Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

The Spiritual Truth - where love is not, truth is a dead letter and profits nothing


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 139 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Dec 2012 06:03:16 GMT
Indeed. Everyone should consider the possibility that they're wrong. If they are then shown to be wrong, they should change their mind.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Dec 2012 04:35:28 GMT
light says:
Not just Kraka and I but many, many others.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Dec 2012 04:31:47 GMT
light says:
Hi Kraka,'

Good to see you and your explanation of tasting an orange, (symbolically).

I understand what you are saying but I have gained something from my discussion with Jones, I see my discussion with him as a good exercise to tame the ego and counter his insults by not returning insults, thus using Higher Thinking.

Not only that but as a result of my discussion with Jones I found The Paths of Truth which I am going to start a thread on them. I know that it might not get any return posts but that is ok, I'm going to post one Truth everyday for anyone who may be interested, and this will be a good reminder for me to keep my eye on my goal, since it is easy to get distracted.

Jones mentioned that he has been correcting me as we go along, I feel the same way, I have been correcting him as we go along, I have been trying to bring awareness to him about his attitude, (gently I hope), knowing how negative behavior will bring about negative karma.

Ok, time to go enjoy an orange ;o)

take care light

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2012 13:59:42 GMT
Has it occurred to you that Light and you might be just wrong?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2012 13:07:57 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2012 14:51:46 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"It is useless to argue about the taste of an orange with someone who has never tasted an orange no matter how much they have read about oranges."
Nothing we have discussed has been outside of my experience, that's how I've been able to correct light as we go. Nice of you to join in and tell everyone what I know - I take it you have experience of exactly what I know of otherwise your pretensions implode on themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2012 12:56:30 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2012 12:52:40 GMT
kraka says:
Light hi, and greetings.

It is useless to argue about the taste of an orange with someone who has never tasted an orange no matter how much they have read about oranges. All the intellect/imagination in the world will never provide that experience, you are arguing against intellectualized ignorance. If your opponent had any honor he would truthfully declare that he has no understanding of the experience beyond the written word. Mind and ego fails to reason when confounded, and from a weak position has no recourse but to resort to dishonesty and an attempt to itellectually undermine your case by any means possible.

Such discussions are a complete and utter waste of time.

Go and enjoy the taste of an orange, and nourish your soul.

Take care my friend and have a happy day..........................kraka.

Posted on 15 Dec 2012 06:14:40 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2012 06:16:13 GMT
light says:
Jones,

Me, ""You bettcha ;o) Yes, somewhat tedious, but repititive lessons helps a student remember.""

You, "That's how conditioning works, not learning or understanding."

I found an article which contradicts your statement, repetition is a great way to teach and learn.

http://www.lpg.fsu.edu/charting/InstructionalStrategies/howto-tactics/ht-k2flrep.asp

How do I use Repetition?

What is Repetition?

Why should I use Repetition in my teaching?

What are the steps for using Repetition?

What are some class activities that involve Repetition?

What kind of media and student materials should I use for Repetition?

Where can I go to learn more about Repetition?

"What is Repetition?
Repetition is a tactic that can be used to teach facts, labels, lists, rules, and procedures (or steps in a procedure) at the K2: Recall level. Repetition involves repeating the information to be recalled. Repetition can be done verbally, in writing, or mentally. It has been documented that the most effective method of Repetition is verbal repetition because it involves both auditory and vocal senses. Mental Repetition is the least effective since it does not involve any muscle movement or physical activity.

Below is an example of how to apply Repetition for facts, labels, lists, rules, and procedures at the K2: Recall level:

If learners are required to memorize the steps in the procedure for cleaning a rifle, have them repeatedly practice verbally reciting the steps in the procedure.

In this example, the learners are using Repetition because they are stating the steps in the procedure over and over again.

Why should I use Repetition in my teaching?
Repetition helps learners retain facts, labels, lists, rules, and procedures in their long-term memory under the assumption that the more often information is retrieved and used, the more deeply it will be processed. In addition, Repetition is a simple tactic to implement, so it can easily be used with other tactics such as Mnemonics and Clustering.

Research conducted with learners who did recite and learners who did not recite material that was presented to them showed the following results.......

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2012 06:08:19 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2012 06:22:17 GMT
light says:
Jones,

Me, ""Me, Yes it does. I think most people would agree that when people become angry and lose self-control they typically do not think rationally or use higher thinking."

You, "People would agree with this, however it is not what you said. That is the problem with talking in metaphor and platitudes."

Actually it is what I said, because according to spirituality, Higher thinking involves self-control, and it is one of the fruits of the spirit.

You, "You just said it was related to the brain. I don't really appreciate you borrowing well understood mechanisms to prop up your beliefs in woo."

Sorry, it's not woo ;o) When people practice spirituality it involves every part of one's being, mind, heart and soul. Being spiritual does not render a person unintelligent just as being intelligent should not render one impolite or heartless.

Me, ""It is not about inflicting physical pain, it is about self-control and allowing Higher Thinking/Spiritual thinking, to take over."

You, "Again, this is the problem with metaphors. If only you had said this instead of flesh being crucified you'd avoid confusion."

I thought you would have understood that crucifying the flesh was meant metaphorically. People do not go around literally crucifying their flesh so that they can experience God.

You, "You've not said anything mean but you've consistently insulted my intelligence and shown a blatant disregard for both facts, knowledge and grammar when appealing to your magic. There is no nice way to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when letting you know how wrong you are when your as wrong as you are."

Jones, really? I do not try to insult your intelligence, just because you can't relate to spiritual writings doesn't mean that I am attacking your intelligence. So now your going to bring up grammar? Common!

You, " Repeatedly. You're always dismissing things because of how they make you feel. You've explicitly stated that you like your emotional side to be taken care of before reality."

I'm pretty sure I said that I like discussing things of the spiritual nature, not emotional. Can you tell me where I said that I like my emotional side to be taken care of?

You, "See? You just stated a preference for feeling special and wrong rather than correct if unsatisfied."

I don't why you are hung up on me feeling special.

You, "Again, you insult the intellect and expect respect and deference in return. What could this mean other than 'be stupid when reading spiritual writings'. Would it be anymore meaningful to tell someone to understand with their foot, lower back or little finger (on the left hand not the right)?"

You must be a very sensitive person, or your ego is out of control. If you are looking for a cock fight you'll have to find someone else.

You, " I'd also say it is you reading these spiritual writings with more of a knee jerk reaction than others. You take them on so easily and can show no understanding of them other than to heap on more equivocation. You say you you aren't to understand them with your brain - that to means you're not pondering them."

I said, "Reading spiritual writings is more about understanding them with your heart rather than with your mind." So, when I read spiritual writings, I ponder them and read them over and over. First of all I read them to see if there is a literal/intellectual meaning then I look for a Higher meaning. Spiritual writings involve the intellect AND the heart, but as I said, more the heart.

Me, "Funny thing, people understand how the world works more scientifically now but people continue to kill, rape, cheat and pollute......."

You, "That's because a consideration of ethics is separate to having a understanding of the mechanics of the universe."

Why is this so? I would think that the more intellectual people are the more willing they would be to be more ethical and moral, knowing the consequences of wrong behavior and all that, pardon my grammar and punctuation ;o)

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 09:19:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 13:11:19 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"Me, Yes it does. I think most people would agree that when people become angry and lose self-control they typically do not think rationally or use higher thinking."
People would agree with this, however it is not what you said. That is the problem with talking in metaphor and platitudes.

"Self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit."
You just said it was related to the brain. I don't really appreciate you borrowing well understood mechanisms to prop up your beliefs in woo.

"It is not about inflicting physical pain, it is about self-control and allowing Higher Thinking/Spiritual thinking, to take over."
Again, this is the problem with metaphors. If only you had said this instead of flesh being crucified you'd avoid confusion.

Me: Yeah, the Bible talks a lot. Try to think a bit more.
"That's not nice! I haven't said anything mean to you."
You've not said anything mean but you've consistently insulted my intelligence and shown a blatant disregard for both facts, knowledge and grammar when appealing to your magic. There is no nice way to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when letting you know how wrong you are when your as wrong as you are.

"That's not nice either, I never said that I was special or wanted to feel special."
You have. Repeatedly. You're always dismissing things because of how they make you feel. You've explicitly stated that you like your emotional side to be taken care of before reality. Take the Higgs Boson for example, you've invoked it for all sorts of new age nonsense. When it's explained to you that it doesn't quite do what you think and it isn't as mystical as you need you wave it all away and carry on regardless.

"I enjoy discussing things, you said that people learn through sarcasm, satire, ridicule, insults.......If you want me to learn something from you it would be best if you drop your attitude of being a Master at an all boys school."
See? You just stated a preference for feeling special and wrong rather than correct if unsatisfied.

"Reading spiritual writings is more about understanding them with your heart rather than with your mind."
Again, you insult the intellect and expect respect and deference in return. What could this mean other than 'be stupid when reading spiritual writings'. Would it be anymore meaningful to tell someone to understand with their foot, lower back or little finger (on the left hand not the right)?

"Funny thing, people understand how the world works more scientifically now but people continue to kill, rape, cheat and pollute......."
That's because a consideration of ethics is separate to having a understanding of the mechanics of the universe.

"Capital T means that it is Spiritual, something that should be pondered, not just read with a knee jerk reaction."
Uppercase letters are not magical, they only have the power to render your sentences RiDicULous. I'd also say it is you reading these spiritual writings with more of a knee jerk reaction than others. You take them on so easily and can show no understanding of them other than to heap on more equivocation. You say you you aren't to understand them with your brain - that to means you're not pondering them.

"You bettcha ;o) Yes, somewhat tedious, but repititive lessons helps a student remember."
That's how conditioning works, not learning or understanding.

"Certainly not banal or wrong, but Spiritual."
Being 'Spiritual' is the same thing as banal or wrong if this is anything to go by.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 05:00:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 05:11:44 GMT
light says:
Jones,

Me, "When people get angry or worry obsessively it drowns out the spirit, the flesh overrides the spirit."

You, "No it doesn't."

Me, Yes it does. I think most people would agree that when people become angry and lose self-control they typically do not think rationally or use higher thinking. Self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit.

Me, ""The flesh/ego must be crucified daily."

You, "No it shouldn't. This would be another of those awful propositions you've swallowed whole because it is just abstract enough to have some sort of ethereal spiritual feel to it and yet enough coherence to make you think it's saying something you can apply to this life. In the only meaningful way it can be taken on it's asking for some sort of physical self-inflicted pain, in any metaphorical sense it's asking for angish. It's not nice either way."

It is not about inflicting physical pain, it is about self-control and allowing Higher Thinking/Spiritual thinking, to take over.

Me, ""The bible mentions which thoughts of the ego quenches the spirit and must be avoided."

You, "Yeah, the Bible talks a lot. Try to think a bit more."

That's not nice! I haven't said anything mean to you.

Me, "Actually I like discussing things which appeal to my spirit."

You, "That's what I said. You like stuff that makes you feel nice and special, you don't like us pointing out how vacuous your spiritual stuff is."

That's not nice either, I never said that I was special or wanted to feel special. I enjoy discussing things, you said that people learn through sarcasm, satire, ridicule, insults.......If you want me to learn something from you it would be best if you drop your attitude of being a Master at an all boys school.

Me, "
"How well do you know the bible or any other spiritual writing?"

You, "I've read the Bible. More than that I'm literate so anything I haven't read can be quickly included."

Reading spiritual writings is more about understanding them with your heart rather than with your mind.

You, " It's just your thoughts being compartmentalised according to your prejudices for a simplified black and white, good and evil world that can be addressed with the nonsense you get from spiritual writting (with just happens to be ancient people's ponderings and misunderstanding of a world too complex for them to fully articulate)."

Funny thing, people understand how the world works more scientifically now but people continue to kill, rape, cheat and pollute.......

You, "Truth' should be capitalised midway through a sentence. Writting it with an uppercase T doesn't improve the truthiness or mean something other than 'truth'."

Capital T means that it is Spiritual, something that should be pondered, not just read with a knee jerk reaction.

You, "The stuff in your quote that is true is tedious. The original stuff is wrong. It's a deepity. Most of it is just banal and wrong. Did you like it?"

You bettcha ;o) Yes, somewhat tedious, but repititive lessons helps a student remember. Certainly not banal or wrong, but Spiritual.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 07:58:48 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"Yes, death of the physical body is literal but where does death of the ego fit in? In a spiritual sense death of the ego is literal yet the body doesn't die."
Then it's not death in a literal sense.

"In the bible Paul mentions crucifying the flesh, (ego), so that the spirit can live in the body. The ego is going to die in a literal/symbolic sense so that the spirit of God can live stronger in a person."
Still not a literal death.

"I do not think that I'm using an excuse to help me out of sticky situation."
You probably don't think you are but clearer you don't understand what it means for something to be literal or metaphorical so aren't best placed to know what's going on. Here you have continued to do exactly what I said you were doing - inserting the word (in this case literal) you want to be applicable without understand why it would be so beyond you want for it to be the case. I believe that you could easily change this arguement to one where the word appealed to is metaphorical and you'd think it equally applicable.

"When people get angry or worry obsessively it drowns out the spirit, the flesh overrides the spirit."
No it doesn't.

"The flesh/ego must be crucified daily.
No it shouldn't. This would be another of those awful propositions you've swallowed whole because it is just abstract enough to have some sort of ethereal spiritual feel to it and yet enough coherence to make you think it's saying something you can apply to this life. In the only meaningful way it can be taken on it's asking for some sort of physical self-inflicted pain, in any metaphorical sense it's asking for angish. It's not nice either way.

"The bible mentions which thoughts of the ego quenches the spirit and must be avoided."
Yeah, the Bible talks a lot. Try to think a bit more.

"How well do you know the bible or any other spiritual writing?"
I've read the Bible. More than that I'm literate so anything I haven't read can be quickly included. I'm also clued up on facts that have been verified independent of spiritual writting so they aren't going to get it all their own way.

"Actually I like discussing things which appeal to my spirit."
That's what I said. You like stuff that makes you feel nice and special, you don't like us pointing out how vacuous your spiritual stuff is.

"The ego wants to fight but the spirit looks for peace, this is what I'm trying to practice. It's an ongoing process, which is not easy."
Not at all easy when the two concepts you say are in conflict are just badly defined aspects of the same thing. It's just your thoughts being compartmentalised according to your prejudices for a simplified black and white, good and evil world that can be addressed with the nonsense you get from spiritual writting (with just happens to be ancient people's ponderings and misunderstanding of a world too complex for them to fully articulate).

"Drew do you see any Truth in the following:"
'Truth' should be capitalised midway through a sentence. Writting it with an uppercase T doesn't improve the truthiness or mean something other than 'truth'.

The stuff in your quote that is true is tedious. The original stuff is wrong. It's a deepity. Most of it is just banal and wrong. Did you like it?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 05:26:40 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 05:47:55 GMT
light says:
Jones,

"Death in it's traditional meaning applies to a physical process whereby life is extinguished from the body indefinitely."

Yes, death of the physical body is literal but where does death of the ego fit in? In a spiritual sense death of the ego is literal yet the body doesn't die. In the bible Paul mentions crucifying the flesh, (ego), so that the spirit can live in the body. The ego is going to die in a literal/symbolic sense so that the spirit of God can live stronger in a person. I do not think that I'm using an excuse to help me out of sticky situation.

When people get angry or worry obsessively it drowns out the spirit, the flesh overrides the spirit. The flesh/ego must be crucified daily. The bible mentions which thoughts of the ego quenches the spirit and must be avoided. How well do you know the bible or any other spiritual writing?

"Like it or not but we do learn through scarcasm, criticism, satire and other less appealing means. By doing so you are creating a bubble of self-reinforcement that only allows for things that appeal to your ego first."

Actually I like discussing things which appeal to my spirit. The ego wants to fight but the spirit looks for peace, this is what I'm trying to practice. It's an ongoing process, which is not easy.

Drew do you see any Truth in the following:

DHAMMAPADA PATH OF TRUTH

English version by Sanderson Beck

1. The Twin-Verses

What we are is the result of what we have thought,
is built by our thoughts, is made up of our thoughts.
If one speaks or acts with an impure thought,
suffering follows one,
like the wheel of the cart follows the foot of the ox.

What we are is the result of what we have thought,
is built by our thoughts, is made up of our thoughts.
If one speaks or acts with a pure thought,
happiness follows one,
like a shadow that never leaves.

"They insulted me; they hurt me;
they defeated me; they cheated me."
In those who harbor such thoughts,
hate will never cease.

"They insulted me; they hurt me;
they defeated me; they cheated me."
In those who do not harbor such thoughts,
hate will cease.

For hate is never conquered by hate.
Hate is conquered by love.
This is an eternal law.
Many do not realize that we must all come to an end here;
but those who do realize this, end their quarrels at once.

Whoever lives only for pleasures,
with senses uncontrolled,
immoderate in eating, lazy, and weak,
will be overthrown by Mara,
like the wind throws down a weak tree.

Whoever lives not for pleasures,
with senses well controlled,
moderate in eating, has faith and the power of virtue,
will not be overthrown by Mara,
any more than the wind throws down a rocky mountain.

Whoever would put on the yellow robe
without having cleansed oneself from impurity,
disregarding self-control and truth,
is not deserving of the yellow robe.

But whoever has cleansed oneself from impurity,
is well grounded in all the virtues,
and is possessed of self-control and truth,
is deserving of the yellow robe.

Those who imagine truth in untruth
and see untruth in truth
never arrive at truth but follow vain desires.
Those who know truth as truth and untruth as untruth
arrive at truth and follow true desires.

As rain makes its way into a badly roofed house,
so passion makes its way into an unreflecting mind.
As rain does not make its way into a well roofed house,
so passion does not make its way into a reflecting mind.

Wrong-doers grieve in this world,
and they grieve in the next; they grieve in both.
They grieve and are afflicted
when they see the wrong they have done.

The virtuous find joy in this world,
and they find joy in the next; they find joy in both.
They find joy and are glad
when they see the good they have done.

Wrong-doers suffer in this world,
and they suffer in the next; they suffer in both.
They suffer when they think of the wrong they have done.
They suffer even more when going on the wrong path.

The virtuous are happy in this world,
and they are happy in the next; they are happy in both.
They are happy when they think of the good they have done.
They are even happier when going on the good path.

Even if the thoughtless can recite many of the scriptures,
if they do not act accordingly,
they are not living the holy life,
but are like a cowherd counting the cows of others.

Even if the faithful can recite
only a few of the scriptures,
if they act accordingly,
having given up passion, hate, and folly,
being possessed of true knowledge and serenity of mind,
craving nothing in this world or the next,
they are living the holy life.

2. Awareness

Awareness is the path of immortality;
thoughtlessness is the path of death.
Those who are aware do not die.
The thoughtless are as if dead already.......

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012 13:10:13 GMT
"yeshua"? you mean tne Joshua of the Hebrew bible? Ephraimite? Or Ezra's companion? Definitely not "Jesus"?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012 05:48:46 GMT
light says:
Jones,

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on this, it's late.

One quick thing:

Me, ""Would you like to discuss the contents of the OP?"

You, "I'd be happy to but beyond saying it is full of nice platitudes and contains the word 'Truth' quirkily capitalised in the middle of sentences I'm not sure you'd want me to discuss the contents of the OP."

You, " Like it or not but we do learn through scarcasm, criticism, satire and other less appealing means."

This is Truth you are speaking, but I also learn from, "nice" ;o)

till tomorrow, light

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012 01:04:31 GMT
Ryan W. - "Ask yourself how Christianity spread."

Using muck-spreaders?
But was it the word of Yeshua or of the plagiarists?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2012 19:24:14 GMT
MLJ,

Ask yourself how Christianity spread.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2012 12:31:29 GMT
"my head is going to explode"

Promises, promises.

Posted on 11 Dec 2012 11:35:38 GMT
hey atheists, tell us more incoherences by which we must abide for no good reason whatsoever.

Posted on 11 Dec 2012 11:32:21 GMT
Spin says:
QED.

Posted on 11 Dec 2012 11:23:32 GMT
how ironic that in a thread about the dead letter of the law, we have incoherent atheists demanding fulfillment of plagiarism laws. my head is going to explode

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2012 11:20:34 GMT
Spin says:
Glorify: Islam is the spiritualisation of atheism.

Posted on 11 Dec 2012 11:17:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Dec 2012 11:21:00 GMT
atheists are free from the shackles of plagiarism. their worldview spontaneously emanates from "reality". And each atheist is divinely and unquestionably unique. a generation of gifted, intellectual entrapenours, no less. Real trail-blazers.

just ... amazing. not a product oftheir environment at all, no siree. not molded by media and institutions and traditions and language, not at all. banish the thought.

who was that pagan poet of yours that said "everything is borrowed"? I forget his name for to cite it. wouldnt want to plagiarize now! that greatest of sins, in a dog-eat-dog world without morals.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2012 07:52:32 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Maybe but not at the expense of being sidelined by the plagiarists. Not sure it's the writers ambition either.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2012 07:34:33 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
MLJ - yes, but the plagiarist is required to reveal the source, otherwise it is dishonestly attributing the subject being plagiarised to the plagiarist.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  139
Initial post:  6 Dec 2012
Latest post:  16 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions