How to truly Love God

[Lacewing]

Truth is though, if we take competition out of man's evolution, we might be destroying the whole species as the weak would inherit the earth and the strongest or fittest would weaken over time.

Can't there be competition while being benevolent? All in good fun... and all meant to improve/expand the collective? That wouldn't be weakness; that would be brilliant. Violence and oppression and ego-driven control aren't strength... they are ignorance and weakness: very primitive, low-level, short-sighted, and mechanical behaviors. We might actually say, at least for right now, that THE WEAK HAVE inherited the earth!!! (Of course, Jesus apparently said "meek", not weak... and I take that "meekness" to mean "without ego", but not without strength.)

People who love and are embedded in their egos will probably say that we couldn't accomplish anything significant without them. But surely such a stance is exactly because it's the only view being invested in and "known", on behalf of the ego. It would seem beyond absurd, however, to think that there aren't greater ways of being than the point we've come to. And the longer we defend and glorify where we are, the longer we remain embedded there (at least, until we destroy ourselves from our ignorance).

[Greatest I am]

There has only ever been one true way, but it has seemingly gone unknown to many. Make perfect benevolence the sole purpose and priority of your life.

It is not unknown. It is ignored.

This scholar is trying to revive or create what you advocate.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Regards
DL

Ignored by some, no doubt. But few, I think. For many, I think it is somehow just too obvious to see.

Yes, Jesus himself said the law and the prophets are summed up in a single phrase which is the golden rule. You might be suprised to learn that the golden rule, in one form or another, is present in 22 religions, and in all of the 8 major world religions. Google it.

Yes, that line that says, "let the dead bury their own dead," definitely forces interpretation.

Not just religions have such reciprocity rules. Most secular systems also recognize and base their laws on reciprocity being fair play.

It goes by a variety of terms.

This scholar uses Harm/Care and at least 70% of the world seems to use it inn some form or other. I think it is closer to 100%.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... anguage=en

Regards
DL

[Hobbes' Choice]

There has only ever been one true way, but it has seemingly gone unknown to many. Make perfect benevolence the sole purpose and priority of your life.

There is not a scrap of evidence that there has always been 'a way" prescribed for us. Even if there were, it is not possible to say which of the many possible pathways is the correctly prescribed one.
No one is going to lead their life to a pathway on your say so.

It is self-evident. As Heraclitus says, "Trust not my logos, but the Logos."

Sometimes the most obvious things are hardest to see.

You are tragically blind and arrogant in the extreme.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There has only ever been one true way, but it has seemingly gone unknown to many. Make perfect benevolence the sole purpose and priority of your life.

There is not a scrap of evidence that there has always been 'a way" prescribed for us. Even if there were, it is not possible to say which of the many possible pathways is the correctly prescribed one.
No one is going to lead their life to a pathway on your say so.

Yes there has been evidence of the right way but we have decided to collectively ignore it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIc-4h9RIvY
Regards
DL

Crock of shit.

[Greatest I am]

[

quote="Greatest I am"]
Truth is though, if we take competition out of man's evolution, we might be destroying the whole species as the weak would inherit the earth and the strongest or fittest would weaken over time.

Can't there be competition while being benevolent?

In games that do not mean all that much to us, sure.

When competing for resources though, like a job where there are no social safety nets, then no as the loser could starve to death. The only benevolence that would be available is for the other to let him gain those resources but then that benevolence could kill the other who should have won and that is how our species would be weakened if we did it.

All in good fun... and all meant to improve/expand the collective?

We are a tribal species and not a exactly a hivish one although tribalism is sometimes defined as out hivish or groupish natures. The difference is that we do not have hereditary leadership, like a queen bee for instance, and compete for leadership.

That wouldn't be weakness; that would be brilliant.

If we were ants of bees, yes. We are not.

Violence and oppression and ego-driven control aren't strength... they are ignorance and weakness: very primitive, low-level, short-sighted, and mechanical behaviors. We might actually say, at least for right now, that THE WEAK HAVE inherited the earth!!! (Of course, Jesus apparently said "meek", not weak... and I take that "meekness" to mean "without ego", but not without strength.)

I define ego as all that I am. By that definition, if you shelve your ego, what is left of your consciousness?

If you do not define it that way, how do you define what or who you are?

People who love and are embedded in their egos will probably say that we couldn't accomplish anything significant without them. But surely such a stance is exactly because it's the only view being invested in and "known", on behalf of the ego.

I think I can agree with this.

It would seem beyond absurd, however, to think that there aren't greater ways of being than the point we've come to. And the longer we defend and glorify where we are, the longer we remain embedded there (at least, until we destroy ourselves from our ignorance).

[/quote]

We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world given all the conditions that created what is. This is actually an irrefutable statement. At least no one has ever refuted it.

Given that truth, our further evolution will decide if we are to continue glorifying what we are or decide to change what we are somehow.

We are animals, what could possibly be better for us than evolution, which contains both competition and cooperation?

As shown above, we cannot help but compete seriously and cannot do it just for fun as you would like.

I have been looking for a way myself but have not been able to find one because of the fact that we compete for resources.

If you can get us around that hurdle, you will have killed the theory of evolution. Good luck.

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

GIA, I think you took my response out of context. My response was in the same vein as your statement:

"If we wanted to change our competitive natures, all we would need do is train the next generation to follow their instincts instead of what the other generations are doing and we would end strife in the world."

But then you had added this:

"Truth is though, if we take competition out of man's evolution, we might be destroying the whole species as the weak would inherit the earth and the strongest or fittest would weaken over time."

So, I was suggesting that competition need not be destructive, nor is it required for strength.

Now that you challenge me to apply my comments to the current world, well of course that doesn't work. We are embedded! That's like challenging a person who points out the benefits of not-smoking, to cure a person who is dying of emphysema. I'm not claiming to have a cure-all answer for the current situation -- I'm suggesting that the way we are is not the only way to be and succeed! And the value of doing such a thing is of a visionary nature, I suppose, to look beyond where we are. As long as we think we're at the pinnacle -- a place to be maintained -- there's nowhere else to go! I can't seem to help but ask: How idiotic is that in such a VAST universe of possibilities?! We can look at our very own lives to recognize vast ranges and changes we've experienced. Why do we always think we've reached the pinnacle of what's possible?

There's a difference between recognizing our accomplishments thus far, "the point" we've arrived at -- and recognizing that we are in a vast range of "points", all offering more and greater views. What is it that makes us cling to the point we've arrived at, and proclaim it as the pinnacle of all, and stop exploring and expanding?

I define ego as all that I am. By that definition, if you shelve your ego, what is left of your consciousness?

Well, sure... by your definition, that would seem devastating.

If you do not define it that way, how do you define what or who you are?

From my current perspective, it appears to me that I am part of a vast river of energy... of which I have some ability of blocking or obstructing for my own experience of it. It seems I do this when I identify myself as above and separate from all else, and when I try to exert control over all else. This is what I would say the ego is.

However, when I set aside the ego in preference of flowing in that vast river of energy... I actually GET everything I really need (and more!), including satisfaction and fulfillment and progress... because that greater flow is so much more ATTUNED than my puny efforts. The best thing I can do is keep myself clear (for better attunement) and out of the way!

The "ego" then seems to be mostly a toy or prop, for whipping out during a particular drama on the stage of life, without taking any of that too seriously. I don't think the ego is who we are, but I think we become intoxicated with it and try to make it who we are, and then that obstructs our awareness of anything beyond it, because it is all consuming. That’s my perspective at the moment.

[Greatest I am]

"We can look at our very own lives to recognize vast ranges and changes we've experienced. Why do we always think we've reached the pinnacle of what's possible?"

We all have small day to day changes in our lives and larger one's like marriage, children and deaths.

We likely think we are at the pinnacle because we do not go through anything other than small changes, if any, to our biological programming.

Man is basically of the same character that was born 10,000 years ago and further back. We eat the same, sleep the same and compete of cooperate the same.

As animals, we seem set in our characters and attributes and that is why we will likely stay the same until we go extinct.

Remember that some species are basically the same today as they were a million years ago.

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

Man is basically of the same character that was born 10,000 years ago and further back. We eat the same, sleep the same and compete of cooperate the same.

As animals, we seem set in our characters and attributes and that is why we will likely stay the same until we go extinct.

So, this seems in conflict with what you said here:

If we wanted to change our competitive natures, all we would need do is train the next generation to follow their instincts instead of what the other generations are doing and we would end strife in the world.

Yes? No? Can you clarify? Do you think we are destined to be one way... or that we can retrain ourselves to choose another path?

I don't think all prior cultures over history have followed the same path. Some were very peaceful and cooperative. So whether or not someone thinks that is a "weaker" way to be, it still demonstrates that the way we are is not the only (or even superior) way to be... and it suggests (I think) that there are very likely accessible paths/ways we aren't aware of.

[Greatest I am]

Man is basically of the same character that was born 10,000 years ago and further back. We eat the same, sleep the same and compete of cooperate the same.

As animals, we seem set in our characters and attributes and that is why we will likely stay the same until we go extinct.

So, this seems in conflict with what you said here:

If we wanted to change our competitive natures, all we would need do is train the next generation to follow their instincts instead of what the other generations are doing and we would end strife in the world.

Yes? No? Can you clarify? Do you think we are destined to be one way... or that we can retrain ourselves to choose another path?

I don't think all prior cultures over history have followed the same path. Some were very peaceful and cooperative. So whether or not someone thinks that is a "weaker" way to be, it still demonstrates that the way we are is not the only (or even superior) way to be... and it suggests (I think) that there are very likely accessible paths/ways we aren't aware of.

I had noticed that I had written that rather poorly.

I do not think instincts can be changed. We are born with a certain set and that is it.

There is a possibility that we can ignore them by rewriting the usual script as some think that what we are born with is not set in stone and is more of an arrow of direction that might be manipulated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

How we would do that I do not know and what would have to happen, I think, is to change what Jung and Freud called the Father Complex. Not to be confused with the Oedipus complex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

I see that as our instincts evaluating our fathers and other males around us so that we might learn to become the fittest of our breed. That is the same instinct flowing through all hierarchical species like ours.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[

I don't think all prior cultures over history have followed the same path. Some were very peaceful and cooperative. So whether or not someone thinks that is a "weaker" way to be, it still demonstrates that the way we are is not the only (or even superior) way to be... and it suggests (I think) that there are very likely accessible paths/ways we aren't aware of.

Some bushman tribes used to fight and then found that trading was an easier way to have access to each others women so I know what you mean but within those same tribes, the men competed to the positions of chiefs or shaman or best hunter etc. so as to gain the best wives. An Alpha male wants the best Beta female for himself.

Even when I was young and dating, I could see the jockeying for position being done by myself and others. The modern equivalent you might recognize might be the jocks and cheerleaders in college.

That is what one-upmanship and even game playing is all about.

Regards
DL

[Jaded Sage]

There has only ever been one true way, but it has seemingly gone unknown to many. Make perfect benevolence the sole purpose and priority of your life.

There is not a scrap of evidence that there has always been 'a way" prescribed for us. Even if there were, it is not possible to say which of the many possible pathways is the correctly prescribed one.
No one is going to lead their life to a pathway on your say so.

It is self-evident. As Heraclitus says, "Trust not my logos, but the Logos."

Sometimes the most obvious things are hardest to see.

You are tragically blind and arrogant in the extreme.

Do the blind see what the sighted cannot? It is not arrogance if you are correct in it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

[

I don't think all prior cultures over history have followed the same path. Some were very peaceful and cooperative. So whether or not someone thinks that is a "weaker" way to be, it still demonstrates that the way we are is not the only (or even superior) way to be... and it suggests (I think) that there are very likely accessible paths/ways we aren't aware of.

Some bushman tribes used to fight and then found that trading was an easier way to have access to each others women
Regards
DL

There is very little I don't know about the Bushmen.
You just pulled this fact out of your head, from pure ignorance.

[Greatest I am]

[

I don't think all prior cultures over history have followed the same path. Some were very peaceful and cooperative. So whether or not someone thinks that is a "weaker" way to be, it still demonstrates that the way we are is not the only (or even superior) way to be... and it suggests (I think) that there are very likely accessible paths/ways we aren't aware of.

Some bushman tribes used to fight and then found that trading was an easier way to have access to each others women
Regards
DL

There is very little I don't know about the Bushmen.
You just pulled this fact out of your head, from pure ignorance.

That is historical fact.

Bite me.

Regards
DL

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is very little I don't know about the Bushmen.
You just pulled this fact out of your head, from pure ignorance.

That is historical fact.

Bite me.

Regards
DL

Nonsense. Please cite your source.

[Walker]

Mark 12:30-31King James Version (KJV)

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
King James Version (KJV)

Interestingly enough, this same unabashed and unapologetic intensity is the prescription for self-enquiry.

Take note that somewhere along the line, the Second of these two verses became the Golden Rule.

Why is that?

Who the hell left the first verse out of the Golden Rule?