quite prized in this group. So naive? .. heh heh .. perhaps it's an LOA thingy ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 13, 2023 22:18:21 GMT -5
How is that possible? Are you going to visualise him with a hand that doesn't have an apple in it? Yep. Or begging here, there and everywhere …. but just not getting an apple. Like Old Mother Hubbard, the cupboard was bare. But of apples! Just picture me with my face screwed up, determined Gopal isn't going to get an apple.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 13, 2023 22:21:15 GMT -5
You have just attributed meaning to a text you said you would rather not attribute meaning to in the form of a dismissal of someone else's attributed meaning. here you forgot the nerd icon  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 13, 2023 22:24:31 GMT -5
It is not possible to reconcile the topics discussed here with Jesus' teachings, as he firmly believed in the personhood of God the Father who loves, expresses anger, judges people on the day of Judgement, and possesses all the qualities of a person.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 13, 2023 22:40:51 GMT -5
A tad reductionist, perhaps? I never replied to satch. I just reply to each post not being concerned about consistency. I was commenting on his definition of ego .. I successfully zipped my lip 'bout the other thingy. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 13, 2023 23:53:33 GMT -5
The concept has little to do with the Bible. That portion of the Bible, the Old Testament, is the foundation of Judaism and they have no such doctrine. It's not the Bible story; it's how certain church fathers interpreted that Bible story. It seems they were deriving their interpretation with an eye toward control and coercion. It's not some church father, that's what Paul wrote
The doctrine of original sin, right, began with Paul? So the Christians were baptising babies in the 1st century? Like I said this is Paul's interpretation of a Genesis story and Augustine's interpretation of Paul's letter. It lead to the doctrine that infants inherit sin through their father's sperm. it's like mention of God the Father and the Holy spirit are proof the Holy Trinity is in the Bible. It's not. It might be a plausible interpretation of something stated in the Bible, but it's not explicitely stated in the Bible. You might argue the Bible supports such a notiion, but you're stretching the truth saying it's IN the Bible. Are you a Christian, btw? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:06:42 GMT -5
I didn't express that viewpoint. The literature from the first century generally adheres to the teachings of Jesus, whereas the writing from the second century substantially diverges from the original teachings. The narratives in the Old Testament cannot be corroborated Do you take the first century literature to be telling the literal truth? To what extent to you take the old testament literature to be literally true? I explained above. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:07:22 GMT -5
I was demonstrating to you the biblical basis for the concept of Original Sin. According to the Bible, Adam committed a sin and as a consequence, God declared that he would die. It should be noted that the Law was not given until the time of Moses. Nevertheless, even in the absence of the Law, the people who lived between the time of Adam and Moses also died. The absence of the Law suggests that they were not guilty of any specific sin, yet death claimed them. This is where the concept of Original Sin comes into play, as it is believed that their mortality was a result of Adam's transgression. because he then backtracked and said okay you're going to die but you have the opportunity to seek salvation by repenting your sins and will be resurrected to everlasting life. In the Catholic church you can do this as often as you like by confessing your sins to a priest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:08:15 GMT -5
You mean the fact that 'One' can be experienced as 'Many'? If so, yeah...it is a helluva good trick really. Christians externalize the mystery onto the trinity. But I think that some of them get it just as deeply as any non-dualist. The concept of Trinity is baseless, as there is no endorsement of this theory in the books from the first century. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:11:43 GMT -5
Yes you are right with your logic. Jesus has absolved humanity of all sin, resulting in the complete removal of sin. As a result, no one can be considered a sinner anymore, as all have been cleansed. It seems the Catholic Church didn't get the memo. What is the reasoning behind this? Not every individual is directly associated with sin; rather, it pertains to all of humanity. Through the death of Jesus, all sins are absolved. It's not people's sins that condemn them to hell, but their refusal to accept salvation. It's like a judge saying, "Your debt is paid, and you're free to leave," but the individual declines, leaving the judge with no other option but to imprison them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:12:45 GMT -5
In the past, he wrote to me in one of his posts that there is a Source to which all persons are connected and energy flows from source to individual. This sentence indicates that he strongly believes in separation. He consider that Source is supplying energy to individual. That's what I consider that as separation. Each and every one of his post confirms what believes. He believes that all individuals are dangling from One Source. You can read what he wrote there as if he was humoring someone who hasn't had the realizations you described a few days ago. But, of course, that's only if you want to "give him the benefit of the doubt". Let Source will supply the energy for you! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:14:00 GMT -5
Why it is so important if chatBot involved or not? I am communicating my thoughts, that's all. See now if you'd let the chat bot answer that one it would have been a one-word answer starting with the letter 'y'.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:27:56 GMT -5
It's not some church father, that's what Paul wrote The doctrine of original sin, right, began with Paul? So the Christians were baptising babies in the 1st century? Like I said this is Paul's interpretation of a Genesis story and Augustine's interpretation of Paul's letter. It lead to the doctrine that infants inherit sin through their father's sperm. Paul didn't originate the idea; rather, the belief that Jesus died for sins was already established. Paul expounded on this concept in great detail. What I wanted to convey to him was that this doctrine was not created by Augustine, but rather, it can be found in the Bible, as I cited from Paul's writings. You're absolutely right! The Bible doesn't mention the concept of Trinity. The writings from the first century do not support this idea. It wasn't until the second century that this new theory began to emerge. Scholars attempted to formulate a single theory by examining all the books, and Trinity was the outcome. Interestingly, even the notion of virgin birth isn't endorsed by Paul. Matthew and Luke introduced this idea to portray Jesus as a sinless lamb. However, Paul's perspective on this topic is quite different. Furthermore, the question of why Jesus is the Son of God elicits varying responses from different authors. |
|
as andy likes to confound a 2nd-mountain mind with the notion that you know the difference between clean and dirty water .. I don't think that we can codify "virtue" with any sort of written morality, although I think we all can recognize it, in motion, in the moment, as it happens. "Evil" is similar, but quite a bit more layered, nuanced and as tricky as what it names. Ultimately, there is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. But some thinking is clear, and some destructive human trances are so deep, we can't help but recognize them for what they are, even in the abstract.
