Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Interfaith

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 21-02-2020, 08:12 PM
BigJohn BigJohn is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: अनुगृहितोऽस्म
Posts: 3,373
  BigJohn's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketzer
Perhaps the difference here is between what is theoretically possible and what at present is practically possible. I suppose any species that rises to the top of the food chain must divide itself up into packs, prides, or tribes, and learn to kill each other, lest their populations rise to a level to eat nature out from under their own feet. Most top predator species either hunt and kill each other, or if a social species, then they go to war with one another. Our roots are firmly planted in our animal nature, yet our minds reach up for something higher. I don't know which side will win this tug of war, or how many rounds are played in a match, or even if ultimately it matters to me. The animal side does what it does because that is it's nature, yet the reach higher side must resist its nature to rise above it. It may seem that the reach higher side has a disadvantage, yet the need to evolve and become/realize more than what we are is also a strong motivator. But I suppose if the reaching up side does not believe victory is possible, then it is probably game over before it even starts.

INTERESTING POINTS; ESPECIALLY THE LAST SENTENCE.

Where I live, there was once only one religion. Slowly but slowly, other religions came and got established. Now there are a lot of various religions.

Surprisingly, some people, ever once in a while, go to the building of another religion just to see what it is like. The more the people intermingle, the more it seems that the only thing to fear is fear itself.

We really are not that much different........ after all.
__________________
..
.

He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act. In small clumsy letters he wrote: ..... April 4th, 1984. ....... ⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 22-02-2020, 04:02 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 19,257
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketzer
Perhaps the difference here is between what is theoretically possible and what at present is practically possible. I suppose any species that rises to the top of the food chain must divide itself up into packs, prides, or tribes, and learn to kill each other, lest their populations rise to a level to eat nature out from under their own feet. Most top predator species either hunt and kill each other, or if a social species, then they go to war with one another. Our roots are firmly planted in our animal nature, yet our minds reach up for something higher. I don't know which side will win this tug of war, or how many rounds are played in a match, or even if ultimately it matters to me. The animal side does what it does because that is it's nature, yet the reach higher side must resist its nature to rise above it. It may seem that the reach higher side has a disadvantage, yet the need to evolve and become/realize more than what we are is also a strong motivator. But I suppose if the reaching up side does not believe victory is possible, then it is probably game over before it even starts.




I think it's a difference between what is ideally imaginable and what is realistic. The reason I put it that way is of course we'd like to the religions coexist with peaceful relations, but do have to overlook the actual nature of the thing, and conjure an imaginary thing which does not have the violent attributes that are inherent to religiosity. We do that because we can then say that ("name religion") is a peaceful religion despite the reality of acts of collective violence. If persons siscerely inquired as to why religion tends to violence they would have to see the violence in themselves, but it is never 'me' who is violent because I understand the true Word. It is the others who misinterpret text who enact these atrocities, so I declare that is not ("name religion"), and by so doing only reinforce the primal conflict of of us and them.


This manufacturing of 'the other' is necessary for the identity, and the problem with that is, you are only defined in contrast against such an imaginary other. If you are good, then the other is bad, and these religions have the dual paradigm built in to them, God and Satan, Heaven and Hell, Good and Evil and so on because dichotomous contrast is essential for a sound symbolic structure.


There is a seed of truth in the symbolic, an actual balance and consistency if you will, so it does relate to reality in the sense of being self-referential and coherent. It only becomes entirely imaginary when you envisage an 'all good" "no bad" scenario, which is entirely conjured having no basis whatsoever in the same way as "only up" "no down" has no basis. The real in itself is without definition, but we could conceive of it as a potential, so if you conceive of an up, then down is an inevitable consequence - and same with good and bad.



So, Identity: If I am 'all good' the other by which I justify that is 'all bad'. At the bottom of the religious paradigm, this is the case, as is the case with any symbolic structure, but because this good/bad is inter-defined, each pervades the other. You see it in pop culture where the crucifix is 'good' in that it wards off evil, defeats vampires, outs demons and so forth, and it can worn as a talisman, most of all to inform 'others' of one's identity via its virtue signal. Of course evil is signified by the same symbol's inversion...



In that the 'good religion' is contrasted by the 'bad other', and thus contains it, the 'other' always threatens to encroach. Other must be warded off and ultimately destroyed in order to attain the imaginary ideal. But as we destroy 'the other' we are left with nothing against which to define ourselves, and hence, we continually re-create 'the other' for the sake of self preservation, and must necessarily destroy it at the same time, but if we destroy it, it spells our own self-annihilation, so we recreate it - and thus remain in a perpetual state of violence until the identity itself is forgone, which also means the end of the religion. No one is prepared to let that go, so the violence as I've described continues.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 22-02-2020, 05:19 AM
BigJohn BigJohn is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: अनुगृहितोऽस्म
Posts: 3,373
  BigJohn's Avatar
So, are you saying you can not 'put your foot forward'?

Are fears holding you back?
__________________
..
.

He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act. In small clumsy letters he wrote: ..... April 4th, 1984. ....... ⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 22-02-2020, 05:49 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 19,257
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJohn
So, are you saying you can not 'put your foot forward'?

Are fears holding you back?




Yes of course we'd put our best foot forward, though this has nothing to do with what I said. What I said is the best foot is concurrent with the worst foot. If we imagine just a best foot and no worst foot, then that's pure imaginary because there is no concurrent inevitable reference point. This is like we can only have 'up' if there is a concurrent and consequential down. You see. We don't make it up entirely. There must be a down if we have an up. We can imagine just an up with no down, but because there is no inevitable concurrent down, it can't relate to reality. This is exactly what we do when we imagine a best foot in the absence of a worst. Because the best and worst are inter-defining, they each entail the other, and if you destroy the worse, the best cannot exist in reality. Hence we continually create the worst foot so the best can be put forward, and the inevitable 'other foot' is entirely necessary for this to be done.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 22-02-2020, 02:58 PM
ketzer ketzer is offline
Ascender
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 846
  ketzer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
I think it's a difference between what is ideally imaginable and what is realistic.

Quote:
real·is·tic
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.
representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.
"a realistic human drama"

The question here is what is possible. Realistic is a subjective quality that depends on not only how different an idea seems from what we understand as reality now, but what we believe to be possibly real. It is also a question of how much faith one puts in their own understanding of what is real. We all have our understanding of anything at any given time. The problem comes in when we assume that understanding is necessarily what is real, rather than just our current limited state of knowledge and interpretation.
Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because he wanted to be like God. Now he crawls about the earth believing he has that knowledge and like God, can use it to cast true and just judgement and sentence on others that do not see good and evil as he does. Adam does not fail because he is inherently evil, he is inherently good, but also inherently afraid of what he judges to be evil. Adam ends up doing evil in the name of good because he is limited in his knowledge of good and evil, and cannot adequately distinguish between his truths and God’s, he lacks humility. The question is, how much more can Adam learn, and how much humility is needed to do so, and how well he can face up to his fears without striking out at them. It is fitting that humility and humanity share a root, Adam must remember that he is human, not God, and his beliefs about truth are just that, beliefs.
Of course, that does not mean he must stop searching for truths, only that he must remember what his truths are and are not. Krishna’s advice to Arjuna was not to give up on life because all is ultimately pointless, but to live life as it presents itself yet always doing so with his mind focused on God. With God always on his mind, he can remember he is human, and lacks the vision of God to know what the ultimate fruits of his actions will be.

The word “us” can be used to differentiate one group from another, but “us” is also a word that can be used to make a plurality of individuals into a singular unit. It is only when Adam starts putting conditions of his own making, created with his own limited vision, on who and what is justly inside and outside of that “us”, that conflict arises. Perhaps that is the ultimate reality that Adam must learn. If Adam wishes to truly understand God, then he must learn to understand that separation is illusion, and that all is one, and all is God. That whatever he does to the least of his brothers, he does to God. Whether such a goal for Adam is realistic, is still a matter of subjective judgement, even if from where he is now failure may seem like an insurmountable objective reality. But of course if Adam judges such a reality to be impossible, then there is no point in heading in that direction in the first place, God is forever out of reach, and he dooms himself to whatever hell he creates for himself where he is now.
__________________
What? Who said that?
Not me! I don't exist!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums