The Problem of Self

Taliesin181 wrote:

Frank said:

Quote:
And I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WAY THEY USE THE WORDS.

Okay, I'll attribute this to a misunderstanding. Yes, I had seen that you were referring to Christian uses of the word...but their status as theists does not automatically determine how they use the word. I cannot speak for Rex, but I've found quotes, like the one I had on my last post, that would indicate that he sees his views as personal beliefs that he thinks are true...but not universal truths we should all bow down and accept as truths for ourselves. if I'm wrong...shame on him.

Most of the theist I know and with whom I debate have a notion of "belief" that certainly is much, much, much more than "I think" or "I guess." In fact, if you were to suggest that when they say "I believe in God"...they are actually saying "I think there is a God" or "I guess there is a God"...they will be offended.

I think you are being naive on this...but we will let this drop...unless some theists want to interject their say.

Quote:

You also wrote:

Quote:
I DO NOT GODDAM BELIEVE IN ANYTHING GODDAMIT!

Stop asking me what I believe in, Tal! Wake the hell up!

I have already told you that I THINK I have free will. I THINK I DO.

I have already told you that I think you have free will. I THINK YOU DO.

I think Fresco has free will also...but he disagrees. However, I think he at least gets what I am saying when I write the words I write. You seem to regard them simply as words you can disregard.

Why?

In any case, I cannot even be sure I have free will...which is what I SUSPECT Fresco was trying to say.

Yes...my guess is that I do have free will...whatever the hell "free will" is. But it is by no means a certainty...on a number of levels.

When I ask "What do you believe about ____?" I AM, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, ASKING, IN ESSENCE, "WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS/OPINIONS ON ___?"

Then why not simply ask my opinion...rather than using that word?

We already have plenty of agreement that the word denotes many different things for many different people...so there is the possibility of a misunderstanding. If you want my opinion on anything...I will be delighted to offer it.

Quote:

By freaking out over word usage, you have provided a perfect example of what I am talking about! You know how I am using "belief", yet still decided to act like I was using it a different way!

I am 68 years old...and over the years I have fried my brain in ways I would be embarrassed to discuss. Why not assume people like me cannot remember how you are using words that don't even have to be used...since perfectly good words exist to ask the questions you are actually asking.

Quote:

I think we all need to take a step back and try and see things from a different perspective. Frank: I am not deliberately trying to goad you; when I use the word "belief," I use it as a synonym for "opinion" in matters where there is a meta-physical context, like "free will" or "gods." Thus, when I asked, I was trying to find out about the reasons for your "opinions" on free will, i.e. how you came to that conclusion, why you think it has more weight than the "we don't have free will" argument, etc., which, by the way, you still haven't answered, and I would very much like to hear.

I have answered your questions in that regard...but you seem reluctant to accept my answers.

I THINK I have free will...but I am willing to acknowledge that I may be deluding myself (for the reasons several people have already mentioned.) In a casual conversation...I would undoubtedly aver that I DO HAVE FREE WILL...but since we are into something a bit more involved in this discussion...I want to be sure to identify all the proponents of how I feel about the issue.

No one here seems to be able to say definitively that "free will" (however defined) actually exists or does not exist...although, as you see, there are people willing to state a particular postion unequivocally. I am not one of those people...and I personally think people who do not have doubts about questions of this sort are kidding themselves.

Quote:

If, in the future, it would make you more comfortable if I used to phrase "opinion" in place of "belief" when speaking to you, I'll do so...but find it unnecessary.

If you are asking me for an opinion...ask me for an opinion. I suggest you do the same for everyone. Although you see this as a minor semantic difficulty...I see this problem of "belief" as the core of most of the unpleasantness that has stunk up this planet for the last 5000 years...so I do tend to get testy about it.

You are a very pleasant, reasonable, and likeable person, Tal...and I apologize for the tirade. Some day...when it will not interfere with the subject being treated here, we can discuss this a greater length. I promise you that there is a hell of a lot more humor in the incident than is apparent at a casual glance.

0 Replies

Sorry if I do not respond the previous responds but I will plant another idea that I was thinking about....

The reason we are never satisfied with ourselves is due to the fact that we are not simply our mind and our bodies but spirit as well, our spirit is eternal. So our insatisfaction is due to the fact that we try to fill ourselves with temporal things thereby not satisfying our eternal spirits. By putting a limit on our satisfaction we limit ourselves, since we are so complex our satisfaction needs to be as complex as our spirits alow, why look for weatlh and objects which will devaluate, expire and break. We need to fill the void with eternal satisfaction.....

0 Replies

furiousflee wrote:

Sorry if I do not respond the previous responds but I will plant another idea that I was thinking about....

The reason we are never satisfied with ourselves is due to the fact that we are not simply our mind and our bodies but spirit as well, our spirit is eternal. So our insatisfaction is due to the fact that we try to fill ourselves with temporal things thereby not satisfying our eternal spirits. By putting a limit on our satisfaction we limit ourselves, since we are so complex our satisfaction needs to be as complex as our spirits alow, why look for weatlh and objects which will devaluate, expire and break. We need to fill the void with eternal satisfaction.....

TAL...this is a case in point. So let's see where it leads.

Furious...you wrote:

Quote:

The reason we are never satisfied with ourselves is due to the fact that we are not simply our mind and our bodies but spirit as well, our spirit is eternal.

Do you know that we are also "spirit?"

If "YES"...how do you know?

Do you also know that "our spirit is eternal?"

If "YES"...how do you know?

If you are merely guessing about these things...upon what are you basing those guesses?

BTW...I am very satisfied with myself.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

You are a very pleasant, reasonable, and likeable person, Tal...and I apologize for the tirade. Some day...when it will not interfere with the subject being treated here, we can discuss this a greater length. I promise you that there is a hell of a lot more humor in the incident than is apparent at a casual glance.

That was one of the most pleasant responses I've gotten from anyone here, and thank you for it. I must confess I was struggling not to laugh during our little tete a tete(is this supposed to be hyphenated?), so I agree on the humor score. As you said, I am a bit naive, so rather than find offense in things people say, I tend to find it startling, then amusing.

As far as the belief concern: I had not realized it was such a point of contention with you, and I'll try to be more precise from now on.

Quote:

I am 68 years old...and over the years I have fried my brain in ways I would be embarrassed to discuss.

Heh.

As far as Furious' post, I'll try to stay an optimist and assume he's just stating a view, not trying to "convert the heathen bastards..."
Why are you "very satisfied with [your]self?" Sounds intriguing...

0 Replies

Frank, you say you prefer to believe in free will. That is much like the quote, I presented somewhere recently, from William James: "My first act of free will is to believe in free will."

0 Replies

Romans 3:19

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

0 Replies

Tal...

Quote:

Now, Rex: I don't know what interpretation of the bible you're using, so I can't really comment on why you trust the bible, but to me the christian bible seems contradictory in its halves (Old vs. New Testament) how do you reconcile these two clearly different passages? I'd be really interested in your views. Thanks.

Comment:
The old/new (King James Bible) testaments do not abruptly change but build upon reason, logic and freedom. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the old and ushers in the 'new'. The Bible does not contradict but it "builds" and does not contradict but changes over time and brings "new" meaning with "new" insight. This new meaning does not have to be a contradiction but an amendment and an insight made by grace...

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, you say you prefer to believe in free will. That is much like the quote, I presented somewhere recently, from William James: "My first act of free will is to believe in free will."

Why don't you learn to read...and then post.

0 Replies

Unless, of course, you are just busting my balls, JL...in which case, gosh, that was funny.

0 Replies

Rex: but the "God" in the Old Testament and New testament clearly have distinct personalities. One is a vengeful, jealous god, and the other is a forgiving, compassionate god. I could understand it (not agree, but understand) if the birth of Jesus was meant to be a cataclysm for God as well as mankind, but that would be a direct rebuttal of the "God is perfect" argument.

Interesting fact: there's a similar metamorphosis in the Greek Furies(goddesses of Vengeance), in Greek Erinyes, where they were changed into goddesses of morality/justice.

Quote:

Horrible to look at, the Erinyes had snakes for hair and blood dripping from their eyes. They changed into the Eumenides, protectors of the suppliant, after Athena had made them merciful sparing Orestes, whom they had stalked for a long time after the murder of his mother and her lover.

Just thought it was an interesting parallel to what we were talking about.

JL and Frank: You guys rock my sox.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Rex: but the "God" in the Old Testament and New testament clearly have distinct personalities. One is a vengeful, jealous god, and the other is a forgiving, compassionate god. I could understand it (not agree, but understand) if the birth of Jesus was meant to be a cataclysm for God as well as mankind, but that would be a direct rebuttal of the "God is perfect" argument.

Interesting fact: there's a similar metamorphosis in the Greek Furies(goddesses of Vengeance), in Greek Erinyes, where they were changed into goddesses of morality/justice.

Quote:
Horrible to look at, the Erinyes had snakes for hair and blood dripping from their eyes. They changed into the Eumenides, protectors of the suppliant, after Athena had made them merciful sparing Orestes, whom they had stalked for a long time after the murder of his mother and her lover.

JL and Frank: You guys rock my sox.

Taliesin

Justice is often vengeful but it is also merciful...

God as the law was justice but God as grace is merciful. It is the law that precedes grace. Without the law there could not be mercy from the law. Without the law there is no standard.

God in the old testament at times embodied evil in order for justice to be served. God said thou shalt not kill yet God endorsed killing when it involved judgement of those who transgress greater laws.

The rule is one can transgress the law to judge transgressors. But the law was weak because it has no clause for mercy and grace.

When does one show mercy and when does one not show mercy?

This was something the law could not seem to address.

It could not see into the hearts of people and judge the spirit of people.

So Christ came and took the spirit which was "upon" people previously and placed it "within" people. This ushered in a new period where the perfection of the people was was not without but within and the law was surpassed by a greater law of liberty.

1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Just thought it was an interesting parallel to what we were talking about.

0 Replies

That's an interesting idea, Rex, but it still doesn't explain the "God is perfect...or is he?" point I made.
As to your other points, "Justice" and "Vengeance" are mutually exclusive, to my thinking. "Justice" means punishing a person to the extent they deserve, while "Vengeance" is about indulging the victim's desire to hurt the perpetrator, at least in my mind. And "Vengeance" is disturbingly petty for a supposedly "perfect" God. Are you using the words in different ways?
Also, this:

Quote:

God in the old testament at times embodied evil in order for justice to be served. God said thou shalt not kill yet God endorsed killing when it involved judgement of those who transgress greater laws.

Seems a bit hypocritical. What I got out of that was that God would make a law, then break it when it served his purpose. That's a pretty bad thing to do.

I liked the "upon" vs. "within" point, though. It goes back to my point about Jesus being a cataclysm, but, as I said, doesn't uphold the image of God as "perfect." Just my thoughts on the subject.

0 Replies

Shouldn't this discussion take place in the Religion section?

0 Replies

Taliesin's "Seems a bit hypocritical. What I got out of that was that God would make a law, then break it when it served his purpose. That's a pretty bad thing to do" sounds like recent Republican actions.

0 Replies

JL: Heh. Those Republicans...what will they do next?

0 Replies

Sonnet of the Soul

It takes passion to expunge lust
And honesty to mistrust
It takes ego to loose the self
And poverty to find wealth
It takes darkness to shine light
And a wrong to be right
It takes haste to learn patience
And noise to hear silence
It takes life to sense death
And death to need breath
It takes youth to reach old age
And peace to calm rage
It takes wanting to show kindness
And emptiness to know bliss

Eric Pedersen(rexred)
Nov. 27 2004

0 Replies

Part of my Christian/Buddhist thinking...

0 Replies

William Shakespeare wrote over 100 sonnets... Does one match my first?

0 Replies

Rexred, very nice--ying yang.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Rexred, very nice--ying yang.

Thanks for the compliment! I have always been leary of the yin yang philosophy... (although my sonnet seems to illude to it) I have seen certain discrepancies in the complete idea. For instance: Evil is not equal to good... in life understanding good comes often by contrast to evil or sometimes nature. Yet, I do not think they belong in one sphere. I believe evil is on the outside of the sphere feeding and infecting the good like a virus or parasite. It is when the sphere turns pure white that there is "nirvana" or balance/peace. Light expels darkness yet darkness cannot expel light yet darkness can "capture" or "degrade/infect/slow" light's travel as in a black hole but it does take tremendous energy to do this where light can expel darkness with seemingly no effort at all.

The words yin yang mean sun and moon in Chinese. Yet the sun and moon are very different. It is not the moon that brings night but the lack of sun. The sun has billions of times more energy than the moon and the moon is just a giant rock (probably "created" by the sun). Yet the moon's proximity to us is what illudes us to give the two heavenly bodies equal weight.

In reality the sun is a star and the moon is an nondescript rock. Yet it is the moon that regulates the tides as a force outside of the sphere of the earth. The earth being more dependant on the sun still depends on the moon for the delicate balance of life on earth as we know it. To equate the sun and moon are to underestimate the enormous power of the sun. So yin and yang are not as the symbol represents. I think this logic follows through the entire spectrum of life/death, good/evil, night/day, etc...

Yin and Yang are not as the symbol represents but it is more like darkness is outside the sphere of the sun and when there is a balance between yin and yang there is chaos and confusion. The moon and the sun are not in balance... the sun over powers the moon by far... Even the light of the moon's surface at night is from the sun. It is when we allow darkness to over power light, evil to over power good and wrong to overpower right, then we loose the balance of self. Very little grows in darkness... mushrooms/mold and some rather hideous deep sea fish. Most all other creatures require a generous amount of the sun to flourish and remain healthy.

0 Replies

The Problem of Self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know