The True Root of All Evil...

[thebrucebeat]

Do you know about the four loves?
Your kind of changing lanes on me.
Loving someone without consideration of heart and mind sounds a bit more like sexual attraction to me.

No I don't think so. I'm saying love people unconditionally regardless if they're fat/skinny, kind/mean, smart/not smart, etc. Why would love require "conditions"?

When you start loving people based on "conditions" - like they're kind or attractive - you're starting to dive into the realm of selfish love.

You keep bringing up attractiveness and I never did.
You are talking about agape love, and you are absolutely right.

 

[KevinWestern]

Do you know about the four loves?
Your kind of changing lanes on me.
Loving someone without consideration of heart and mind sounds a bit more like sexual attraction to me.

No I don't think so. I'm saying love people unconditionally regardless if they're fat/skinny, kind/mean, smart/not smart, etc. Why would love require "conditions"?

When you start loving people based on "conditions" - like they're kind or attractive - you're starting to dive into the realm of selfish love.

You keep bringing up attractiveness and I never did.
You are talking about agape love, and you are absolutely right.

Gotcha. So then we're in agreement?

 

[thebrucebeat]

No I don't think so. I'm saying love people unconditionally regardless if they're fat/skinny, kind/mean, smart/not smart, etc. Why would love require "conditions"?

When you start loving people based on "conditions" - like they're kind or attractive - you're starting to dive into the realm of selfish love.

You keep bringing up attractiveness and I never did.
You are talking about agape love, and you are absolutely right.

Gotcha. So then we're in agreement?

Regarding agape love, absolutely.

 

[KevinWestern]

You keep bringing up attractiveness and I never did.
You are talking about agape love, and you are absolutely right.

Gotcha. So then we're in agreement?

Regarding agape love, absolutely.

I think that concept is at the heart of the thread. Selflessness is (basically) agape love for everything and everyone, I think. And selfishness is the opposite of agape love.

 

[Clement]

Gotcha. So then we're in agreement?

Regarding agape love, absolutely.

I think that concept is at the heart of the thread. Selflessness is (basically) agape love for everything and everyone, I think. And selfishness is the opposite of agape love.

Just for my own point of reference, define "love". And don't give me a set of actions that demonstrate "love". Just tell me what it is.

 

[KevinWestern]

Regarding agape love, absolutely.

I think that concept is at the heart of the thread. Selflessness is (basically) agape love for everything and everyone, I think. And selfishness is the opposite of agape love.

Just for my own point of reference, define "love". And don't give me a set of actions that demonstrate "love". Just tell me what it is.

Not easy to do with that criteria. The bible actually has a great description of what love is:

PHILIPPIANS 2:3-4
"Selfishness, not hate, is the opposite of divine love"

So, if "selfishness" is the opposite of divine love, one can logically assume that divine love = selflessness, or seeing or experiencing absolutely no difference between you and the whole. Because if you perceive a "difference" in even the tiniest way, that is a step towards the "self" and ultimately selfishness.

What is really neat is that the Buddha said something along the lines of one will only experience what love is, and be truly happy when they shed their "ego" and become one with everything.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think that concept is at the heart of the thread. Selflessness is (basically) agape love for everything and everyone, I think. And selfishness is the opposite of agape love.

Just for my own point of reference, define "love". And don't give me a set of actions that demonstrate "love". Just tell me what it is.

Not easy to do with that criteria. The bible actually has a great description of what love is:

PHILIPPIANS 2:3-4
"Selfishness, not hate, is the opposite of divine love"

So, if "selfishness" is the opposite of divine love, one can logically assume that divine love = selflessness, or seeing or experiencing absolutely no difference between you and the whole. Because if you perceive a "difference" in even the tiniest way, that is a step towards the "self" and ultimately selfishness.

What is really neat is that the Buddha said something along the lines of one will only experience what love is, and be truly happy when they shed their "ego" and become one with everything.

If one were to believe in such things, one could easily argue that a servant of Satan would try to paint servants of god as evil and selfish.

 

[KevinWestern]

If one were to believe in such things, one could easily argue that a servant of Satan would try to paint servants of god as evil and selfish.

Where you going with this?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Actually, without the spiritual estimation and by my estimation, ALL ACTS ARE SELFISH.

Even if you’re not spiritual, are you saying one cannot consider themselves as just a “part” of the whole? Same as the whole (like one big body that only functions best if we all work together)? Why does that concept need to be spiritual? I don't understand.

If I value people being cured by a wonder drug and so I create a wonder drug, it was still a selfish act, yet the good I did was on purpose, not a side-effect.

If the sole reason you created the drug was not for the admiration, not for “feeling good about yourself”, but rather just to benefit the whole and mankind – that is an act for THE WHOLE (is it not?). Isn't that the very definition of “selflessness”? You’re doing something not for you – the individual – but rather the whole of mankind. Right??

Also, if you remove the spirituality and especially the dogma from the equation, whether good and evil happen by design or by accident is purely incidental and thus completely meaningless.

I disagree.

If there is truly no difference between selfishness and selflessness (with regards to the “good”/”bad” outcomes), then it would make no difference to have a world full of selfish people or a world full of selfless people.

Is that actually the case? Or would you alternately choose one over the other? Why would you choose one over the other?

The concept that one is part of a conscious whole doesn't have to be spiritual, but it is undeniably dogmatic and undeniably UNPROVEABLE.

The fact of the matter is that, according to what we can observe and prove, every human is possessed of a singular, individual consciousness with direct access -only- to the input of their own senses. This has nothing to do with what one "considers" himself to be. I can consider myself to be a fish, that doesn't mean I can breathe water.

Basically, a person's opinions on their nature doesn't dictate their nature.

Next, if I created a wonder drug for "the whole", it's because what -I- valued was "the whole", and I was ultimately acting to promote and facilitate my values. Still selfish, and no, not the definition of selflessness. Selflessness requires the absence of consideration for the self, but when you acknowledge that every action fulfills your own values, there is -ALWAYS- at least the subconscious consideration for the self. For an individual consciousness such as our's, at least in absence of your unproven spiritual beliefs, a complete lack of consideration for the self is quite literally impossible. The self -is- the one whose values are being satisfied. Always.

Your last point doesn't address the point that I made. You're still stuck on which concept leads to more good being done. On that point we already agreed.

If your spiritual theory is correct, then selfless is not only possible but correct, and if reconnecting with the singular consciousness is possible then it would -undeniably- lead to a better outcome than any alternative.

If we discard the unproven, however, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SELFLESS.

My point has nothing to do with which hypothetical would lead to more "good" being done. My point is that when the result of something is "good", the motive of the do'er can't make it anything but "good", and vice versa. Therefore, the motives are meaningless. If humans are incapable of selflessness, you have no basis by which to say that selflessness leads humans to making correct choices more often than selfishness. Selfishness accounts for -all- decisions, good and bad, and selflessness accounts for none, as it isn't possible.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

IOW your definition of selfishness makes the word meaningless. Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass. But, at least that explains your disregard and acrimony for selfless acts.

Wow, even after I distinguish my views from a concept of soullessness several times, you continue to assume that my philosophy negates a soul's existence. IT's like you're just firing off responses you had chambered before you even read what I posted.

I also don't have acrimony for selfless acts, I simply don't believe that there is such a thing for a creature possessed of its own individual consciousness. Honestly, I'm of the mind that anyone who's standards and values demand that they act generously toward others, or even demand that they do right by those they care about, is a pretty amazing person. I'm guess that it's your dogmatic, negative view of selfishness that's giving you the impression that, by accepting selfishness as inevitable, I must have similar negativity toward the opposing concept. I do not.

Where I agree with you is that my definition -does- make the word meaningless. It is simply an inevitability. That's my whole point: selfishness is a meaningless and thus errant place to draw the dividing line between good and evil. I'm glad you finally caught that.

I'm also a little sorry for you. "Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass." Do you even understand what this statement implies?

You've essentially said here that the two possibilities are that humans have souls or that they are worthless. Without a supernatural essence disconnected from observable physical reality, humans are pointless biological lumps.

Personally, I can look at the world, look at humanity, and look at the things we've achieved as a species, and find it all pretty fuckin impressive. I am quite awestruck by the existence that I can readily observe, even if there's nothing more to it than what I experience with my available senses.

The fact that you require a magical essence to validate humanity speaks of a very bleak outlook on life and sentience. I'm sorry that you don't find what you see special enough to impress you.

If all I am is a lump of matter that is capable of reacting to stimulus, then how am I different than a light bulb that shines light when electricity runs through it. Complexity?

You say "you observe," but what does that mean? Who are you? Why do you consider yourself as an individual? What makes you different? What makes any of us different? Some genetic randomizer that makes us react to the same stimuli in different ways? For example, random dead and/or newly grown neurons and synapses? No soul to guide sentience? No soul to decide whether everything is based on selfishness or not?

How impressed are you at our existence? Enough to believe it can't be "random?" If not random then why, where from... simply not knowing is not a good enough argument to dispute viable proposals.

You're still locking yourself into a straw-man argument, here. Your assumption is that the only two possibilities are that you have a magical essence unconnected to the physical reality we can observe, or that you're just a lump of matter that reacts to stimuli. Is your sentience really that meaningless to you?

Do you honestly believe that, without a magical essence, a sentient creature is the same as a light bulb? Do I have to spell out that you can reason while a light bulb cannot for you to acknowledge that there are, in fact, profound differences, even if you don't believe in magic?

Yes, I say "I observe". "I" and the consciousness into which all of "my" senses are feeding information. What makes me different is that my consciousness is separate (as far as I can tell) from every other consciousness, and possessed of its own thoughts, experiences, and feelings, all also separate from every other consciousness.

So what if our sentience -is- only the result of biology? Does that make it boring, to you? Does that pull the rockets back out of the sky and reverse all of man's achievements? Is only the existence of a magical essence that guides our sentience enough to validate it in your eyes?

Lastly, this last question that you've asked is as loaded as an Irishman on St. Patty's. I'm impressed enough by our sentience that, even if it's NOT the result of magic, even if it IS completely random, I still think it's holy shit amazing. Why don't you? What have you experienced that's so much more amazing than the ability to reason that you're desensitized to the reality you can observe?

Not knowing isn't reason to discount, but it is reason to reserve belief.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yet the whole benefits, when one learns to love and better oneself. Yes?

That's an interesting concept that I've heard. Consider this, however:

1.) A great many people who learn to completely love themselves first never go on to love other people, right?

2.) However, all people who learn to completely love others (and the entire whole) ALWAYS go on to love themselves (given that they're part of the whole). It's the sure-fire way.

So why would you follow path #1 when you can simply follow path #2 and hit a home run every single time?

So if we all believe in a singular consciousness and learn to love that singular consciousness completely, we can't help but love everyone -and- ourselves!

So essentially what you're saying is that we should all adopt your dogmatic theory because, if every single person on the planet is on that page, it'll lead to nothing but home runs?

Lol! No offense, but that's the same line of reasoning from literally every single religion that anyone ever has tried to sell to anyone ever. Furthermore, I would argue that there are plenty of other religions that, if we were able to adopt them globally and without exception, really -would- lead to that same unity of purpose and, thus, the same "nothing but home runs" scenario that you say could be achieved with universal adherence to your theory.

So why would we arbitrarily choose -your- spirituality and not some other one?

 

[KevinWestern]

Yet the whole benefits, when one learns to love and better oneself. Yes?

That's an interesting concept that I've heard. Consider this, however:

1.) A great many people who learn to completely love themselves first never go on to love other people, right?

2.) However, all people who learn to completely love others (and the entire whole) ALWAYS go on to love themselves (given that they're part of the whole). It's the sure-fire way.

So why would you follow path #1 when you can simply follow path #2 and hit a home run every single time?

So if we all believe in a singular consciousness and learn to love that singular consciousness completely, we can't help but love everyone -and- ourselves!

So essentially what you're saying is that we should all adopt your dogmatic theory because, if every single person on the planet is on that page, it'll lead to nothing but home runs?

Lol! No offense, but that's the same line of reasoning from literally every single religion that anyone ever has tried to sell to anyone ever. Furthermore, I would argue that there are plenty of other religions that, if we were able to adopt them globally and without exception, really -would- lead to that same unity of purpose and, thus, the same "nothing but home runs" scenario that you say could be achieved with universal adherence to your theory.

So why would we arbitrarily choose -your- spirituality and not some other one?

Well, I think my point was more logical than anything. If you love everything in existence - all people, animals, etc - obviously you're going to love yourself too because you're included in that "whole". That's all.

 

[KevinWestern]

Next, if I created a wonder drug for "the whole", it's because what -I- valued was "the whole", and I was ultimately acting to promote and facilitate my values. Still selfish, and no, not the definition of selflessness. Selflessness requires the absence of consideration for the self, but when you acknowledge that every action fulfills your own values, there is -ALWAYS- at least the subconscious consideration for the self. For an individual consciousness such as our's, at least in absence of your unproven spiritual beliefs, a complete lack of consideration for the self is quite literally impossible. The self -is- the one whose values are being satisfied. Always.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree here. It goes into spiritual belief at this point. I believe you can transcend and clearly see yourself as "part of the whole" and literally shed the ego. But as you mention, this is unprovable (at the moment) so I suppose we move on..

If we discard the unproven, however, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SELFLESS.

Technically, yes (in a way) - if you discard all spiritual theory.

My point has nothing to do with which hypothetical would lead to more "good" being done. My point is that when the result of something is "good", the motive of the do'er can't make it anything but "good", and vice versa. Therefore, the motives are meaningless. If humans are incapable of selflessness, you have no basis by which to say that selflessness leads humans to making correct choices more often than selfishness. Selfishness accounts for -all- decisions, good and bad, and selflessness accounts for none, as it isn't possible.

However, I'd like to know your opinion here. Say we have a world where everyone behaved (to the best of their ability) in completely selfishly, thinking about their own personal feelings/needs - only - and a world where people made a conscious effort to consider only the feelings/needs of others. Do you think that both worlds would end up looking the same, or would experience the same downfalls/triumphs?

If you don't think they'll look the same - what's different?

 

[MaxGrit]

So, although I'm not a Christian - specifically, in the Religious sense - I'm a rather spiritual guy and in the ideas/circles I run with Jesus is often regarded as one of the rare "highly enlightened" beings that have walked on the face of the planet.

Wrong.

What was his only commandment? It was "to love one another" (ie the "New Commandment")

Wrong.

Kinda interesting, isn't it?

No.

Why don't you explain/elaborate? Simply saying "wrong" does us no good.

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." Matthew 7:7 (ESV)

1) What is the definition of begotten? What are these passages telling us about Jesus?

Hebrews 1:5 (ESV)

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?

Or again,
“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”

Hebrews 5:5

So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,
“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”

2) What is Soli Deo gloria? Why do I have it as my signature?

Mark 12

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wow, even after I distinguish my views from a concept of soullessness several times, you continue to assume that my philosophy negates a soul's existence. IT's like you're just firing off responses you had chambered before you even read what I posted.

I also don't have acrimony for selfless acts, I simply don't believe that there is such a thing for a creature possessed of its own individual consciousness. Honestly, I'm of the mind that anyone who's standards and values demand that they act generously toward others, or even demand that they do right by those they care about, is a pretty amazing person. I'm guess that it's your dogmatic, negative view of selfishness that's giving you the impression that, by accepting selfishness as inevitable, I must have similar negativity toward the opposing concept. I do not.

Where I agree with you is that my definition -does- make the word meaningless. It is simply an inevitability. That's my whole point: selfishness is a meaningless and thus errant place to draw the dividing line between good and evil. I'm glad you finally caught that.

I'm also a little sorry for you. "Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass." Do you even understand what this statement implies?

You've essentially said here that the two possibilities are that humans have souls or that they are worthless. Without a supernatural essence disconnected from observable physical reality, humans are pointless biological lumps.

Personally, I can look at the world, look at humanity, and look at the things we've achieved as a species, and find it all pretty fuckin impressive. I am quite awestruck by the existence that I can readily observe, even if there's nothing more to it than what I experience with my available senses.

The fact that you require a magical essence to validate humanity speaks of a very bleak outlook on life and sentience. I'm sorry that you don't find what you see special enough to impress you.

If all I am is a lump of matter that is capable of reacting to stimulus, then how am I different than a light bulb that shines light when electricity runs through it. Complexity?

You say "you observe," but what does that mean? Who are you? Why do you consider yourself as an individual? What makes you different? What makes any of us different? Some genetic randomizer that makes us react to the same stimuli in different ways? For example, random dead and/or newly grown neurons and synapses? No soul to guide sentience? No soul to decide whether everything is based on selfishness or not?

How impressed are you at our existence? Enough to believe it can't be "random?" If not random then why, where from... simply not knowing is not a good enough argument to dispute viable proposals.

You're still locking yourself into a straw-man argument, here. Your assumption is that the only two possibilities are that you have a magical essence unconnected to the physical reality we can observe, or that you're just a lump of matter that reacts to stimuli. Is your sentience really that meaningless to you?

Do you honestly believe that, without a magical essence, a sentient creature is the same as a light bulb? Do I have to spell out that you can reason while a light bulb cannot for you to acknowledge that there are, in fact, profound differences, even if you don't believe in magic?

Yes, I say "I observe". "I" and the consciousness into which all of "my" senses are feeding information. What makes me different is that my consciousness is separate (as far as I can tell) from every other consciousness, and possessed of its own thoughts, experiences, and feelings, all also separate from every other consciousness.

So what if our sentience -is- only the result of biology? Does that make it boring, to you? Does that pull the rockets back out of the sky and reverse all of man's achievements? Is only the existence of a magical essence that guides our sentience enough to validate it in your eyes?

Lastly, this last question that you've asked is as loaded as an Irishman on St. Patty's. I'm impressed enough by our sentience that, even if it's NOT the result of magic, even if it IS completely random, I still think it's holy shit amazing. Why don't you? What have you experienced that's so much more amazing than the ability to reason that you're desensitized to the reality you can observe?

Not knowing isn't reason to discount, but it is reason to reserve belief.

Reserving belief is additional proof of my point. It's only a straw-man if I'm wrong in the two choices, leaving the issue open is not an option it's merely an admission of yours that I'm right in that there are only two choices. If you want to prove it's a straw-man provide a third tangible option.

Complex processing can look magical... but when you break it down it's just a series of switches. Thus back up my question are we just a series of switches, just a biologic machine, albeit an amazing one, or do we achieve sentience through having a soul.

Put another way, if there is no soul, why can't I replace the human mind with a large "amazing" collection of switches? If I can, well then we are not special we are a thing that can be manufactured.

 

[Clement]

I think that concept is at the heart of the thread. Selflessness is (basically) agape love for everything and everyone, I think. And selfishness is the opposite of agape love.

Just for my own point of reference, define "love". And don't give me a set of actions that demonstrate "love". Just tell me what it is.

Not easy to do with that criteria. The bible actually has a great description of what love is:

PHILIPPIANS 2:3-4
"Selfishness, not hate, is the opposite of divine love"

So, if "selfishness" is the opposite of divine love, one can logically assume that divine love = selflessness, or seeing or experiencing absolutely no difference between you and the whole. Because if you perceive a "difference" in even the tiniest way, that is a step towards the "self" and ultimately selfishness.

What is really neat is that the Buddha said something along the lines of one will only experience what love is, and be truly happy when they shed their "ego" and become one with everything.

Here are the first five verses of Phillipians:

Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

Paul is clearly addressing the believers at Phillipi. This is not a "general" epistle, it is for a specific audience, for a specific reason. Paul did NOT say that ""Selfishness, not hate, is the opposite of divine love".

In Christianity, Jesus' summary of the Law starts with "Love the Lord thy God" because without that, it is impossible to "love" anybody else, maybe not even yourself.

Paul also tells you what "love" looks like in Romans 13:

OWE no man any thing, but to love one an other: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And in Romans 12:

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Did you catch that? "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good" and ""share with the Lord's people".

I don't see anything in there about 12 foot spoons. Paul is being very specific and practical. There is nothing nebulous about it. If you want to "love" your neighbor you start by not screwing him, which is what many who talk about "love" want. They want what you have.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If all I am is a lump of matter that is capable of reacting to stimulus, then how am I different than a light bulb that shines light when electricity runs through it. Complexity?

You say "you observe," but what does that mean? Who are you? Why do you consider yourself as an individual? What makes you different? What makes any of us different? Some genetic randomizer that makes us react to the same stimuli in different ways? For example, random dead and/or newly grown neurons and synapses? No soul to guide sentience? No soul to decide whether everything is based on selfishness or not?

How impressed are you at our existence? Enough to believe it can't be "random?" If not random then why, where from... simply not knowing is not a good enough argument to dispute viable proposals.

You're still locking yourself into a straw-man argument, here. Your assumption is that the only two possibilities are that you have a magical essence unconnected to the physical reality we can observe, or that you're just a lump of matter that reacts to stimuli. Is your sentience really that meaningless to you?

Do you honestly believe that, without a magical essence, a sentient creature is the same as a light bulb? Do I have to spell out that you can reason while a light bulb cannot for you to acknowledge that there are, in fact, profound differences, even if you don't believe in magic?

Yes, I say "I observe". "I" and the consciousness into which all of "my" senses are feeding information. What makes me different is that my consciousness is separate (as far as I can tell) from every other consciousness, and possessed of its own thoughts, experiences, and feelings, all also separate from every other consciousness.

So what if our sentience -is- only the result of biology? Does that make it boring, to you? Does that pull the rockets back out of the sky and reverse all of man's achievements? Is only the existence of a magical essence that guides our sentience enough to validate it in your eyes?

Lastly, this last question that you've asked is as loaded as an Irishman on St. Patty's. I'm impressed enough by our sentience that, even if it's NOT the result of magic, even if it IS completely random, I still think it's holy shit amazing. Why don't you? What have you experienced that's so much more amazing than the ability to reason that you're desensitized to the reality you can observe?

Not knowing isn't reason to discount, but it is reason to reserve belief.

Reserving belief is additional proof of my point. It's only a straw-man if I'm wrong in the two choices, leaving the issue open is not an option it's merely an admission of yours that I'm write in that there are only two choices. If you want to prove it's a straw-man provide a third tangible option.

Complex processing can look magical... but when you break it down it's just a series of switches. Thus back up my question are we just a series of switches, just a biologic machine, albeit an amazing one, or do we achieve sentience through having a soul.

Put another way, if there is no soul, why can't I replace the human mind with a large "amazing" collection of switches? If I can, well then we are not special we are a thing that can be manufactured.

A potential third choice could've solved this before I dropped 4 more posts explaining the same point? Holy shit, why didn't I think of that? Lol.

Here: It is possible that each human's individual consciousness is a projection of that human's soul, and that human's soul is unable to experience the sensory input of any human except that individual of which that soul is the essence.

Thusly, that soul is only able to guide the consciousness according to its -own- values, and thus the soul is no more able to escape the selfish nature of all it does than is the observable human consciousness.

Next up, I was never trying to say that complex processing is magical. I was saying is that the soul is magical, and even without magic, complex processing is ******* amazing.

In absence of a magical essence, yes, we are just a biological machine, and in my opinion, the human mind can indeed be compared to a large, amazing collection of switches, albeit switches that each individual has an involuntary hand in developing. This doesn't mean we lack free will, it simply means that our will is guided by our experience. That will is still free to be directed at whatever values we acquire through our experiences.

Lastly, lemme save you some suspense: humans are indeed something that can be manufactured. Not sure if you've seen the birth rate lately, but we manufacture an awful lot of new humans on a daily basis. Okay, I say that partially in jest, but I seriously don't understand why you find the idea that we might be nothing more than a remarkable configuration of the same matter as the rest of the universe so depressing. I find the universe to be a pretty awe inspiring place just based on what can be seen, and personally, I have no problem being comprised of nothing more than what I can observe. Existence is still tops, in my eyes. Magic would be neat-o, but I certainly don't need it to appreciate what is.

 

[KevinWestern]

Just for my own point of reference, define "love". And don't give me a set of actions that demonstrate "love". Just tell me what it is.

Not easy to do with that criteria. The bible actually has a great description of what love is:

PHILIPPIANS 2:3-4
"Selfishness, not hate, is the opposite of divine love"

So, if "selfishness" is the opposite of divine love, one can logically assume that divine love = selflessness, or seeing or experiencing absolutely no difference between you and the whole. Because if you perceive a "difference" in even the tiniest way, that is a step towards the "self" and ultimately selfishness.

What is really neat is that the Buddha said something along the lines of one will only experience what love is, and be truly happy when they shed their "ego" and become one with everything.

Here are the first five verses of Phillipians:



Paul is clearly addressing the believers at Phillipi. This is not a "general" epistle, it is for a specific audience, for a specific reason. Paul did NOT say that ""Selfishness, not hate, is the opposite of divine love".

In Christianity, Jesus' summary of the Law starts with "Love the Lord thy God" because without that, it is impossible to "love" anybody else, maybe not even yourself.

Paul also tells you what "love" looks like in Romans 13:

OWE no man any thing, but to love one an other: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And in Romans 12:

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Did you catch that? "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good" and ""share with the Lord's people".

I don't see anything in there about 12 foot spoons. Paul is being very specific and practical. There is nothing nebulous about it. If you want to "love" your neighbor you start by not screwing him, which is what many who talk about "love" want. They want what you have.

Thanks for all the info.

But regarding the 12 foot spoon story, what's not to like about it?

 

[RKMBrown]

You're still locking yourself into a straw-man argument, here. Your assumption is that the only two possibilities are that you have a magical essence unconnected to the physical reality we can observe, or that you're just a lump of matter that reacts to stimuli. Is your sentience really that meaningless to you?

Do you honestly believe that, without a magical essence, a sentient creature is the same as a light bulb? Do I have to spell out that you can reason while a light bulb cannot for you to acknowledge that there are, in fact, profound differences, even if you don't believe in magic?

Yes, I say "I observe". "I" and the consciousness into which all of "my" senses are feeding information. What makes me different is that my consciousness is separate (as far as I can tell) from every other consciousness, and possessed of its own thoughts, experiences, and feelings, all also separate from every other consciousness.

So what if our sentience -is- only the result of biology? Does that make it boring, to you? Does that pull the rockets back out of the sky and reverse all of man's achievements? Is only the existence of a magical essence that guides our sentience enough to validate it in your eyes?

Lastly, this last question that you've asked is as loaded as an Irishman on St. Patty's. I'm impressed enough by our sentience that, even if it's NOT the result of magic, even if it IS completely random, I still think it's holy shit amazing. Why don't you? What have you experienced that's so much more amazing than the ability to reason that you're desensitized to the reality you can observe?

Not knowing isn't reason to discount, but it is reason to reserve belief.

Reserving belief is additional proof of my point. It's only a straw-man if I'm wrong in the two choices, leaving the issue open is not an option it's merely an admission of yours that I'm write in that there are only two choices. If you want to prove it's a straw-man provide a third tangible option.

Complex processing can look magical... but when you break it down it's just a series of switches. Thus back up my question are we just a series of switches, just a biologic machine, albeit an amazing one, or do we achieve sentience through having a soul.

Put another way, if there is no soul, why can't I replace the human mind with a large "amazing" collection of switches? If I can, well then we are not special we are a thing that can be manufactured.

A potential third choice could've solved this before I dropped 4 more posts explaining the same point? Holy shit, why didn't I think of that? Lol.

Here: It is possible that each human's individual consciousness is a projection of that human's soul, and that human's soul is unable to experience the sensory input of any human except that individual of which that soul is the essence.

Thusly, that soul is only able to guide the consciousness according to its -own- values, and thus the soul is no more able to escape the selfish nature of all it does than is the observable human consciousness.

Next up, I was never trying to say that complex processing is magical. I was saying is that the soul is magical, and even without magic, complex processing is ******* amazing.

In absence of a magical essence, yes, we are just a biological machine, and in my opinion, the human mind can indeed be compared to a large, amazing collection of switches, albeit switches that each individual has an involuntary hand in developing. This doesn't mean we lack free will, it simply means that our will is guided by our experience. That will is still free to be directed at whatever values we acquire through our experiences.

Lastly, lemme save you some suspense: humans are indeed something that can be manufactured. Not sure if you've seen the birth rate lately, but we manufacture an awful lot of new humans on a daily basis. Okay, I say that partially in jest, but I seriously don't understand why you find the idea that we might be nothing more than a remarkable configuration of the same matter as the rest of the universe so depressing. I find the universe to be a pretty awe inspiring place just based on what can be seen, and personally, I have no problem being comprised of nothing more than what I can observe. Existence is still tops, in my eyes. Magic would be neat-o, but I certainly don't need it to appreciate what is.

ROFL... so again you agree either we have a soul or we don't. Your definition of the soul as magical essence merely shows that you are not yet able to see behind the curtain to the fact that it's not a magic act.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Reserving belief is additional proof of my point. It's only a straw-man if I'm wrong in the two choices, leaving the issue open is not an option it's merely an admission of yours that I'm write in that there are only two choices. If you want to prove it's a straw-man provide a third tangible option.

Complex processing can look magical... but when you break it down it's just a series of switches. Thus back up my question are we just a series of switches, just a biologic machine, albeit an amazing one, or do we achieve sentience through having a soul.

Put another way, if there is no soul, why can't I replace the human mind with a large "amazing" collection of switches? If I can, well then we are not special we are a thing that can be manufactured.

A potential third choice could've solved this before I dropped 4 more posts explaining the same point? Holy shit, why didn't I think of that? Lol.

Here: It is possible that each human's individual consciousness is a projection of that human's soul, and that human's soul is unable to experience the sensory input of any human except that individual of which that soul is the essence.

Thusly, that soul is only able to guide the consciousness according to its -own- values, and thus the soul is no more able to escape the selfish nature of all it does than is the observable human consciousness.

Next up, I was never trying to say that complex processing is magical. I was saying is that the soul is magical, and even without magic, complex processing is ******* amazing.

In absence of a magical essence, yes, we are just a biological machine, and in my opinion, the human mind can indeed be compared to a large, amazing collection of switches, albeit switches that each individual has an involuntary hand in developing. This doesn't mean we lack free will, it simply means that our will is guided by our experience. That will is still free to be directed at whatever values we acquire through our experiences.

Lastly, lemme save you some suspense: humans are indeed something that can be manufactured. Not sure if you've seen the birth rate lately, but we manufacture an awful lot of new humans on a daily basis. Okay, I say that partially in jest, but I seriously don't understand why you find the idea that we might be nothing more than a remarkable configuration of the same matter as the rest of the universe so depressing. I find the universe to be a pretty awe inspiring place just based on what can be seen, and personally, I have no problem being comprised of nothing more than what I can observe. Existence is still tops, in my eyes. Magic would be neat-o, but I certainly don't need it to appreciate what is.

ROFL... so again you agree either we have a soul or we don't. Your definition of the soul as magical essence merely shows that you are not yet able to see behind the curtain to the fact that it's not a magic act.

Obviously we either have a soul or we don't, that was never the argument. The argument was whether or not selfishness as an inevitability negated the possibility of a soul's existence. Holy shit, again you move the goal posts as though you're completely unaware of what we were just arguing about.

Also, I didn't mean magic as in "a trick".

I meant "magic" as a fun substitute for "supernatural". Mysticism is mysticism for all I care. When you tell me you've seen proof of a soul, you might as well be telling me you're a wizard. I would be equally compelled to believe either statement.