Very sorry to say by faith/spirituality is a fools errand in itself. It has a basis in nothing, but mostly misguided aspirations and unfounded causalities. You are better off playing the lottery, you have better odds there.
That statement is a useless feel-good statement. What does it even mean? Your heart is a muscle. It cannot think or feel.
I don't know about most but my approach to it is that if I can't prove or disprove something, then I stay away from such stuff and concentrate on what I can do well and beyond doubt... As in, how I treat my body, myself in general, others, nature... I will not be derailed into fruitless nonsense by all this rubbish that was/is used to keep people in submission and immaturity! So, I am leading myself by my own Reason. Faith also comes from it, as in faith in myself and from then on, faith in others/Humanity. Indeed, faith in Humanity is not without rational grounds - as opposed to the conservatives who are beyond belief in this matter (so to speak )! R, look, it's even worse! Christianity, as I wrote many a time before, is demanding what no other religion demands, "not to even desire..." ("Thou shall not covet...") - which is impossible for Humans, hence we are indeed screwed but now differently, since we are sinners by default... Other religions simply tackle that which we can indeed control, namely that we do not DO/ACT on impulse/desire, without reflection, without considering the well-being of others... But Christianity - phew, you're screwed big time!
I think you have to have the WILL to understand what socrate tries to communicate. If you don't have it, it never can work. When I give you the simple instruction: Don't think about the ape! Can you stop by using the intellect? No! You have to get an idea of an ape (think about) in order to stop thinking about. Also why do you claim for prove? What is a prove else than to compare something with a particular mindset? The metaphor of Buddha is a metaphor. It points on the fact that the subject cannot 'see' itself. That what 'sees', the seer cannot be object of observation. It has nothing to do with being 'powerful', also nothing with the intellect. It is about being aware before things become. To 'escape' from 'rebirth' is just another expression for it. To get perfection assumes lack of something and something to achieve. In fact it is focus on self-awareness. You are already what you are (perfect)! So what has one 'to do' ? To get aware by changing the focus. That all continues in a loop until one has the WILL to practise. If you want to know how it is to swim, you can think as much and as long as you like. Also you can claim for prove for the statements from somebody who is swimming. But you only will know it when you go swimming yourself. Is one powerful only by doing it and the other one just thinks about it? I guess not. The one is unaware, that's all.
Well no, the feelings about something (say spiritualism) are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they can consider real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterized subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events. Same as posted above. Moreover, I have never heard of anyone denying the existence (here I mean feelings) of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace or happiness has ever been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope but... they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable. Every idea/s has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". Free will (freedom of choice) probably doesn't exist due to humans being subject to their neuro-chemistry and various other biases. ie. What causes you to choose one path over another? Faith is a belief without evidence.
Oh, the irony. Cherrypicking from the mother of foolish controversies to even remotely fit the current discussion. The full quote is about "the Law" (what law?) and completely irrelevant to anything here. Here, I can do it, too: "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient ..." from the same paragraph. What a turd, this book.
We can see the people that "cherry pic" to prove their point, because the entire phrase you quoted states in it's entirety: You left half of it out oh.... What such a terrible and horrible view to enforce and enslave people with! I say kill all those that speak of peace and love!! Your post 1357 speaks of God, So I am only making my statement in reply to your post. You do not believe so you are blinded and ignorant of anything spiritually, and you can not have the capability to understand. There's no need to state anything more
First, good job getting the point I was making about cherrypicking. Second, the sentence seems to command peace and love not by one's own intent, but by instilling fear of authority. Great book. Love and peace, or else...!
How could you see any threats in that statement??? Where is this fear? The rulers and authority here would be those in government, and probably your boss. Do you have a fear of your employer??? you might consider employment somewhere else. Basically it states to show respect, and be a good person
I pity those who think being "subject to rulers" and "obedient" is a normal way of life. Must be the constant babble about the sky daddy that raises sheep instead of free people.
Try to understand that this was written 2000 years ago and slavery was quite common, plus there was a Roman rule over their country and they make make today's police brutality look like child's play. They had a reputation for not being very nice. This is part of what I ment by your "blindness" and lack of understanding
@Joe C: God and ego have nothing in common. Rulers, slaves & all this, is the work of ego, not God. The book you're using as reference is/has been tampered with throughout history. People have used that book and still use it today to spread fear in order to control. If people would "follow" one "rule" from that book, the world would have been much different: love thy neighbor as thyself and thy God with all your heart and mind.
Yes Yen we went through all this before umpteen times, you say the observer can't observe itself, I say it's wrong now ! You can observer yourself through introspection. You will now say it's not the same, but it is the same. To achieve your "perfection" or whatever you want to call it, you need self observation! Your mind functions on processes, which can be flawed initially. Your analogy with swimming is bad, whenever you do anything there is a thought process involved, which happens consciously or subconsciously. The act of swimming if you have never practiced will still go through your mind in steps. I have yet to come across a situation where I haven't done something and haven't thought it through before doing it. After you swim in practice the process becomes subconscious, but it is still there. This is provable in cases of amnesia. I think you are fooling yourself with the subconscious and thinking it's not there. Have you ever considered that the mind may be your illusion ?
Are you not aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls? True. This is the greatest command that was given to us. We as the inhabitants of this rock we call earth can not even come close to loving our neighbors or God. Many out right reject any type of idea of God and love, and associate God with death, vengeance and damnation. I think they do this out of there own personal fear
What if I want to understand critically what anyone has to say, Yen? Where do you get "an idea of an ape" from, if not from your mind/Reason/Spirit? So, what's this "idea" of "not having an idea" but "being aware" without thinking apparently? And what is that but a feeling? Because, if one is using one's Reason, too - then it's "contaminated"? I mean, what the hell is this "awareness"? All I see is lots of contradictions, incoherence and just plain mystical nonsense, frankly speaking...
The cognitive dissonance here is mind-blowing. You mean love your neighbor, unless he believes in a different fantasy than you do. Love does not need a sky daddy. It's an evolutionary thing that every human has. If anything, religion allows you to _not_ love people of a different belief. If you don't accept these parts of the bible you yourself quote, then why cling to it at all? If the bad parts of it are just remnants of ancient times, what does that tell you about the validity of it in modern times? Ask yourself, how do you make the distinction what is good and bad in the bible? You say this and that is bad, but this and that is good. _How_ do you determine which is which, if the bible is supposed to be the word of God and God is infallible? It's plain as day that you have your own moral compass that has nothing to do with the bible at all. And if you can reject parts of the words of God on your own will, how likely is it that there even is a god? It makes no sense at all.