Religious Help Desk

[Col.Foley]

Awesome Carter!! Thanks for taking the time to respond....and yeah I mean I think too in the whole semantics sense with the In the Beginning, God created.....vs. God, in the beginning...... really could be a matter of translation as well in how different languages can arrange Subject/verb tenses around. But maybe things were arranged in such a way for emphasis and really In the beginning, GOD has so much more emphasis on God in that arrangement then God, in the beginning.... to me anyway.

WoW and sometimes my Google skills amaze even me In Googling for more information I found this article... (Foley will like this...it's Jewish)

http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Up.../312_berry.pdf

I think there could very well be some merit to this. That maybe the original translation was In A beginning that would explain that the Adam/Eve creation was only but ONE of God's other creations. Maybe we only heard of the Adam/Eve story...but then after their fall.....God formed other humans in other places on the Earth and we just didn't hear about that story. Anyway....WOW that is interesting. And again..this is not discrediting that God is the creator at all just that we do not have a full historical account of how events played out...maybe only a snapshot...of what God wanted us to know.

I'm not even touching the Free Will thing again...but to say that it is not really mentioned in the Bible...not sure that is entirely true. The concept that man was intended to have a choice in things was set up in Genesis.....BUT it is contingent on OBEDIENCE. That is the qualifier that God added that he will give us Free will to choose but we must exercise our obedience to Him. And what commandments he put forth for us.
Here are the passages of the Bible that show this clear freedom of choice WITH God's contingencies:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...cus%2026:3-28;

Now because Adam and Eve exercised their free will and choose to eat of the tree of knowledge that was the first sin that came into the picture...thus set up this dichotomy of yeah you have a choice...but you MUST choose RIGHT. You must choose GOOD. Now then you are saying but how is that really having free will if we are expected to basically follow God's Will. Well it's like this:

You are the parent of a teenager and they beg you for the keys to the family car cuz they want to go out with their friends. You tell them ok....well I will let you go out with the car under these rules and conditions and you lay out the law to them on what those conditions are. 1. You cannot break any laws (no drinking/drugs and/or driving) 2. No sex/drugs wild behavior 3. Be home by midnight. Those are the rules. Now once the teen leaves the house they are free to go to where they want choose who they want to be with etc...they just have to "follow the rules" that doesn't mean they have no choice to operate within the confines of those rules they do. Is it restrictive...yeah..... Is it oppressive? well maybe to some people but remember God is sovereign (just was the parents of the teen are) and He knows was is in your best interest and it is His terms so that you can lead the most evil/sin free life possible.


And I guess I lied.... I did touch the Free will thing Sorry....ok I'll shut up now.

Shhhhh!

But actually that is a fascinating, truly fascinating perspective. On the universe and stuff because that leads to be more the suggestion of other planets and other species more then just Earth. That we are not the only creation in the world.

Which just goes to show you...well the Jewish Calender counts things from 'the creation of the world' Which puts it at about 6,000 years (I could be way off about that). But from science that is clearly wrong because the world and the universe is far far older. But if its a beginning means that it was just from the creation of Man/ our achievement of sentience or civilization or 'the knowledge of good and evil' and while there may have been other beginnings on this planet and other places.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

I see no substantial difference in practice between teaching detachment and teaching to reject attachment.


Love for all is love for nothing. Love has no meaning in the absence of preference of some things over others.

I don't really see the point of waiting until everything that exists in the universe has attained Nirvana. Those selfish cravings are there for a reason, you know. It goes to what I said earlier regarding the selfish inclination being essential to the continuation of life.

;...and about balancing out those two needs. Without securing the self and your own needs you would not be able to help others but focusing too much on self is something of destruction. Hell 'love' itself is something along those lines. It could be 'pure' and selfless where you love a person or something a cause and that causes you to do great things but then it can be selfish and possessive. There is a fine line.

[Col.Foley]

Oh and welcome to Page onehundred. I did not expect this thread to last much belong ten...so I guess that makes this thread the B5 of GW

[Galileo_Galilee]

Being right is serious business.

[lordofseas]

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

I see no substantial difference in practice between teaching detachment and teaching to reject attachment.


Love for all is love for nothing. Love has no meaning in the absence of preference of some things over others.

I don't really see the point of waiting until everything that exists in the universe has attained Nirvana. Those selfish cravings are there for a reason, you know. It goes to what I said earlier regarding the selfish inclination being essential to the continuation of life.

Except that that's not the whole picture. You're saying Buddhists teach detachment because, basically, they're isolationists. I'm saying that they reject attachment because everyone is part of a unity, and therefore cannot have attachments.

I disagree. It is better to love all than to hate all, and there is all the meaning in that. Or worse, to be apathetic to all.

And why exactly are those selfish cravings there? So we can reduce ourselves to animals with our primal instincts and become savages? Self-control.

[Col.Foley]

Except that that's not the whole picture. You're saying Buddhists teach detachment because, basically, they're isolationists. I'm saying that they reject attachment because everyone is part of a unity, and therefore cannot have attachments.

I disagree. It is better to love all than to hate all, and there is all the meaning in that. Or worse, to be apathetic to all.

And why exactly are those selfish cravings there? So we can reduce ourselves to animals with our primal instincts and become savages? Self-control.

I think the general point is if you love everything then you love nothing. Sure it is better to love then hate and I hope and strive to never hate, and strive to love as much as I can, but there are things in this world that I do not love.

And its about balance.

[lordofseas]

I think the general point is if you love everything then you love nothing. Sure it is better to love then hate and I hope and strive to never hate, and strive to love as much as I can, but there are things in this world that I do not love.

And its about balance.

That makes no sense. Loving everything = Loving nothing. That simply defies reason. Take, for example, God. Some Christians say that God is love, and God loves us all, blah blah blah. Then, applying your thought, God loves none of us.

Love, in a reasoned sense, is the feeling of compassion and kindness. Buddhism states that we should feel love in this way to all beings. Of course we will be more compassionate to those we meet than those we have not met, but that's only reasonable. But to simply say that loving everyone is loving no one is confusing, to say the least.

[Col.Foley]

That makes no sense. Loving everything = Loving nothing. That simply defies reason. Take, for example, God. Some Christians say that God is love, and God loves us all, blah blah blah. Then, applying your thought, God loves none of us.

Love, in a reasoned sense, is the feeling of compassion and kindness. Buddhism states that we should feel love in this way to all beings. Of course we will be more compassionate to those we meet than those we have not met, but that's only reasonable. But to simply say that loving everyone is loving no one is confusing, to say the least.

Ah so its the way that Anakin Skywalker views the Jedi kind of love.

And valid point about God, actually...to some extent anyways. I would say that is different but then again I am not sure exactly how that is different so I am not going there.

I just mean that Love is a special feeling and a special connection whether its romantic or you 'love' a friend. I mean yes we should all try to be charitable, all try to work for good, for peace, and for creation rather then destruction. But on the flip side of that we also all have needs. Now I get that...from what you told me...Buhddist only try and eliminate or reject one of those Earthly things. To try and reach nirvana...but we have a life.

[lordofseas]

Ah so its the way that Anakin Skywalker views the Jedi kind of love.

And valid point about God, actually...to some extent anyways. I would say that is different but then again I am not sure exactly how that is different so I am not going there.

I just mean that Love is a special feeling and a special connection whether its romantic or you 'love' a friend. I mean yes we should all try to be charitable, all try to work for good, for peace, and for creation rather then destruction. But on the flip side of that we also all have needs. Now I get that...from what you told me...Buhddist only try and eliminate or reject one of those Earthly things. To try and reach nirvana...but we have a life.

There are more kinds of love than physical love. *facepalm*

I'm not saying that Buddhist deny their so-called "needs". The Second Noble Truth teaches that the cause of suffering is craving or thirst (tanha). This doesn't mean cravings should be repressed or denied. Instead, in Buddhist practice we acknowledge our passions and learn to see they are empty, so they no longer control us. This is true for hate, greed and other emotions. Sexual desire is no different.

You may have heard of the "Middle Way" in Buddhism. There are two extremes: denying oneself all things, and over-indulgence. Siddhartha attempted to use extreme asceticism to achieve enlightenment, and failed. After nearly dying, he sought a path of moderation, discovering (or re-discovering) the Middle Way.

[Col.Foley]

There are more kinds of love than physical love. *facepalm*

I'm not saying that Buddhist deny their so-called "needs". The Second Noble Truth teaches that the cause of suffering is craving or thirst (tanha). This doesn't mean cravings should be repressed or denied. Instead, in Buddhist practice we acknowledge our passions and learn to see they are empty, so they no longer control us. This is true for hate, greed and other emotions. Sexual desire is no different.

You may have heard of the "Middle Way" in Buddhism. There are two extremes: denying oneself all things, and over-indulgence. Siddhartha attempted to use extreme asceticism to achieve enlightenment, and failed. After nearly dying, he sought a path of moderation, discovering (or re-discovering) the Middle Way.

no ****.

Fascinating, though I have a problem with the term empty .

Yes I am now (re) awainted with the subject. Again fascinating.

[lordofseas]

no ****.

Fascinating, though I have a problem with the term empty .

Yes I am now (re) awainted with the subject. Again fascinating.

Yes, empty. Sex makes you feel pleasured for a time, but it is not lasting. It leads to sadness. So does greed. One can have sex, and one can be rich, but you cannot let sex control your life, nor can you let your wealth control it either. You must recognize that these do not bring lasting pleasure. A hedonist cannot be a Buddhist, but neither can an ascetic.

[Col.Foley]

Yes, empty. Sex makes you feel pleasured for a time, but it is not lasting. It leads to sadness. So does greed. One can have sex, and one can be rich, but you cannot let sex control your life, nor can you let your wealth control it either. You must recognize that these do not bring lasting pleasure. A hedonist cannot be a Buddhist, but neither can an ascetic.

No one is saying to let them control your lives, all religions, even Judaism does preach about self control and having control and free will over you and your faculties...well ok all religions might be a bit much because I am sure there is some radical sect somewhere...but you get the point.

And I also have a hard time with this because everything in life is transitory. And I do not see how sex leads to sadness as a matter of course I suppose it can. But that is the point. Nothing is absolute, everything is transitory, there are moments of great happiness and sadness, love and terror. And just because something leads to sadness does not mean it should not be done, and what does that say about sadness? Again do Buddhists cut off and deny and detach from all emotions and everything from this world?

[lordofseas]

No one is saying to let them control your lives, all religions, even Judaism does preach about self control and having control and free will over you and your faculties...well ok all religions might be a bit much because I am sure there is some radical sect somewhere...but you get the point.

And I also have a hard time with this because everything in life is transitory. And I do not see how sex leads to sadness as a matter of course I suppose it can. But that is the point. Nothing is absolute, everything is transitory, there are moments of great happiness and sadness, love and terror. And just because something leads to sadness does not mean it should not be done, and what does that say about sadness? Again do Buddhists cut off and deny and detach from all emotions and everything from this world?

Like I said, we don't deny ourselves from the pleasures of sex, but we realize that it is, as you say, transitory. The only ones that I can think of that truly "detach" themselves are the monks.

[Col.Foley]

Like I said, we don't deny ourselves from the pleasures of sex, but we realize that it is, as you say, transitory. The only ones that I can think of that truly "detach" themselves are the monks.

We?

[Womble]

Except that that's not the whole picture. You're saying Buddhists teach detachment because, basically, they're isolationists. I'm saying that they reject attachment because everyone is part of a unity, and therefore cannot have attachments.

It's still a fluffier rephrasing of the same thing. Active pursuit of non-attachment is pursuit of detachment, and the way one rationalizes it doesn't change it.

I disagree. It is better to love all than to hate all, and there is all the meaning in that. Or worse, to be apathetic to all.

The three are one and the same.

I know it's a difficult concept for many people to grasp, but try this little exercise. Say out loud "I love every woman as much as I love my mother". This is the way ideologies of universal love are usually structured because it creates the illusion of elevated feeling- you take a familiar emotion you feel towards the people closest to you, and extend it. But try saying it from the other end: "I love my mother as much as any other woman"- and it will feel, on the intuitive level, like a hurtful sarcastic quip, a statement of diminished feeling.

There's a linguistic trap here that works as follows. Love is something we are intimately familiar with, and that makes appeals to love emotionally powerful. But love as we know it is an emotion of exception. An emotion of attachment. We don't love someone because they're ordinary; we love them because they are special, extraordinary, exceptional to us in some way. We love our mother not because she is just another woman but because she is that special one among women. We fall in love with a girl not because she is just another girl but because there's something about her that we don't find in others. So when you appeal to love, you may aim for universality, but the very language you use is the language of exception. And so you get fooled by your verbal own sleight of hand.

There's a lot of it going around, to be sure. Just for example, it is common for people to assert that "everyone is a child of God". It's a universalist appeal on its face, but its core notion that is doing the persuasive work- "children of someone"- appeals to an emotional relationship founded on exception, on singling out someone special.

And why exactly are those selfish cravings there? So we can reduce ourselves to animals with our primal instincts and become savages? Self-control.

That is a false dilemma. If you have selfish cravings, it doesn't reduce your choice to slavishly following them or stuffing yourself into a shell of your own making in order to hide from them.

There's a third way- harnessing your nature as a force for good rather than fighting it as a source of evil, making beneficial use of these selfish cravings. One of the many questions the Talmud deals with is what one must do with clearly negative facets of human nature such as inclination towards violence. The answer is that a man inclined towards violence must find a way to use that violence for good by taking up a profession such as a butcher- this way, he sublimates his urge to shed blood while also providing valuable public service.

[Galileo_Galilee]

And I do not see how sex leads to sadness as a matter of course I suppose it can

I mean this in all seriousness.

There are people in their 40s, 50s, or older, who have never experienced sex nor any kind of romantic involvement with a person they can be intimate with.

When you're that old, and nobody wants to kiss you, or find that only your money is interesting, well, that can mess with your mind and make you feel absolutely worthless.

Despite what the popular belief is, there isn't somebody for everyone.

And that's how these things can make you sad.

[lordofseas]

It's still a fluffier rephrasing of the same thing. Active pursuit of non-attachment is pursuit of detachment, and the way one rationalizes it doesn't change it.

The three are one and the same.

I know it's a difficult concept for many people to grasp, but try this little exercise. Say out loud "I love every woman as much as I love my mother". This is the way ideologies of universal love are usually structured because it creates the illusion of elevated feeling- you take a familiar emotion you feel towards the people closest to you, and extend it. But try saying it from the other end: "I love my mother as much as any other woman"- and it will feel, on the intuitive level, like a hurtful sarcastic quip, a statement of diminished feeling.

There's a linguistic trap here that works as follows. Love is something we are intimately familiar with, and that makes appeals to love emotionally powerful. But love as we know it is an emotion of exception. An emotion of attachment. We don't love someone because they're ordinary; we love them because they are special, extraordinary, exceptional to us in some way. We love our mother not because she is just another woman but because she is that special one among women. We fall in love with a girl not because she is just another girl but because there's something about her that we don't find in others. So when you appeal to love, you may aim for universality, but the very language you use is the language of exception. And so you get fooled by your verbal own sleight of hand.

There's a lot of it going around, to be sure. Just for example, it is common for people to assert that "everyone is a child of God". It's a universalist appeal on its face, but its core notion that is doing the persuasive work- "children of someone"- appeals to an emotional relationship founded on exception, on singling out someone special.

Buddhism describes "love" as "wanting others to be happy". It is unconditional and requires much from the person giving love. You are arguing from a different perspective of love. So, your exercise would read "I want everyone woman to be happy as I want my mother to be happy" and "I want my mother to be happy as much as I want any other woman to be happy" is not a fallacious statement at all. We want to show compassion along with this, which is wanting to free people from suffering. The way we believe to do this is to detach ourselves, and show absolutely no self-interest when helping others. That is detachment.

That is a false dilemma. If you have selfish cravings, it doesn't reduce your choice to slavishly following them or stuffing yourself into a shell of your own making in order to hide from them.

There's a third way- harnessing your nature as a force for good rather than fighting it as a source of evil, making beneficial use of these selfish cravings. One of the many questions the Talmud deals with is what one must do with clearly negative facets of human nature such as inclination towards violence. The answer is that a man inclined towards violence must find a way to use that violence for good by taking up a profession such as a butcher- this way, he sublimates his urge to shed blood while also providing valuable public service.

Which is the whole concept of "controlling oneself".

[Womble]

Buddhism describes "love" as "wanting others to be happy". It is unconditional and requires much from the person giving love. You are arguing from a different perspective of love. So, your exercise would read "I want everyone woman to be happy as I want my mother to be happy" and "I want my mother to be happy as much as I want any other woman to be happy" is not a fallacious statement at all.

Of course it is. Say it out loud. Taste the way it rolls off your tongue. There's still a diminished feeling, you're just obfuscating it by limiting "love" to merely wanting others to be happy.

And isn't love much, much more than merely wanting others to be happy? If you love your mother, isn't it because of the bond you have, because of your desire to always have her in her life- because of your mutual attachment? If you are in love with a girl, is it as limited as wanting her to be happy- or do you also desire a relationship of mutual attachment with her?

Love means nothing to us humans if it doesn't mean loving some people more than others. Trying to love the whole world is like trying to govern the whole world- your capacity for love gets spread too thin.

We want to show compassion along with this, which is wanting to free people from suffering. The way we believe to do this is to detach ourselves, and show absolutely no self-interest when helping others. That is detachment.

Excuse me, but who does detachment actually help? And is helping others even part of the Buddhist detachment concept? As far as I could see while I was reading up, detachment was about self-purification, self-mastery, heightened perception, wisdom- in other words, self-oriented benefits.

Which is the whole concept of "controlling oneself".

But that isn't the kind of controlling oneself that the Buddhists mean, is it? Putting selfish desires to work instead of shunning them entirely?

[lordofseas]

Of course it is. Say it out loud. Taste the way it rolls off your tongue. There's still a diminished feeling, you're just obfuscating it by limiting "love" to merely wanting others to be happy.

That's subjective. Just by saying a single word, different images appear in our heads. Emotions are subjective.

And isn't love much, much more than merely wanting others to be happy? If you love your mother, isn't it because of the bond you have, because of your desire to always have her in her life- because of your mutual attachment? If you are in love with a girl, is it as limited as wanting her to be happy- or do you also desire a relationship of mutual attachment with her?

I love my mother because I am her son. Her blood is very much a part of me, as is part of her personality. I make my mother happy by doing well in life.

To quote the Dalai Lama: "...it is about developing a mutual admiration of someone, a deep respect and trust and awareness of another human's needs,"

Love means nothing to us humans if it doesn't mean loving some people more than others. Trying to love the whole world is like trying to govern the whole world- your capacity for love gets spread too thin.

You love those who you meet. You show compassion to those you can. No one could ask any more than that.

Excuse me, but who does detachment actually help? And is helping others even part of the Buddhist detachment concept? As far as I could see while I was reading up, detachment was about self-purification, self-mastery, heightened perception, wisdom- in other words, self-oriented benefits.

But that isn't the kind of controlling oneself that the Buddhists mean, is it? Putting selfish desires to work instead of shunning them entirely?

It helps both at the same time. By detaching ourselves, we are able to reason clearly and without bias (with the concepts you mentioned), as well as not take advantage of those who we are helping.

We exercise our desires in a way that is acceptable according to the five precepts.

[SoulReaver]

I think the point is that, at least this is the impression I got from Buddhist (and I did go through hey I want to a be a Buddhist phase), is that they want to better themselves at the expense of this world.

you sure you're not talking about the Exxon folks?

[Col.Foley]

It's still a fluffier rephrasing of the same thing. Active pursuit of non-attachment is pursuit of detachment, and the way one rationalizes it doesn't change it.


The three are one and the same.

I know it's a difficult concept for many people to grasp, but try this little exercise. Say out loud "I love every woman as much as I love my mother". This is the way ideologies of universal love are usually structured because it creates the illusion of elevated feeling- you take a familiar emotion you feel towards the people closest to you, and extend it. But try saying it from the other end: "I love my mother as much as any other woman"- and it will feel, on the intuitive level, like a hurtful sarcastic quip, a statement of diminished feeling.

There's a linguistic trap here that works as follows. Love is something we are intimately familiar with, and that makes appeals to love emotionally powerful. But love as we know it is an emotion of exception. An emotion of attachment. We don't love someone because they're ordinary; we love them because they are special, extraordinary, exceptional to us in some way. We love our mother not because she is just another woman but because she is that special one among women. We fall in love with a girl not because she is just another girl but because there's something about her that we don't find in others. So when you appeal to love, you may aim for universality, but the very language you use is the language of exception. And so you get fooled by your verbal own sleight of hand.

There's a lot of it going around, to be sure. Just for example, it is common for people to assert that "everyone is a child of God". It's a universalist appeal on its face, but its core notion that is doing the persuasive work- "children of someone"- appeals to an emotional relationship founded on exception, on singling out someone special.


That is a false dilemma. If you have selfish cravings, it doesn't reduce your choice to slavishly following them or stuffing yourself into a shell of your own making in order to hide from them.

There's a third way- harnessing your nature as a force for good rather than fighting it as a source of evil, making beneficial use of these selfish cravings. One of the many questions the Talmud deals with is what one must do with clearly negative facets of human nature such as inclination towards violence. answer is that a man inclined towards violence must find a way to use that violence for good by taking up a profession such as a butcher- this way, he sublimates his urge to shed blood while also providing valuable public service.

Fascinating.

Thats what video games are for.

I mean this in all seriousness.

There are people in their 40s, 50s, or older, who have never experienced sex nor any kind of romantic involvement with a person they can be intimate with.

When you're that old, and nobody wants to kiss you, or find that only your money is interesting, well, that can mess with your mind and make you feel absolutely worthless.

Despite what the popular belief is, there isn't somebody for everyone.

And that's how these things can make you sad.

Thank you for depressing the hell out of me. (On a side note I wonder if this is a religious belief) And I was not aware we were talking about that aspect of the debate, sure lack of Sex, especially if you really really want it...with a girl....can depress oneself enormously (been there, done that), but we were talking about the act of having sex...I thought.

Which actually talking about the concepts of 'Soul Mates' in both religious and personal connotations would be a great topic for the RHD.

Buddhism describes "love" as "wanting others to be happy". It is unconditional and requires much from the person giving love. You are arguing from a different perspective of love. So, your exercise would read "I want everyone woman to be happy as I want my mother to be happy" and "I want my mother to be happy as much as I want any other woman to be happy" is not a fallacious statement at all. We want to show compassion along with this, which is wanting to free people from suffering. The way we believe to do this is to detach ourselves, and show absolutely no self-interest when helping others. That is detachment.



Which is the whole concept of "controlling oneself".

There's that we again....
I think this is impossible. Even if you go into someone for a car wreck try and save someone's life or help you probably cannot help but feel good, help but feel attached to the person maybe. Because you did the right thing, the good thing, to help that other person. Its only human nature.

Which one path seems to think that, even though we are all one and we should help eachother (ala Anakin), seems to preach that human nature is evil and we need to detach from those things even if they feel good or are the right thing to do. Detach oneself from biases.

While the other recognizes that human emotions are there and can even be good if used and channelled properly, not denying, not trying to detach, but even harnessing the negative aspects of our nature to bring greater healing to the world.

Of course it is. Say it out loud. Taste the way it rolls off your tongue. There's still a diminished feeling, you're just obfuscating it by limiting "love" to merely wanting others to be happy.

And isn't love much, much more than merely wanting others to be happy? If you love your mother, isn't it because of the bond you have, because of your desire to always have her in her life- because of your mutual attachment? If you are in love with a girl, is it as limited as wanting her to be happy- or do you also desire a relationship of mutual attachment with her?

Love means nothing to us humans if it doesn't mean loving some people more than others. Trying to love the whole world is like trying to govern the whole world- your capacity for love gets spread too thin.


Excuse me, but who does detachment actually help? And is helping others even part of the Buddhist detachment concept? As far as I could see while I was reading up, detachment was about self-purification, self-mastery, heightened perception, wisdom- in other words, self-oriented benefits.


But that isn't the kind of controlling oneself that the Buddhists mean, is it? Putting selfish desires to work instead of shunning them entirely?

And this too I can attest to. When you love someone or have a special emotional bond with them...or just on them. ... you do want to do a lot more then just make them happy. You want to protect them, be with them, try and chat with them. Yeah happiness is a part of it but its a lot more then that because you do not want to make even any of your friends feel un happy. Hell if you were a good person I do not think you would want to cause anyone pain or suffering. But love is not just about not hurting people or making them happy. Its...going out of your way to make them happy. And to protect them provide for them worry about their personal safety and all the evil evil things that could happen to them if they do not wake up to the fact that we are really really screwed and their are people out there who want to kill them.

Ok...I'm done