Selective Ignorance -Or- God Is Love, The Context Tells Me So

Bullshit, only love for yourself and your specific sect. Just 50 years ago there was so much animosity between Catholics and Protestants, the kids couldn't even go on the same bus or schools. Constant civil unrest and fighting, and this was the norm.

 

^
You're generalizing a lot of people to the most negative example you have encountered of them. It's kind of getting pointless. People displaying love for mainly themselves and their own group is not at all restricted to just religious people, we could almost say in some way (I acknowledge it would be a generalizing way too ) it is the opposite. I know, I know, it all really depends on the individual. Hope you are aware of that too!

 

You know the rest of the post? The bit that follows the first comma?

You just agreed with most of his statement and completely missed the rest.

 

But it is the first part, the seven words before the comma that I was disagreeing with.

Because while religion my contain components of love, it is misguided and distorted selfish love based on dangerous ignorant faiths and superstitions. Love for a few and hate for most is hardly the embodiment of love. True love comes from the same place true morals come from; caring compassion and empathy that is intrinsic to a child rearing social dependent species. Not religion. Religion is mostly coping, and ego stroking, and justifying the unjustifiable.

When God is nothing more than a superego fantasy, then love for God is really just love for yourself.

 

Well, that may seem so when one regards it as as superego fantasy. If the believer doesn't regard it as something like that then to proclaim it is just love for yourself becomes nothing more than another of your retarded projections on religious people. It can just as easily and seemingly righteous projected on atheists if one would feel like doing so. By the way, loving yourself is of course not exactly the same as selfish love Loving yourself is not such a bad thing

'When God is nothing more than a superego fantasy'. This seems the whole problem with you: it seems you project this on how religious believers picture their god, or if they do not picture God like that how they use God according to you (for their own selfish needs)... while this may count for certain people it does not count for religion or religious people as a whole of course, nor is selfish love limited to them. So to claim with certainty that it applies to religion as a whole and is typical for all religious believers is actually what is misguiding and distorted... and we could claim just the same that this urge to misguide and distort comes from some kind of selfish love your atheist conviction gave you

 

You can polish your turds all day long but at the end of they day they are still turds. The fact is that the nature of religion is horrifically self evident in its collective actions on a daily basis, in the news headlines around the world. The fact is that you can not give me a definition of God that makes more sense than the superego fantasy. It is a convoluted ignorant selfishness in any given religious group or sect. What kind of asshole would stand out at a dinner table and say "I'd like to take a moment and thank myself for this bounty of food that I have bestowed upon us, and all the wonderful things that I have done for this family...". But redirect these honors to your almighty God and it's just a beautiful righteous thing. Right? No, the fact is that you're just a fucking delusional asshole. It's just that everyone else at the table is also delusioned with the same superego fantasies that they can't see that asshole for what it is. Like a whole family nose-blind to their own stink. Happy happy happy!

http://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo

 

Did you recently had a family dinner or something? You are clearly taking things out of proportion. For instance, and this is really wellknown by now, the news focusses more on bad happenings. The collective actions of religious people are evidently very diverse. Wether you like the good stuff they do or not or wether you acknowledge or not that religion (or better said religious people)'s nature is just very diverse doesn't matter (you can always ignore it of course, which is easy because it isn't considered newsworthy anymore). What you said about polishing turds rings true in regards to your threads. You can make it seem you are handling a topic (seems always the same topic btw) openminded and with reason but it doesn't hide that you are very prejudiced, subjective and ironically..... displaying your own typical kind of selective ignorance

 

Cos you don't understand it, and I don't think you're willing to try, possibly because you're scared of turning into one those foul uncritical religious beasties.



Regarding the shocking display of behaviour you see in the news.. that's just humanity in a confused and agitated state. If we're not warring over religion we're warring over food, oil, or "terror", or who get's the kids after a failed relationship. We'll find any excuse to kill each other.

The roots of all religion begin in love, what happens after that is down to translation.. It's like playing a .flac through one of those early walkman phones. Yes, the song is obviously going to sound like fucking shit.. what you're doing is thinking that the shit sound is down to a shit file. Question: Have you ever tried upgrading your speaker system? It's pretty simple, just gotta notice the hiss.

 

You mean as opposed to a regular ego fantasy? God is that which we invoke. It is what you invoke when you say god is this that or the other thing. You can't help but speak of it and without it who would you complain to?

 

We know them by their fruit, them being the quality of our own determinations. What picture of the world do they bring to you? The measure you give is the measure you receive, that measure being your subjective determination.

 

He's saying you're actually invoking your higher conscience and conflating it with talking to an exterior deity called God.

 

Well being that there may be a thing called higher consciousness what calls us to it? We always choose with a guide.

 

No, higher conscience as in our innate and learned abilities to aspire to what we may deem as moral and right but don't necessarily carry out.

Several variables likely lead us to : poor decisions, feeling threatened, intuition, social cues, etc.

 

Yes innate first then learned in kind. The image of god as creator looks like the process we emerge from, we do not create ourselves although we can influence our rate of growth in terms of becoming competent with the materials. I don't regard moral considerations as being higher values of consciousness. They are more like debates about worthiness and as such they are worthless to the studious in that they are not standard metrics but sensational regards without sound distinction.

It can be observed that self interest is the abiding life style and differences in behavior can be attributed to self conception. The moral arguments are the same no matter whose side you take, they miss all together the moral fact of living things that we are earnestly devoted to our own good. One distorting self conception is that man is fallible. Certainly we make make mistakes in judgment but the correction for that is simply to happen on the correct distinction. It is part of our finely functioning equipment to experience varying levels of satisfaction so that we might be able to distinguish what is good for food and what is not. Our observable function as human beings is to taste and to know which are the communal elements of coming to know or learning.

The hardest nut to crack in our experience of life is our early conditioning. Our culturally instilled artifices distort our apprehension of the world as we look for clues in the wrong places as a matter of training and habit. It is this poverty of previous learning that causes the essential disease we see in the world or as they say in the east ignorance is the root of suffering. All superstitions and the desire for related taboos come from moralistic views. One religious teaching is that we are godlike. In this sense there need be no greater god but satisfaction only in being like him. By like him I mean as we are natively endowed in creation or creative process.

 

So to back up con-science is a tension that creates false distinctions.

 

Therefore so is God

 

Only if you identify with conscience or as you will invoke it. That is a conclusion I can't help you with or support in fact. I have no feelings of conscience in my associations with god. If you could call god a willing nature as it appears in us then god's will and my will are the same and there is no conflict of interest. I am lawful in all instances and not bound by feelings of conscience. I have clear consciousness.

 

^

 

I understand what you are talking about when you say turds and that is true. Not what I am talking about. Conscience is, an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

That is not what I do nor is a part of my psychic gestalt. I am not at all concerned with my behavior but with the landscape. Truth is my guide. Truth is relative and relative to the moment and it is relevant only to true terms which are same different and purposeful.


On the subject of emotion then there are two poles, plus and minus, love and fear. From these we get the subsets orsociety of emotions, and there is another emotional space that is unqualified and does not oscillate between polarities or an imperturbable state.

We can look at thoughts in the same way in that we have thoughts in detail that are true and thoughts in detail that are false and from this we get the sense of competition and from this we get the society of opinion, and there is another mental state that is open minded or watchful and to this one the flow of information is unopposed.

The phenomenal result of the thought emotion nexus comes out as pleasant or unpleasant experience for all concerned. We are very one sided or purposeful in our preference between those two, we are however conflicted on the route to those estates of happiness and fulfillment etc. The predominant world view at the moment is that those things are acquired through action. So the conception is that we must do things to achieve status. In this view talk is cheap and ideas are just opinions. This view however doesn't account for being in the moment and truthfully having and being are the same. You know happiness when you are in fact happy and you know fulfillment as you emotionally encounter it. On this basis the choice or thought comes first and from this our articulations emerging as our deeds or misdeeds depending on the factual quality of our determinations.

Unpleasant experience then is imagination gone amok, or a lack of clear vision or the lack of perception of clear images.When we perceive clearly then words have a far more exacting function which is to create appearance, then is is utterly important that your thoughts words and deeds be consistent or you will yourself be deceived by your own appearances and those of others.


I think we all understand that emotion is vibration or frequency. Higher frequencies create organized complex patterns of what is called sacred geometry. Lower frequencies have much less power to organize and are easily transcended by the higher. So in terms of being good it is not helpful to attempt to modify behavior and purification is more aptly to be understood and actually accomplished as frequency modulation.