Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 40 of 438 (797490)
01-22-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
01-21-2017 7:25 PM


GDR writes:
Sure, but that doesn't give evidence one way or the other about the basic truth of the Christian faith.
No, it doesn't.
I also wasn't attempting to do any such thing.
I would point out though, that view is more prevalent in a society that has a Judeo Christian root amongst people with all sorts of beliefs including atheists.
Are you sure about that?
I got my ideas mostly from Eastern religions, really.
I function in both environments and my experience doesn't reflect that. For example, in my Christian environment we are sponsoring several refugee families and in my secular environment there is more concern about problems they might cause when they get here and would rather we weren't doing it all.
The idea that one person, who is a Christian, thinks Christianity is the better... fits exactly with the idea I'm trying to describe.
My personal experience is different from yours.
My personal experience being different also fits exactly with my idea.
How does it fit in with yours? Am I lying? Am I mistaken? Is it impossible for some-certain group of atheists to be nicer than some-certain group of Christians? Are such 'Christians' not really Christians, so it doesn't count in your opinion? Are nice, helpful 'atheists' not really atheists in your opinion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 01-21-2017 7:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 01-25-2017 7:55 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 41 of 438 (797492)
01-22-2017 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
01-22-2017 8:28 AM


Re: IF Stile met Jesus
Phat writes:
The question in my mind is whether you would accept Him on His terms or whether you would reject Him on your terms.
That depends on what you're trying to say.
What are my terms?
What are His?
I can tell you that if God was good and helpful and awesome, I'd accept Him without issue.
I can also tell you that if God is powerful enough to stop little girls from being raped... yet He allows it to continue... I would not accept Him.
You seem to say that you have found what is best for you but He may want you to accept what He thinks is best for you rather than what you personally feel more comfortable with.
A possibility, for sure.
Again, taking extremely serious events with very harmful consequences... if God wants me to be "okay" with allowing people to rape little girls... I'm just not going to do that.
If God wants me to be "okay" with helping other people live the best lives we can, I'll certainly get on board.
And by the way, when I say "His terms" I mean His personally and not what religion tells you to think.
This statement doesn't clarify anything for me... I still don't know what you mean by "His terms."
Keep hypothetical with me, here
I consider all discussions involving God to be hypothetical

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 01-22-2017 8:28 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 01-23-2017 4:11 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 51 of 438 (797743)
01-26-2017 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
01-25-2017 7:55 PM


GDR writes:
Sure, but like I said the society, Canada, does have a Judeo Christian root regardless of where your specific ideas have come from.
Oh, you just mean to say that Canada has Judeo Christian roots? Then I completely agree. I thought you were trying to say my personal ideas were more prevalent in a society that has Judeo Christian roots... which is not correct, my personal ideas are more prevalent in areas where the roots have more to do with Eastern religions.
GDR writes:
My being Christian does not at all mean that I am going to be "nicer or more self sacrificing" than the atheist next door, but it should mean that I am more that way than I had been before.
And this is the point I'm making.
Christianity helped you be more than you were before.
Christianity doesn't help me be more than I was before.
Christianity doesn't help everyone be more than they were before.
Atheism helped me be more than I was before.
Atheism doesn't help you be more than you were before.
Atheism doesn't help everyone be more than they were before.
Christianity is "special" in the sense that it helped you, personally.
Atheism is "special" in the sense that it helped me, personally.
But Christianity is "not special" in some sense that it could help everyone in the same way... I am living proof that it's not capable of such a thing.
Just as Atheism is "not special" in some sense that it could help everyone in the same way... you are living proof that it's not capable of such a thing.
There is no "general benefit" that works for everyone that comes from Christianity.
There is no "general benefit" that works for everyone that comes from Atheism.
There certainly is a "general benefit" that everyone needs... some will get it from Christianity, some will get it from Atheism, most will get it from various other sources.
Everything you've said agrees with this except for your tone.
Every point you make, aligns with what I've stated here... but your tone seems to be that you don't agree with it, that something is 'not right' to you... But every time you attempt to clarify what that is, you just say something more that agrees with the point I'm making. It's confusing.
For example:
I did point that my own view was anecdotal, but I did give an actual example in the case of dealing with refugees. Nearly all of the money raised in the area has come from various Christian communities and the same is true, although again not completely, for the time spent helping them. The first group that came was Muslim.
You seem to want to offer this anecdotal evidence as something that proves some point that doesn't fit exactly with what I'm saying... but this statement doesn't actually go against anything I've described. This anecdotal evidence is expected. I'd be very concerned about my ideas if you didn't have such anecdotal evidence.
I'd suggest that if Christianity doesn't make a change in someone's life then they have simply given intellectual ascent to Christianity but have not committed themselves to what it is they say they believe. However, they still would be Christians.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Are you trying to say it applies to me, or did you intend to touch on some more-general idea?
Christianity does not make a change in my life (for the better, anyway).
But... I do not understand what you mean by "given intellectual ascent to Christianity." Do you mean "aligns with some of the same ideals as Christianity?" Like - being nice to others, not killing, not stealing... that sort of thing? I certainly do accept such things as good ideals and morals to have. But I would never describe it as "giving intellectual ascent to Christianity." In fact, if this is what you're talking about... it would more aptly be described as "Christianity giving intellectual ascent to good, moral principals." Since the ideas can develop independently and/or stand on their own without Christianity, and they certainly existed well before Christianity did. All you have to do is make a personal decision to want to help people instead of hurting people and such ideas flow naturally from there. No mention of Christianity or God required for their derivation.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "have not committed themselves to what it is they say they believe."
I say I believe in love, and doing "good" by which I mean helping others instead of hurting others.
I would also say I have committed myself to such ideas.
I also don't really care what other people call me. I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a Christian, but if someone wanted to call me one anyway... I would accept such a compliment and simply think "...well, it's how they think of nice things, so it's nice. Confusing... but nice."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 01-25-2017 7:55 PM GDR has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 71 of 438 (798067)
01-30-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 12:54 PM


Can you be more helpful?
mike the wiz writes:
I would say the overall theme is, "what can God do for me", as though God is some type of vendor machine.
I apologize for coming off that way. I intended to come off as saying something more along the lines of "what can God do for me," as though God is some type of benevolent Creator and Protector of all of mankind and the universe and everything.
I am a selfish man.
I want very much to better myself as much as possible.
I want to help others as much as I can.
I want to reduce the amount of hurt I do to others as much as I can.
I want to be happy, and spread happiness as much as I can.
I want to be full of love and spread love to others as much as I can.
If you know of any benefits that would help me do any of those things "better" I would (very selfishly) ask you to share them with me so that I could learn and grow.
But there is a special benefit to knowing God...
Fantastic! Hopefully you could explain it to me.
...which comprises of the gifts of the spirit and the fruit of the spirit. The love of God for example, is an incredible thing to have, and it compels us to do things which we were always meant to do.
Oh. I see.
I already have incredible things, and feelings and experiences.
I do not understand what you mean by "always meant to do." If I was meant to hurt others or anything like that... I do not want to do what I was "meant to do." However, if you mean something along the lines of helping others out as much as possible... this is exactly what I'm interested in... although I am already compelled to do such things, and God does not seem to be required.
Perhaps you could be more specific?
I do not recognize anything here that is not available without God.
world doesn't want to deal with things, so you abort (murder)
Abortion, to me, doesn't seem so simple. In fact, I could just as easily say "mike the wiz doesn't want to deal with things... so he doesn't abort (condemning mothers to care for children that were forced upon them by their rapists)." But I am not here to discuss the pros and cons of abortion in this thread. It might be best if we use some... less polarizing examples, or else we may find ourselves heading far off-topic.
it doesn't want to do the right thing so it re-brands sin
This phrase doesn't mean much of anything to me.
Could you define to me what you mean by "the right thing?"
I want to do the right thing. And I define "the right thing" as that which helps people instead of hurts people.
Do you have a 'better' definition of "the right thing?"
Are you saying that those who believe in God always do the right thing? That doesn't seem to be true...
The world's message is to get ahead, step on people, get your own success, and don't bother with God because He is only there to spoil your fun.
That is not my message.
And I am not a believer in God either.
How does that fit with your model of things?
What is your message? Is it something that provides a way to be a better person that cannot be obtained from anywhere else?
So I have to say this, your message is pretty expected, because the flesh only knows the flesh, it does not know selflessness.
After reading your response, I'm pretty sure you do not understand my message.
My message is about helping others and not hurting others. If you have any improvements on such a message, I would be interested in hearing what you may have to offer, though.
But this thread isn't about what my stance actually is... it's about trying to improve my stance. For that, I need input from you on what your stance is, and what you think is "better." If you would be so kind as to try and help, it would be appreciated.
"FORGET SELF, and follow me." - Jesus Christ.
That seems like a good message. What does "follow me" mean? Does it mean to help people instead of hurt people? I'm already trying to do that as best I can. Perhaps if you could be more specific, we could move on to something with more... content.
And you know the cool thing about it? Well God's so smart, you know what He does? He flips the script. As soon as your focus is OFF self, then guess what? The blessing come pouring in!
What an awesome God we have!
But I do not believe in God, and I already have what others would describe as "blessings."
I have love in my live.
I share love with many friends and family in my life.
I have happy, joyous, amazing times pretty much everyday with those I share life with.
I am very comfortable.
I am able to enjoy giving comfort to others.
What other blessings could possible "pour in?"
That's the point here.
To see if there's something available to those who believe in God that is not available to others.
So far, you haven't mentioned anything. Just some vague generalities here and there.
This seems to imply that you are either unable or unwilling to mention any possible benefits to believing in God.
If you are unable and wish to help others... hopefully the clarifications I've made here will help you be more specific in your future explanations.
If you are unwilling... then I don't see why you are even attempting to post here? A "benefit" from God that includes an un-willingness to help others doesn't seem to be any sort of "benefit" I would want to try and obtain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 12:54 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 01-30-2017 8:00 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 73 of 438 (798143)
01-31-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
01-30-2017 8:00 PM


Re: Hope this helps
GDR writes:
I have two fundamental beliefs that if I couldn’t hold them I would not refer to myself as a Christian. My view is that Christianity hangs on these two beliefs. The first is that God is good, always good and uncompromisingly good. (I’m quite happy with defining good in roughly the terms you outlined in your post.) The second is that God resurrected Jesus, into a new type of eternal bodily form after His crucifixion. All of my other Christian beliefs flow from those two fundamental beliefs. If I am wrong then I have nothing to offer in response to your question. As I said, truth matters.
I certainly agree that truth matters. The list I provided was not intended to be exhaustive.
If however I am correct then I can say that as humans and specifically Christians we are called to band together and work co-operatively in order to more effectively love our neighbour, wherever that neighbour happens to live. The Samaritan was Christ’s neighbour. Also we are told that our hearts as Christians are more open to that still small voice of God or His Holy Spirit that touches the hearts of all of us, than we would be otherwise. Again, anecdotally, but that has been my experience which is not to say that I am any better at living this way than what you are.
I would say that we are not "called to" work together.
But I still "want to" work together, and I'm filled with joy and happiness whenever I find like-minded individuals (for whatever-reason-they-hold-dear).
To me, personally, it is better to make this decision on one's own instead of following "some call" from any authority. That is, anyone can follow an order (being "called") to do something... but to do something because you think you need to do it... to be a good person just because you think it's the right thing to do... without any higher authority to fall back on... that (to me) speaks to the core of someone's heart as opposed to then having to ask "why do you follow the calling?" Which, of course, the answer may very well similarily be "because I want to."
But, I fully admit that this reasoning behind why we should work together is a minimal thing. It doesn't really matter. What matters (to me) is the idea of people wanting to work together for a "good and better" life. I don't really care what anyone's specific reason for such a decision is... I just care if they want such a thing or not. Because, if someone does not want such a thing... it belies a certain "ugly soul" kind of negativity that I fully believe should be fought against and shunned from normal society.
Also we are told that our hearts as Christians are more open to that still small voice of God or His Holy Spirit that touches the hearts of all of us, than we would be otherwise.
Perhaps it is.
Perhaps it is not.
That's my question
Can you show that it is?
Again, I'm quite sure that for "some specific people" (perhaps yourself) it most certainly is.
But, of course, I'm also sure that "for some specific people" (like myself) it most certainly is not.
For myself, I am able to listen to my conscience a lot better by remembering to put others first instead of myself. Taking a moment and taking things slowly is what works for me. Any thinking of God does the same thing as thinking of anything-else (for me)... it actually reduces how much I think about others and leads me to be more selfish. I will fully admit that this doesn't work for everyone... but that's exactly my point... my way doesn't work for everyone and neither does yours.
I can show you how it appears that it does not work for all Christians... by showing you that Christians are not any-more-likely to help other people. That Christians are not any-more-likely to not-get-divorced (say) or that they are not any-more-likely to end up in jail and many other such social norms that show that Christians "as a group" are just as moral and immoral as the rest of society.
Christianity tells us that ultimately at the end of time, whenever that is, God will be renewing and resurrecting all things. The good and loving things that we do now, whether it is for others, for animals, for the planet or whatever are somehow used by God as part of this renewed world. We are called to work in anticipation of and for that day. It is my belief that we have purpose and meaning beyond the time when the universe as we know it comes to an end.
This most certainly could be a benefit that only comes from God.
Of course, it could also work against you just as easily, too. Perhaps the being-in-charge is not God, but some other powerful being. This other-power-being is just fine with those who worship him, as well as atheists (as they don't worship anyone) but he doesn't accept those who picked God to worship... so they don't get an afterlife.
Or maybe only atheists get an afterlife and anyone who believes in any god does not.
So, yes, you could be right on this one. But, unfortunately, we don't have much information on "what happens when we die" yet... so we really can't say one way or another. So, to me, such a possibility is useless without anything to show that it could actually be a part of reality. Otherwise, it's simply a gamble with "atheism" (or any other belief) having the exact same odds of winning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 01-30-2017 8:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2017 12:46 PM Stile has replied
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 02-01-2017 5:28 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 75 of 438 (798245)
02-01-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
01-31-2017 12:46 PM


Re: Hope this helps
New Cat's Eye writes:
I would describe my desire to help people as being called to do it.
Much like any desire, its not that it comes from my mind as much as I just experience it through feeling.
I think it's very important that we acknowledge that each and every one of us is "the authority" on our own personal feelings.
I don't think we all "feel" or "experience feelings" in the same way. I think that such things are partly shaped by our physiology but also shaped by our experiences and current understandings.
So where do those feelings come from?
Short answer? I don't know.
Do you think that your self is the sole source of them?
Yes.
Are you sure about that?
Absolutely not.
Would those feelings be there if there was not a God providing them? I don't know, but I doubt it. That's what separates us from the other animals, imho, or, er: the men from the boys
I don't think that having feelings separates us from the animals. I think that how we react to the feelings we receive is what separates us. That is, I think animals experience feelings as well... but we tend to call them "instincts" when animals are concerned due to how they instantly react and "choose" a course of action.
For us, we experience feelings, but we also have the ability to use our intelligence to filter more on what we're going to do with those feelings. Are we going to go without initial instinct? Are we going to think about it a bit longer? We seem to be capable of a more drawn-out, analytical process.
Now, from my experiences, you don't even have to believe in God to tap into that source and be driven to follow your desires (that, of course, wouldn't negate God's necessity if it were true).
I would agree.
But, realizing that it is not your self that you owe all your wonderful desires to ends up helping the individual find the drive to follow those desires more strongly.
I would say that such a realization would help certain individuals find the drive to follow those desires more strongly.
I don't think this is the sort of thing that works for everyone in the same way.
I would also say that some people realizing that such things are "from themselves, not externally created" will again help certain people find the drive to follow those desires more strongly.
My point on this is that we need to figure out what type of person we are, and move on from there.
I would also add that (as far as I know) there is no evidence pointing one way or another on such an "existential" issue... I don't think we can "know" whether or not such things are externally provided or internally created. Perhaps one is right, perhaps the other is wrong, perhaps both hold some truth. I don't think our knowledge is at the point where we know such things yet. But, please, correct me if you're aware of any advances in such areas.
The strength in the drive from that "call" can exceed the one that comes solely from the individual's willpower to follow their own desires.
For me, it's the other way around. My individual willpower seems (and always has been) an unending, seemingly-infinite source of motivational power that has always (in my personal experience, of being me) been stronger than any and all external forces ever acting upon me in my life.
I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, in my view, I expect many people to be the way you're describing... that the external power is larger and stronger than anything you've ever experienced.
What I'm saying is that you are right for you (I can't actually say that... only you can say that... this just seems to be what you're saying...).
And I am right for me (this I can definitively say... since I am me).
...as long as we don't have evidential-knowledge one way or the other that says otherwise, anyway. Because, to me, "the truth" is also very important... but as far as I can tell, what I'm describing (different for different people) *is* the truth. Or, at least, not contradicted by any accessible observations.
In that way, a benefit that is only available through God would be the meeting the goal that you could not achieve on your own by yourself.
And this, I agree with. However, this is what I describe as "individual benefits for specific people" as opposed to some sort of "general, objective benefit that would work for everyone."
I suppose if there's nothing you can't do, and you have it all figured out and are doing everything that your heart desires, then perhaps there's nothing left for God to help you with
I wouldn't say there nothing I can't do on my own.
I'm only saying I get "my most powerful feeling of motivation and purpose" from inside myself (as far as I can tell, anyway).
I can only testify that opening myself up to God has allowed me to achieve things that I couldn't before. Other than that, I could try to show you the way to the door, but you have to open it yourself and look inside and be ready to accept that there may be something there responding.
I'm not trying to get at "personal benefits" that help you do something you couldn't before.
I can achieve "things I couldn't do before" without God (as far as I'm aware).
I'm looking more for something that only God can provide.
Like an afterlife would be an example (but, obviously, this isn't "known" and has it's own issues).
Not things like "I'm happier than I've ever been!"... that's fantastic, but I'm happier than I've ever been without God... so this doesn't seem to be something that only God can provide.
And I don't even know if it's God, that's just a fairly decent term to use to talk about this thing.
Works for me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2017 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2017 12:08 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 77 of 438 (798286)
02-01-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
02-01-2017 12:08 PM


Re: Hope this helps
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
I think it's very important that we acknowledge that each and every one of us is "the authority" on our own personal feelings.
I don't think so. Take "The Muse" for example: When I'm being creative and I get an inspiration, it can very much feel like the source is not my self. In order to really get the full fruit of the inspiration, you have to submit to it and let go of your control over it. That, to me, is very much not being the authority on that personal feeling.
We're missing each other here.
When I say "the authority on our own personal feelings" I mean this:
If I look deep in thought, and you come up to me, and think I'm sad, and ask me how I'm doing... and I say "I'm happy." But you then say, "nope, I saw you... you're sad."
This is what I'm talking about. As long as you don't think I'm lying... If I say I'm happy, I'm "the authority on my own personal feelings" in the sense that you don't get to say I'm sad just because you think my deep-in-thought-face looked sad to you.
Here, I'm not really talking about where the feeling comes from, but more what the feeling actually is (to the person feeling it).
This gets into things like comparing happiness. Is this even possible?
Are you happier than me? Am I happier? How can such a thing be judged? On some level, it can be... that is, if you are crying and profess that you are sad... and I'm laughing and profess to be happy... then obviously I am "happier" than you.
But what if we are both laughing and profess to be happy?
Does the width or size of the smile matter?
What if someone's nerves in their mouth no longer work due to an accident? Is their happiness forbidden?
These are the sorts of questions I intend to deal with when I mention someone being "the authority on the feelings they have."
Not "where those feelings actually come from."
There is more inside of you than your self
Are you talking more of a conscious vs unconscious kind of thing?
That is... I may like chocolate.. but why do I like chocolate?
If I get the urge to eat some chocolate, I did not consciously decide-to-get-an-urge... so it came from "not myself?"
I certainly agree with this... concept.
and there's power in realizing that you're not dependent on only your self in finding the will and drive to achieve your goals.
But I still only agree with this if you add on to the end for some people.
Are you in complete control of your will?
No.
In the sense that I don't decide-to-get-an-urge-to-eat-chocolate... I just "get the urge."
In the sense that I don't want to feel road-rage when I get cut-off in traffic, I just do... then I have to deal with it so I don't ram my vehicle into the "offender."
If you have the will to do something, can you simply decide to change that into desiring something different?
Yes.
At least, for some things.
For example: road-rage. I get cut-off... I am filled with the will, the desire, the neeeeeed to ram my car straight into his candy ass.
But I decide to change that into desiring something different.
I think of my wife, my friends, having to go to jail if I followed my desire of road-rage and never seeing them again.
And it melts away.
My desire changes.
My will changes.
I no longer have a will or desire to crash into the jerk.
I just smile and laugh at "the jerk" and continue with my own more-conscious desires for the day.
In fact, I have never come across a will-I-did-not-want-to-have that I have not been able to change or "release" (may be a better word?) and replace with another will that I do actually want.
Some, I have not tried to change.
Like, I did not choose to love my wife... I loved her when I met her.. and now I want to love her more and more.
Can I choose to not love her?
I don't know. And I really don't care to try and find out, either.
Based on my experiences, I think I could, theoretically... but I would require some other motivation that I desired in order to make the change... some reason to not love her any more. Maybe she cheats on me? Maybe I become a terrible, horrible person?
and there's power in realizing that you're not dependent on only your self in finding the will and drive to achieve your goals.
This is what I mean... for me, there's power in realizing that I am dependent on my self in finding the will and drive to achieve my goals.
Does this mean you're wrong? I don't think so.
I think it just means we're different.
I work this way, you work that way.
Or, is it more like your will is this thing that provides to you those desires that you then pursue?
This is true for me sometimes.
But I can also mold my will to whatever-it-is-I-want-it-to-be if I "get one" I don't like.
Unless, of course, I'm miss-understanding you again.
Your mileage may vary.
That's exactly my point.
Except my point is that your mileage may very a hell of a lot depending on just "how different" we really are.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
In fact, in my view, I expect many people to be the way you're describing... that the external power is larger and stronger than anything you've ever experienced.
It's internal. It's just that it is not from "me". Does that change your response?
Not the sentiment of my response, but it does change my wording in order to facilitate communication so we're closer to the same page. I'd now say:
In fact, in my view, I expect many people to be the way you're describing... that the internal, not-from-their-conscious "self" power is larger and stronger than anything they've ever experienced.
But I'd still say that, to me, my internal, fully conscious self is the most-powerful thing I've ever experienced.
Again, I think it has to do with some combination of physiology, experience and understanding.
Maybe one of us is wrong.
Maybe we're both right to some degree.
Maybe we're both absolutely right, just "right for ourselves individually" (my theory/stance/argument).
I can say this:
I grew up in a VERY safe and stable household.
My parents rarely fought. They didn't drink, didn't do drugs, didn't gamble, didn't cheat on each other, didn't have different ideas on what to do with money, didn't have any massive wedge between them at all. They loved each other as close to a fairy tale movie than any other real-life relationship I've ever seen... they did whatever they could to provide for us and teach us life.
My childhood was extremely protected, sheltered and comfortable. Some is because of my parents, and some is just luck (really).
By the time I was introduced to the evils and terrors of the world, my brain and intelligence had grown to the point where I could understand it, understand my place in it, and understand my personal risk, involvement and illusion of safety.
I also happened to be a very athletic, physically coordinated and smart-enough boy.
Therefore, during my "formative years" I never experienced terrifying fear.
I never experienced "a situation out of my control."
I never experienced "something I couldn't practice a few times and basically master. (relative to my peers)"
I never experienced "an issue I couldn't overcome."
Now, that I'm older and more... "worldly," I've certainly experienced all these things and more. But experiencing these things after you've already developed an adult-brain is a lot different from experiencing such things during your "formative years." They affect you differently.
Is that why I am the way I am?
Maybe.
Maybe it's just lucky.
Maybe I molded myself and my environment allowed me to do so.
Maybe it's just the way I was meant to be and nothing could have changed it.
Maybe God made me this way.
I don't know.
Maybe what I just explained has nothing whatsoever to do with how I am this way.
But I am this way.
And it seems to be very different from how you are. And we both seem very different from how Phat is (just to show I don't think it's some sort of dichotomy).
In fact, whenever I get into this sort of "nitty-gritty" with anyone, it seems pretty much everyone is different on this level. Certain similarities, yes, sometimes... but always certain differences, too.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
I'm only saying I get "my most powerful feeling of motivation and purpose" from inside myself (as far as I can tell, anyway).
Yeah, me too. I'm saying that power is not coming from my "self", though.
Right.
As far as my understanding goes, yours is coming more from your unconscious or "not-conscious" (may describe it better?) internal-ness.
And I am saying that, for me, I definitely get such power from my fully-conscious self.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
Not things like "I'm happier than I've ever been!"... that's fantastic, but I'm happier than I've ever been without God...
How would you know?
The only honest answer here (as far as I can tell) is "I don't know."
But again, this comes back to comparing happiness.
Is your happiness greater than mine?
I don't know. How could we know?
I do know that I've tried the way you're describing... and it doesn't make me as happy as I am now.
I also know that the way I do things now, is the happiest I've ever been.
I'm also saying that I think it's quite possible for the way you're describing to make "you the happiest you're capable of," while my way is the way for "me to be the happiest I'm capable of" simultaneously.
The only purpose for this sentence to be here is to make the post even longer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2017 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2017 12:22 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 81 of 438 (798403)
02-02-2017 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by GDR
02-01-2017 5:28 PM


Re: Hope this helps
Stile writes:
You both seem to agree that we can’t know whether those feelings are totally self generated or if there is an external influence such as the still small voice of God.
I would agree with this.
To expand on my view of it:
-I personally think that there is no "still small voice of God," I think there are many not-conscious parts of "me" that make their way into "my consciousness" in the form of creativity, Jiminy-Cricket-Style "conscience," and other imagination-related ideas.
-I do not have any evidential basis to show such a thing is valid
-I do not have any evidential basis to show such a thing is invalid
-From what observations I can make, this idea seems to explain how such things are possible and not be "contradicted" For example:
If we did say that "the conscience" was "the still small voice of God"... how do we explain the conscience of certain phsychopaths and serial killers who say that their "still small voice" was telling them to hurt other people and such things?
My way - "the conscience" comes from the not-conscious part of the human being... their brain-make up, experiences and understandings could be different from others and therefore causing their conscience to tell them "evil" things.
"Still small voice of God" way - I would assume we say these "evil conciences" are not from God? So then what? The pshycopaths are lying? Maybe. Or it's from "the devil?" Maybe. But these additional ideas seem to me like they are just more "ad hoc" explanations to try and "patch a hole" of an explanation that has some issues.
Of course... this is in no way "objective" or "evidential basis" to show I am right... I'm just explaining my reasoning on why I think the way I think, in light of there being no evidence either way.
GDR writes:
The truth is that Christianity is dependent on the belief that God resurrected Jesus.
I can take your word for that
As we agree, truth matters. We can’t have absolute knowledge of the truth but we can come to a conclusion of what we believe the truth to be.
I absolutely agree.
The question I would ask is for you to consider how you would feel about these things if you were to conclude that Jesus was resurrected by God into a new form of existence nearly 2000 years ago.
I'm not sure if I can do this.
Take my above example... where things "are consistently explainable" to me if I consider "the conscience" to be the way I think it is.
Then if I use the "still small voice of God" way... there are certain... not-consistent outliers that would pick at my brain.
Now, if I "fully believed" in God and Jesus' resurrection... I don't see how this would change the things that pick at my brain. I mean, one method would be to ignore them... thinking something along the lines of "Oh, I'm sure God has this all figured out, nothing for me to focus or worry about, I'll move on..." But that doesn't remove the little ticks at my brain for the open-ended strings.
Could those little ticks at my brain just go away if I "fully believed" in the resurrection of Jesus? I don't know the answer to that question.
If they did... that seems a bit scary in the sense of ignoring certain possibilities of reality, to me.
In fact, this was sort of how my conversion out of being a Catholic happened. I did fully believe in God and being a Catholic and such things. But the more I investigated the "minor inconsistencies" (as I thought of them) that kept picking at my brain... the more I realized that ideas-without-the-involvement-of-God were more consistent and required less ad hoc additional explanations for outliers. I don't mean in some objective sense (regardless of whether or not such evidence exists)... but more of a "makes sense to me and my experiences and my observations and my understandings" kind of way.
Does that make it right or true? I don't think so. Which is why I'd be very open to receiving actual evidence that does point towards God and Jesus and I would fully re-evaluate my position.
I guess my contention would be that the answer to your original question really boils down to what we believe about Jesus. How do we respond to my signature? Is it really God that is calling us to humble justice and kindness or is it just our naturalistic human nature?
Ha ha
That's interesting... you seem to say that we get a different answer depending on how we view things... and I'm saying we get both answers (and that both are okay, and "right") depending on what sort of person we really are.
Sort of saying the same thing... and at the same time, sort of not saying the same thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 02-01-2017 5:28 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 12:20 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 87 of 438 (799085)
02-07-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2017 12:22 PM


Re: Hope this helps
New Cat's Eye writes:
Are you simply content? Or fullfilled? Maybe excited? Even ecstatic? All those are on the happiness spectrum, and could be thought of as more or less happy, but I don't see much value in trying to determine that one person is happy-er than another.
I completely agree.
Which is why I mention that each person is their own "authority on the feelings they have."
You are not capable of saying that I am "excited" or "ecstatic." Such a comparison is something that only I can make for me. And only you can make for you.
Yeah, I think so. But there's more there that a simple preference for taste. Like, say, a strong drive to make positive changes in the world without even having the particulars ironed out yet. Or the knowledge that you can, and are going to, accomplish something you've been meaning to.
That's not something I could respond to with: "Meh, I don't want to do that." The desire stems from the core of my being, and it is not conscious in the way that my thinking is, but I am conscious of it.
For me, sometimes it's loud, and other times it's quiet.
Depends on what the subject is, and how my "unconsciousness" reacts to it.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
New Cat's Eye writes:
and there's power in realizing that you're not dependent on only your self in finding the will and drive to achieve your goals.
But I still only agree with this if you add on to the end for some people.
I'm not convinced that it cannot work for all people.
To be a bit more clear, the point I'm trying to make is not that such a thing doesn't function or "work" in all people... my point is that it's not the "best way" for all people to find the will and drive to achieve their goals.
To make an analogy, I'm sure everyone has a feeling about chocolate. But we do not all agree that chocolate is the best flavor.
I understand that "flavor" is a simple feeling, where "finding the drive to achieve your goals" is a more complicated one... but without some sort of specific deconstruction on exactly how those feelings work... how can we say they should be treated differently?
What if we eventually do get a deconstruction on how such different feelings work... and it turns out that they should be treated similarily as I'm describing?
In other words, this is what I'm asking you:
What, specifically, allows people to have different favourite flavours, but prevents them from having different favourite ways to "find the drive to achieve their goals?"
I'm personally unable to identify a difference.
I do not know of any studies or experiments that offer insight to such an area.
My observations (for example, you and I dealing with things differently) lead me to believe that it is possible for people to have different favourite ways to "find the drive to achieve their goals."
Gotcha. I was explaining to someone: It's almost like you're just stearing the ship... You can guide your desires or fend them off into different directions, but the intensity and angle are given to you, not something that you create yourself.
Right. I'm not arguing that I do not get such urges. I fully admit that I get such urges.
What I'm arguing is that the urge-itself isn't where I get my best "drive to achieve my goals."
I get my best "drive to achieve my goals" from my fully conscious, self-aware decisions.
When I either decide to mold the urge a little abit.
Or maybe I decide to change it drastically.
Perhaps I decide to reject the urge and pick another one entirely.
...But, for me, it is this fully conscious decision on what to do with the urge that provides the "most powerful power" I've ever experienced in finding ways to live my life.
For me, I don't tend to get "one urge" for a situation.
I tend to get 20+ urges, for any given situation that comes up on a daily basis.
Even just walking down the street and seeing a stranger, a flood of "urges" pop into my brain.
I get an urge to shake his hand.
I get an urge to ignore him.
I get an urge to punch him in the face.
I get an urge to hug him.
I get an urge to steal his wallet.
I get an urge to kiss him on the lips.
I get an urge to grab a near by weapon and hit him as hard as I can.
I get an urge to give him all the money I have on my person at the time.
I get an urge to invite him to dinner.
I get an urge to send a spit-ball at the back of his head.
I usually laugh at all the things my brain/body "come up with" for me to handle the situation.
Some urges will be stronger than others, some will be faint. It's not always the same ones that are strong when the "same situation" comes up again, either.
All of this tends to happen in a split-second.
And I then use my intelligence to choose the one I want to do. "Ignore him" is the likely winner for this situation.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
I no longer have a will or desire to crash into the jerk (who just cut me off in traffic).
I wonder: Don't you still want to? You just realize that you want another thing (not going to jail) more?
In that sense, did you really change your desire? Or did you overcome it?
I do not still want to crash into them.
Yes, I just realize that I want another thing more.
I think I did "really change my desire" because I no longer have the previous desire (wanting to crash into the offender), and now have a different one (wanting to reach my destination safely.)
I would also describe this as "overcoming it" though... so I'm not sure of the distinction you're trying to make?
Release, get over, overcome, let go, power-through... yeah, but do you ever really negate it?
Yes. All those things. Even fully negate it.
Your self is only going to get you so far. If you're happy then go on and be happy. If you find that you need more than your self, there's more in there to find.
And what if I were to say that I tried it that way, and did not find anything more. In fact, I found "less."
To me, this goes back to the measuring who is "happy-er."
You are saying I (might) be happier if I do it that way.
I'm saying I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me... I'm happier when I do it this way.
Yet you're trying to say that you know me and my feelings better than I do myself?
I could be lying to you. And I can only provide my personal assurance that I'm not. But now what? Are you still convinced that I'm simply "doing it wrong" because it's more powerful for you to use an alternative method?
Are people who don't like chocolate just "doing flavours" wrong?
What, specifically, is the difference?
I'm saying that we cannot define this difference, or.. at least, to the best of my knowledge we cannot.
Therefore, based on the inability to show a difference, we need to accept that my way (for me) is just as valid/good/the-best-possible-way as your way is (for you).
Desires are fed to the will to be used. I don't think you can change your desires, you can only use your will to guide your actions.
I would agree with this.
In the sense that I don't think we can change the desires we receive into our minds.
But (as I stated above) I do think I can change the desires I accept into my mind.
Can everyone do this? I would assume so... on varying levels. Just as "everyone" can experience empathy... on varying levels.
Some will do it more than others, some less. It's up to the individual and the situation at hand to judge if more or less is "better."
Doing anything more or less is generally helpful for certain situations, yet detrimental for others.
What I do not agree with is that the desires themselves are the most important part in some absolute sense.
I would agree that the desire itself is the most important part for some people.
However, for other people (like myself), it is the fully-conscious side of the equation that is the most important part.
I'm sure others may have other ways to look at these. Maybe some like a combination, some may like a more fluid-approach where they sometimes run on the unconscious side and sometimes on the conscious side. Maybe there's even a third (or more) option on un-conscious vs conscious that I'm not even aware of.
Maybe there's more for you to experience.
Maybe.
Maybe there's more for you to experience.
Who's the best judge of this?
Wouldn't I be the best judge of this for myself?
Aren't you the best judge of this for yourself?
If I'm telling you I've tried it the way you're suggesting, and I find a "fuller experience" the way I'm describing it... why are you unable to take my word for it?
Because I'm different from you?
Why is being-different-from-New Cat's Eye such an obstruction for doing something?
I'm sure we don't like all the same things.
I'm sure we don't react exactly-the-same to all the same stimuli (we are likely not ticklish to the same levels in all the same physical areas).
Why can't we be different in the way we find "the best possible way" to search for and achieve our personal goals?
Well I stared death in the face. Certainly scary and out of my control.
So did my wife, she doesn't deal with these things the way I do either.
Have you looked into Mindfulness? And the difference between the thinking mind and the being mind?
I understand the terms.
My wife uses such things as tools (her therapist introduced her to them).
In our experience, the "idea" is more important than the specifics from the instructor.
That is, my wife's therapist gave her examples of this-and-that to try... and my wife has developed her own specific ideas to use that are more "in-tune" to her personal thoughts and processes.
Some of the developments were mere adaptations, others were outright differences.
As an example: One idea was for my wife to think of herself as a tree, and her "roots" ground her.
But, the idea of being "rooted" is scary to my wife, it makes her uncomfortable. She does, however, like nature and trees.
So she altered the idea to being a tree with many "tree-houses" inside it... rooms she decorates and hold certain feelings for her when they come up. Areas where she "holds things" that need to be held onto. But also keeps them separate from other ideas.
This idea "speaks" to her more, so she goes with that instead.
Like, rather than thinking about your desires and what they mean, just let them speak to you and listen. Submit. Hear them out. It can be very interesting if you can get yourself to stop thinking about it (that's the hard part).
I submit myself to "listening" to my urges all the time. I try to promote it as much as possible. Or, at least, I think I do (how do you know if you're actually doing this, vs. just thinking-you-are-doing-it?)
To me, "thinking" about things is not dangerous or bad. It's what we decide to do with those thoughts that makes something dangerous, bad or good.
I try to allow my creative side, my urges, my thoughts... to come up with any and all possibilities at any time.
Then I simply choose out of those available possibilities.
I'm afraid that if I ever try to prevent "bad" possibilities from entering my mind... then this may also inadvertantly prevent "good" possibilities as well.
Since I don't know how urges and feelings get to me in the first place, I'm not sure how to put any sort of "control" on them in a way that I would like to happen.
So I decided a long time ago to not put any control and, in fact, put in place whatever I could to promote "any and all" urges, possibilites and creative-ideas to come into my mind.
Then, I use my conscious intelligence to choose the one I want.
Do you meditate? I'm only getting started and I suck at it.
Maybe.
I don't do any official "I am meditating now" things.
But I do constantly monitor my self, think about things, reflect on ideas/events... that sort of thing I do constantly.
I don't care if someone is happier than me, or me them. Are we both happy? Yes? Cool.
But you do seem interested in me "experiencing" things that you do? In the way that you do?
To me, this is the same thing, just using different words.
If you haven't, try meditating and see where that gets you. It's really hard and everyone sucks at it, but when you do get there it's pretty sweet.
I have tried it.
In fact, I try every so often (few months, maybe years or so) just incase I somehow become "better" at it.
But, I never tend to reach anything I would call "sweet" from it.
I do, however, reach places I would call "sweet" while not officially meditating and simply doing things the way I like to do them.
There's benefits that are available only through "not using only your thinking mind".
I would word this as saying there are "experiences" that are only available through not-using-your-thinking-mind.
Whether or not those experiences are beneficial or not (as far as I can tell) is up to the individual and the situation at hand.
Overconfidence in the self, and the reliance on thinking over being, can lead people into a false sense of happiness, imho.
With this, I would agree.
However, I would add that there are many different ways to monitor and analyze such things. Certain ways will work better for certain people.
Is that a bad thing? Hard to say... if the placebo is helping the patient do you continue to prescribe it to them knowing that it doesn't really work? (that's a rhetorical age-old question)
To me, "placebo" has more to do with "active ingredient" - a physical property.
Where "working" has both sides to it, physical and mental. The mental side isn't always best-treated with physical properties.
Perhaps the act of taking a pill... confers a certain mental aspect of "I am helping myself"... almost a meditative tool.
In this, the action of taking a pill would be most helpful, along with making that pill a placebo so that you can use the tool whenever required without causing physical differences.
Is this still a "placebo?"
Is this not "really working?"
If you could be happier, would you try even though you already think you've got it good enough?
Yes, most definitely.
It's why this thread exists.
It's something I make attempts at every day.
I have what works "best for me now."
But I constantly try other things, new things, things I've tried before that didn't work out - but might work now...
I'm always looking for more and better ways to make a "better me."
But, again, I have to be the judge of whether or not something is "working" for me.
And in turn, you have to be the judge of whether or not something is "working" for you.
How could it be any other way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2017 12:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 02-09-2017 1:34 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 88 of 438 (799086)
02-07-2017 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
02-05-2017 12:20 PM


Re: Hope this helps
Phat writes:
Which leads to the question: Does a definite commitment matter more than a wait-and-see stance?
To me, the answer to this question depends entirely on being able to know if you're right.
If you can know that you're right.. then obviously you want a definite commitment rather than a wait-and-see stance regardless of how many "detractors" are screaming in your face.
If you can't know that you're right.. then making a "definite commitment" seems entirely foolish and opens one's self up to being used as a tool for evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 12:20 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 90 of 438 (799329)
02-09-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Phat
02-09-2017 1:34 AM


Re: Hope this helps
Phat writes:
Stile writes:
I'm always looking for more and better ways to make a "better me."
But, again, I have to be the judge of whether or not something is "working" for me.
And in turn, you have to be the judge of whether or not something is "working" for you.
How could it be any other way?
But is this (or should this) be the essence of what contemplative spirituality is all about?
I think so, yes.
If you have a better solution, could you describe it? Then we can compare.
To me, as soon as someone else is judging how other people should be "better.." it leads into that "someone else" controlling those other people without realizing the actual impact they're having on them. How can someone else know what you are feeling, specifically? I don't think that's possible, as far as I can tell, anyway.
But sure, if you can explain a better solution, have at it. I'd be interested to see what sort of alternatives could be available.
Should any of it be about us as individuals?
Um.
The topic at hand was "how do I become a better me?"
How can any answer not be about the individual?
Perhaps you were thinking of something else? Feel free to expand and explain, if you'd like.
This is not some sort of "only question" thing.
There are many other questions:
"How can I help others better?"
"How can I hurt others less?"
These sorts of questions are included in my ideas of becoming a "better me."
But they still deal with things about me.
I'm just not sure I understand how your thoughts are connecting to the current discussion.
Or are you asking if we should ever try to improve ourselves?
That seems... like a breeding ground for evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 02-09-2017 1:34 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 02-09-2017 4:23 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 98 of 438 (799633)
02-12-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Phat
02-09-2017 4:23 PM


Helping Others
Phat writes:
I'm just contrasting me-centered spirituality...
How is trying to help others as much as possible "me-centered" spirituality?
...with Jesus
Didn't Jesus want people to try and help others as best he can?
I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.
...who denied himself and never thought how he could make a better Jesus.
You'll have to explain this.
I don't remember Jesus denying himself. I remember him trying to do everything he could to help others.
And I seem to remember Jesus trying to make a better Jesus all the time. I seem to remember him asking God for strength to continue on. How is that not trying to better himself?
You seem to have this dichotomy in place in your head, and will twist anything in order to suit it.
Can you actually, really, specifically, explain how me trying to help others is different from Jesus trying to help others?
Why is it "me-centered" when I try to help others, but it's "denying himself" when Jesus tries to do it?
I'd really like to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 02-09-2017 4:23 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Riggamortis, posted 02-12-2017 6:06 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 100 of 438 (799699)
02-13-2017 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Riggamortis
02-12-2017 6:06 PM


Why I try to Help Others
Ha ha... I do see your point.
But just to be clear, I don't try to help others because it makes me feel good. I do it because I think it's the right thing to do.
Here's my breakdown:
1. A recognition is made that I am going to have interactions with other people throughout my life.
2. From what I can tell, I have 3 choices:
2a - Try to help the people I interact with.
2b - Try to hurt the people I interact with.
2c - Don't care about the effects I have when interacting with other people.
3. I choose to try to help the people I interact with.
I don't choose this because it makes me feel good. Sometimes it does make me feel good, but many times it does not.
I choose to try to help others just because I think it is the right thing to do out of the possible options.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Riggamortis, posted 02-12-2017 6:06 PM Riggamortis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 11:32 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 102 of 438 (799740)
02-14-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by ringo
02-14-2017 11:32 AM


Re: Why I try to Help Others
ringo writes:
Doesn't doing the right thing make you feel good?
Like I said, depends on the situation.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Maybe it's a short-term/long-term thing.
Quite possible.
But, lets say (for the sake of argument) that every single time I do something good, I feel good.
Just because that happens, doesn't mean the reason I do good things is in order to feel good.
Everytime I purchase something, I lose money.
That doesn't mean that the reason I purchase things is to lose money.
I may not be able to show or prove to you that my reason for doing good things is, indeed, because I want to help people instead of hurt them.
However, no one else can show or prove that my reason for doing good things is, indeed, because I get a good feeling from it either. If they think such a thing of me.
It's the sort of thing you just have to take my word for it.
Or you can think I'm lying.
Or you can think I'm mistaken, or confused.
It also doesn't really matter to me. My morality and my motivation for such is obviously a very personal and subjective thing. I can't fool myself, so whatever's going on I better be honest with myself about it. It's just easier on my brain that way. I don't really care if anyone else believes me about my own feelings. They're mine, and I'm the only one who really knows what's going on with them. As far as I know, anyway.
I'm sort of guessing that this is what you were getting at? Hard to tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 11:32 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 12:07 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 104 of 438 (799748)
02-14-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
02-14-2017 12:07 PM


Re: Why I try to Help Others
ringo writes:
"Reasoning" isn't always conscious. The instinct to promote the survival of the species may be offering you a shot of endorphins without you being aware of it.
I still don't see your point.
Again, for the sake of argument, let's say I get a "shot of endorphins" every single time I do something good.
I'm talking about why I do good things.
And the reason I do good things is because I want to help people instead of hurt them.
Is it possible that I might do a good thing without consciously reasoning it? Sure. I would say this "doesn't count" for me choosing to do a good thing, though. How could it? This would be more of an accident-serendipity kind of thing.
That still doesn't change the fact that when I choose to do a good thing, I do it because I want to help others instead of hurt them. And that I do not choose to do good things because it's going to make me feel good.
Or I can wait fifty years for you to catch up with me.
In 50 years I gain the ability to read other people's minds? Impressive
Perhaps you do choose to do good things because it makes you feel good.
I don't really have an issue with that.
But that's not why I choose to do good things.
I'm sure many people have many different motivations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 12:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 02-14-2017 4:19 PM Stile has replied
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 02-15-2017 2:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024