A perspective on why man must not sleep with man and why God hates that

Not at all; if you were to offer some dialouge of something that actually made me reconsider how I understand this world and how we interact with it, I would gladly tell you so.

 

Finally, thanks, now let's discuss it.

The problem lays in your extrapolation from TV watching to genocide, just because one may depend on perception doesn't mean that the other does.

Just because all squares are rectangles, doesn’t mean all rectangles are squares.

Just because you are able to name innumerable things that seem to depend on perception to have value that does not automatically mean that every thing depends on perception to have value.

Just because a door can have innumerable positions of open, from ajar to partially open to wide open does not mean that the door can’t be shut. If the door is open there may be innumerable opinions about how open the door is but when the door is shut it really no longer depends on perception, you can give or get as many opinions as you want as to how open the door is but the simple fact is the door is shut.

That is why I said that I would have admitted that homosexuality could be my perception because it is not so cut and dried, not so easy to see on the surface whether it is right or wrong. Myself in this case I have to admit that I fall back on the Bible's counsel in this matter because I don’t see an obvious right or wrong.

But when it comes to the list of things that I’ve been using, rape, mass murder, kidnapping, torture, muggings, robbery, beatings, slavery, genocide, etc perception is not needed to tell that these are wrong, if your perception tells you that these things are not wrong then your perception is wrong.

 

I think you missed the point, you smeared me so I thought that was something that you thought was okay, so I returned it in kind but now you're saying when I did it I was smearing you but you seem to be ignoring when you did it. If it's not okay with you fine, I will stop but just keep that in mind the next time you do it.

 

Whether a door is shut or not is a visual statement that has nothing to do with arbitrary moral values such as "right" and "wrong".

Perception is perception. If I perceive a chair, or if i perceive genocide, I am still perceiving, and the way perception works from one thing to another does not differ.
You say perception is not needed to say that these things are wrong, yet, you do need perception, because you are perceiving them as wrong. It is your perception of them that is making you feel they are wrong, not them in and of themselves.

 

It was an illustration.

Yes, perception is perception and the way perception works from one thing to another does not differ but what you are perceiving does differ and that is what I’m talking about.

You say perception is not needed to say that these things are wrong? Yes that is exactly what I’m saying, some things are wrong in of themselves and how you perceive makes no difference, just because someone perceives them as right does not make these things right, they are still wrong.

 

Perception is inevitable. It's a continuous process that we have no control over, unless we were dead. It's what defines our mental ideas of our own reality and has as its result consicousness.

To say "perception is not needed" is the same as saying "consciousness is not needed" and "mental ideas are not needed". Yet, here we are, exchanging our own perceptions nonetheless.

There are about four basic ideas that everyone can agree with as being wrong:

1. No one wants anyone to take their life
2. No one wants anyone to take what is theirs
3. No one wants to be forced into having sex against their will
4. No one wants to be lied to

Anything outside of this are just our own ideas on what is right or wrong based on our own personal perceptions of what we either like or dislike, what makes up happy or unhappy.

The only beings, in this realm of existence, that are free from perceptions are dead. They are truly the only one who can say "perceptions are not needed", especially the perceptions related to this particular realm.

OWB, this statement, "just because someone perceives them as right does not make these things right ..." is a contradiction. Saying "does not make these things right" is a perception being communicated by you, and you perceive this statement as being right.

It's a contradiction because you basically are saying that just because you perceive what you say as being right does not make those things right.

It's odd, isn't it? That sometimes we say things to dispute what others say, and all we end up accomplishing is disputing our own selves.

Sorry ...

HTML:

 

No reason to be sorry, I enjoy your comments.

My statement "perception is not needed" was not general comment about the nature of things, meaning that we don’t need perception but was about the nature of things beyond our perception.

What I was saying is that what we perceive may not be all there is that exists and that just because we perceive something one way or another does not necessarily make our perceptions correct.

For instance, if a blind man says I perceive no color and so color doesn’t exist, that may be “true” for him but does that mean that color itself does not exist?

Likewise, what I was saying is; although we may perceive things as right or wrong, there may be somethings that have a inherent rightness or wrongness that does not change no matter how we might perceive them and so our perception of them can be wrong.

Also, although we are talking in absolutes, I don’t see why the nature of things would not allow for something to have varying levels of right and wrong that would also be independent of our perceptions of them.

 

Unfortunately ... or fortunately ... , I'm so totally convinced there is nothing beyond our perception. Everyone, and I mean everyone experiences reality the same way, yet the experience itself is different for each person.

By the "same way", I mean that everyone has eyes to experience contact with light which produces a feeling. From continual feeling from continual contact with light we perceive, that is we want to identify each particular feeling we have from contact with light and we call them colors. From continual perception (resulting from continual feelings, which is a result of continual contact) we have mental ideas (mental volition, fabrications) about the particular realm of existence we are in contact with. And continual fabrications results in consciousness (awareness). And the same process for ears (and sound), nose (and aromas), tongue (and flavors), body (and tactile), and mind (and thoughts). Every living being experiences this realm of existence the same way.

Yet, the experiences resulting from each sense contact is different for every living being. Each feeling, each perception, each mental volition, and each consciousness experience are all different for each and every living sentient being. No two people experience the same sense experience the same way. We all share the experience we are having and relate what it is we are experiencing. This is how it is different for each person.

If there is anything that exists outside of our perception, then how are we able to relate awareness of these. Awareness is a result of mental ideas and mental ideas are a result of perception. Without perception there would be no awareness (consciousness). So if there was anything outside of our perception we would not be aware of it in order to say there was anything outside this.

All of our perceptions are correct. We perceive according to our ability to classify and group various feelings so we can identify what it is we are feeling and this is the resulting perception. Everyone's perception is correct. However, there is this insatiable need to be happy. To have pleasant experiences each and every moment and as such we do whatever it takes to have these pleasant experiences. Even going so far as to dislike anything that interfers with these pleasant experiences.

So we have come to the point to where we classify right and wrong as, this is right because it makes me feel good -- it makes me happy, or this is wrong because it doesn't.

Which is why, there are those things which deprive of our happiness which we can say IS wrong, like someone trying to take our lives, or someone trying to take what belongs to us, or trying to engage in their own sensual pleasure with us when we dont want to, or lieing to us. No one wants to loose their life, so we all know this is wrong. No one wants to be deprived of what makes them happy, so taking away this/these things which make us happy is wrong. No one wants to be forced upon in a sexual way against their will (although there are those who do this kind of activity willingly), so we know this is wrong. No one likes the feeling of being lied to, so we can agree this is wrong.

Anything outside of these things which deprive of our happiness are perception-based awareness of whether we like what it is we are perceiving or we don't like what it is we are perceiving. As such what we dont like we say is wrong, or bad, and what we do like we say is right, or good.

There is nothing outside our perception, nothing outside our own mental ideas, nothing outside our own consciousness ... and consequentially, nothing outside our own feelings as all of these (perception, mental ideas and consciousness) are results of feelings.

I can't deny there are some who will disagree with this, but for those, they will have to prove, and convincingly I might add, that there is anything outside this ... PROVE IT! Don't just say it ... prove it! Proof is the ultimate truth ... and what is it Jesus said? "You will KNOW the truth, and the truth will set you free." He didn't say you will hear the truth, or you will believe the truth ... he said "YOU WILL KNOW ..."

The word "COLOR" is only a lable used to identify the feelings, perceptions we are having (experiencing) so that we can relate to others that the experience involves the eye and contact with light ... nothing more. Of course a blind person wouldn't have any idea what color is outside of the definition seeing people use it for. They know that color involves various frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum in the visible range ... a range they cannot even begin to imagine (mental ideas) because they have no sense contact in which to experience feelings, and consequently perception of, nor mental idea of, nor awareness of.

OWB, I get the feeling (albiet mental) that you just don't get it. Not to worry, there are a great many people who don't get it either. Outside of the four things mentioned above which deprive us of our happiness (living, posessions, sexualality, speech) any right or wrong is only because we dont like what it is we perceive, or we do like what it is we perceive. Or another way to put it is, any right or wrong is only because we dont like what we feel, or we do like what it is we feel. And still, any right or wrong is only because we dont like what we come into contact with, or we do like what it is we come into contact with. No matter how I say it, it's all the same thing:

• Contact between sense and sense-object produces a feeling.
• Continuous contact, continuous feeling produces, results in perception.
• Continuous contact, continuous feeling, continuous perception produces, results in mental fabrications (ideas, mental volition, mental action).
• Continuous contact, continuous feeling, continuous perception, continuous ideas produces, results in consciousness.

Remove the sense-object there will be nothing for the sense to contact with and no feeling ... this puts an end to perception, ideas, consciousness. Remove the sense, also has the same result. And eliminate the contact also produces the same result. That without the sense, contact, and sense-object there is no awareness, there is no ideas, no perception, and no feelings.

Again, there is NOTHING outside of our perception to be independent of. If there were, we would not be aware of it. Nor would we be able to produce an idea of it without being aware of it. And if we were aware of it, then we are able to perceive it ... to feel it ... to come into contact with it. Right and wrong are ideas we create on what makes us happy or what doesn't make us happy. And dare say, this even goes as far as sweeping the floor, capping the toothpaste, the toilet seat, unwashed dishes, belief in a God ...

Not having belief in a God makes some people happy. Having a belief in a God makes some people happy. It don't matter. If you want to believe in a God, then, hey, God exists ... but not for me. If you want to hold fast to the idea that God exists contrary to whether or not I believe in him, then, hey, God exists ... but not for me. But just because I don't believe in [a] God, god or gods, doesn't make it wrong except that me not believing what you believe doesn't make you happy. And I'm not using the word "you" to signify you personally, just an arbitrary significance.

Again, sorry ...

HTML:

 

Is that so?

The wind was flapping a temple flag, and two monks were arguing about the flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other said, "the wind is moving." They could not agree, no matter how hard they debated. The sixth patriarch, Eno, happened to come by and said, "Not the wind, not the flag. It is the mind that is moving!"

Yet Mumon Comments: It is not the wind that moves, it is not the flag that moves, it is not the mind that moves. How shall we understand the sixth patriarch?

So tell me quickly, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Sorry....

 

Mind exists in a continuous stream that consists of an unbroken succession of discrete cognitive events ... mind-moments (citta's) ... a complex unit comprising consciousness itself.

So, neither the wind, nor the flag, nor mind itself is moving ...

It is you ...

Acting on every moment of contact you experience ...

And the sound of one hand clapping is ... whatever you experience on hearing one hand clapping ...

HTML:

 

And what of MU?

 

What of it?

It's a choice you have to make ...

You are the one faced with the question that requires the answer ...

HTML:

 

I think a couple of those aren't true. Some people do want to be lied to once they've been told the truth. Some people do want others to take their lives, either figuratively or literally.

 

Mmm Hmmmmm ...

HTML:

 

What we want and what is good for us are two different things.

I've noticed that when I tell people the truth, it may sting them a bit but they eventually appreciate that a lot more than being lied to, but that is only when they realize that the truth was much more helpful for their overall well being than a lie. So in the end, people do want to be told the truth, if they don't then I would said that is a desire based in error.

I've also noticed that you can't force truth on people, especially if we believe something is the truth when it may not be. Whenever we force something on others, it usually backfires. There are right ways to tell the truth and then there are wrong ways. Some are used to enlighten and others are used to gain footing.

Truth exists, we just have to sift through the mess.

 

People like the idea of being told the truth, but either they define the truth as something very different from what it normally is understood to mean, or they don't want it. A lot of people swing wildly from insisting they're being lied to and demanding information, to insisting that they're being drowned in information and demanding simplification. People like lies that allow them to function. They may not consciously admit it, but it's what they want.

 

LMAO

And Smitty has easily made the most sense in this thread.

 

I guess it depends on what truth is and whether or not that truth should be enforced. Force usually leads to a break away, creates tension and division. The very thing many that want peace are all unanimously against.

People hold on to lies to do more than to allow them to function, but that also stands to be true. A lie can be used to shield a person from a life they should not follow and can be used to keep them from engaging in the good will of self and others. A lie can be also used to act as a shield against self destruction. But in the end, discerning truth from fiction can be a tireless game and can lead to its own confusion and suffering.

The idea behind this is to come to a point where we say, "I don't know and neither does anyone else" and to give up the self for something greater than the self. That is not possible with force. If we ever want a peaceful life for our loved ones and the rest of humanity then we need to learn to kill the self in order to know the self and in order to bring more love and understanding towards everything in our existence.

When we play the game of showing man's limitations we just end up limiting ourselves and this can lead us down the rabbit hole. How deep does it go?

The truth can be just as shielding as a lie. Consciously or unconsciously aware.

 

Of course, these are all thoughts, even your original post.
When people begin their statement with "I think" they are only trying to avoid saying something in a very direct way as to avoid sounding like an overbearing know-it-all.