Morality and Subjectivity

Well if you don't think that words have meanings then there's no point in trying to discuss things. If on the other hand you do then an intersubjective morality works in exactly the same way. It is agreed to affix the label "moral" to a set of behaviours and "immoral" to another and that is what those words mean. T

If your getting the notion (given CK springing manically into the arena) that there are folk fighting for your soul..then you would be right

Before we get too carried away with that flight of fantasy - it's really none of my business how Robin comes to his conclusions or my place to "convert" him.I'm not even sure what it is that I'd be preaching in this "fight" I've said it before and I'll say it again - everyone we have here is generally pretty convinced of their position. I actually don't know very much about the position that Robin takes and I don't think than a desire to know more has to take place in the normal pointscoring manner we have around here. I think we could do with a few more threads where we just chat.

Who the hell is Bob?

Sages and for this example I'll take one I have the deepest respect for, Shri Ramana Maharshi, see value in approaching God in whatever way fits best with any given individual. The point being that it gives the mind something to focus on and quiet the restless seeking and thinking.Some individuals need a human image to relate to whether that be Jesus, Krishna, Siva, or their living guru. Other people take a more mathmatical approach as did Franklin Merrell-Wolff.Jesus Christ is a fine choice until individuals create an ego based religious exclusivity around their dogma and limit their developement to conventianal ego views.In my view what is useful is moving beyond the ego based view of one's life and realizing that one is part of something much larger. The universe at all scales is amazing and that it exists at all is miracle enough for me.But there are many ways of approaching that that is beyond and is the source of the mystery. European history has largely ignored any but Christian and Judeo Christian approaches which attempt to claim a monopoly on truth. If it works for you fine, but if the rather glaring logical problems are a barrier I think one can check out the approaches of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. to see if there lies a path that fits and works.What I am strongly critical of is the fundamentalist claim that my path, which ever one that is, is the ONLY path and all others are wrong. I can state that I hate that approach. Some Christians on this board have claimed I hate Christians because of this passionate feeling on my part, though I've quite good relationships in real life with Christians some of whom are family and really I don't hate Christians or Christianity though I am reflectively intolerant of intolerance and I'll admit this is immature and irrational on my part but then nothing manifest is a finished product.lfen

Jesus calls for dying to self. The greatest Christian teachers relentlessly advise learning to subordinate yourself to others, not to fight against whatever God sends into your life because it is intended to mortify your self, your flesh, your sins, and so on. This is not an "ego based view." You are simply wrong that there are many paths to truth. Christ is the way, He said so. You simply have today's soothing syncretistic relativistic point of view. You are welcome to it, it's a free country and all that, but our position is that you are factually objectively wrong. Of course you are critical of this. There's nothing that soothes the ego more than thinking you can choose your own personal path to God and don't have to find yourself at fault, and don't have to bow to God's requirements. Certainly. The fallen egocentric flesh hates God and His demanding judgmental Law. Of course you hate it. Your brand of dogma and mine are mutually contradictory. Both cannot be true.

There is ample material for that view in Christianity. In writing that I was largely thinking of the themes in Iano's latest posts and it seems to me his appeal is that through belief in God the ego will be saved and allowed to go to heaven. And I think that characterizes the bulk of popular Christianity. I don't find the penetrating insight into the ego that is the substance of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but rather I see an appeal to the ego's fear of survival. Christianity is as much if not more of a syncretic system as Buddhism or Advaita. As to soothing I don't know why you suddenly are claiming Christianity's "all you have to do is believe and you'll go to heaven while everybody else goes to hell" is not a soothing point of view for Christians who feel that they now have it made and are justified in their self righteous condemnation of any who disagree with them, and I'm specifically addressing you in this current post of yours.lfen

Well I've always been attracted to the mystics myself, and I think that the guarantee of heaven is just the starting point of a lot of hard work conforming oneself to the image of Christ which involves a lot of battering to the ego. But you must start with that security or you won't have the energy to build. Not that I've lived it personally beyond some fits and starts, or even held to the security of salvation consistently at times, I'm simply saying that Christianity contains the instructions for a genuine self-transcendance, and it's the only one that will save anybody too. I disagree totally. It is straight from God's revelation to the Jews. I don't have that view and in fact I don't know anybody who does. We wouldn't be trying so hard to take you with us if we were so pridefully smug. Happy yes, overjoyed at times, certainly. But I can get tied up in knots on behalf of people in my life who aren't saved, that I can only pray for because of their stubborn refusal to listen.But semantically speaking these are different meanings of "soothing" I think. Soothing in the sense of ego-stroking in the first case, in the sense of comfort and security in the second. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'd have to reread it to be sure what he means myself, and I've never much liked the idea either, but I think there's more to it than that. If I remember correctly, he weighs the consequences of believing versus not believing given various claims of Christianity, and shows that your chances are far and away better if you believe.

Well, Jesus said "Seek and you shall find." If you really want to know if it's true, and sincerely seek in the most likely places and by the most likely means to find out if it is true, Jesus promises success.God reads the innermost thoughts of your heart and mind all the time whether you want Him to or not. Prayer is directing them to Him in the spirit of addressing a good and powerful King, petitioning for His favor in your cause. Anyone can do that. Ask and ask and ask in the privacy of your own mind, as if to a God who might possibly exist, to show you that He is there, so that you can believe. It helps if you are sincerely willing to do what He says.Knowing the cause of suffering, and having the answer to all sorts of such questions, doesn't really happen until AFTER you believe.Yes if you really come to believe, drastic is the word for the change you will experience.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

yeah but his gambit was flawed from the outset - so it only gives you a "better" change if you don't take that into account.The problems with his gambit are explained in great detail here: Pascal’s Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'll bump that old thread up if it's still open, when I get a chance. I respond to your criticism of the "point-scoring" mentality, an attitude I'm certainly guilty of.

I don't know what posts you are referring to but I have in recent times indeed referred to the benefits of heaven and downsides of hell. But something which sits at the centre of it all and whose significance might have been missed in considering my approach to be that of good cop/bad cop is the idea of 'acceptance'. Acceptance of his offer to save a person (for which there are many consequences of which going to heaven/not going to hell are but two)Such acceptance results in the total destruction of the ego. For when a person accepts his offer they are also and inevitably doing the following too;- acknowledging God's existance - for who can accept the offer of a person they don't acknowledge the existance of? Ego denies Gods existance.- acknowledging he is God and therefore sits on the throne. It is he who has ultimate rights over their lives not them. They do not, as they previously thought, belong to themselves - they belong to him who made them. They are his property to do with as he wills. Acknowledgement of this involves ego stepping down from the throne.- acknowledging that they need salvation which acknowledges they are sinners - something which ego denies - the "I'm not so bad why would God have a problem with me?" illusion. No one can accept an offer of salvation unless they are brought to the place (by God) of realising they are in need of it.- acknowledgement that they are not in a position to earn salvation under own steam - whereas the ego says it is powerful enough and doesn't need Gods handouts. Accepting ones need places one in Gods debt. The ego seeks to avoid being indebted or dependant on anybody but itself.- acknowledging that they need forgiveness for their sin. Ego denies having done wrong. Ego self-justifies and points the finger of blame anywhere but at itselfThere is more but you hopefully get the idea. Accepting his offer is tacit acknowledgement of these things. In accepting, the person allows their ego to be placed on the altar. God accepts the offering and slays it. He puts it completely to death. Destroys it. And its not even ego who manages to accomplish this work - the ego wriggles and squirms to tries to escape. The ability of the person to arrive at this point is enabled totally by God. And if they do not reject his attempts to bring them to this altar then saved they most certainly will be. Saved not by own effort (cos that would mean ego at work) but by Gods effort.The 'I' remains but is as it was always intended to be: "I" dependant on him is not the same as "I" enslaved by ego.Edited by iano, : typos and clarityEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Good post, iano. Just believing and accepting the terms of faith in Christ is a breaking of ego, very true. When you get to the point of saying I don't care what You put me through in order to get it, I want everything You are offering, I'll play any kind of fool You like, I'll take any kind of guff, then you're on your way to the Kingdom. Of course the ego dies hard and has a lot to learn about how willing to be a fool and take guff you really are, but the desire for it goes a long way.

Yeah, I suppose taking the point further would bring out the process-in-time part of things. Acceptance is death of the ego in the sense that God crucifies it in eternity so die it does - but in time it takes a little while for it to draw its last breadth. It gasps, splutters, coughs and farts all the way to eternity. To the point of our actual last breadth I suppose."But he that has begun a good work WILL bring it to completion" Thank GodDunno about how far of a fool I am prepared to be myself at this juncture - although if those we attempt to point in his directions view counted for anything then I mightn't be doing too bad
(I even got a Fotm an hour ago!)Thanks sis