The Law of the Universe

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it was completely abstract and topped off with a personal insult.

I question whether anyone DOES believe things on the basis that it is the safest epistemic option. So I do not insult you, in fact, I regard your thinking as more advanced than that.

Sure, a person can believe it is wise to pay his taxes because he might end up in jail for not paying, but this does not make him believe it is morally right to pay his taxes. Even in your example, the moral rightness is based on Jesus' endorsement of paying taxes. So your belief in the moral rightness of paying taxes is not based on the safety of having that belief. I give you more credit than that.

The reward-punishment basis of morality is an immature basis which I do not believe you exemplify.

So now you have my response to your non-abstract example.

Originally posted by JS357
I question whether anyone DOES believe things on the basis that it is the safest epistemic option. So I do not insult you, in fact, I regard your thinking as more advanced than that.

Sure, a person can believe it is wise to pay his taxes because he might end up in jail for not paying, but this does not make him believe it is morally right to pay his taxes. ...[text shortened]... ch I do not believe you exemplify.

So now you have my response to your non-abstract example.

The Lord Jesus Christ's instruction to pay taxes had nothing to do with morality, as much as it corrected the thinking of the payee: give to each ruler as the image dictates.

For those who collect the rewards of this plane, their 'image' is struck on coinage, physical possessions and the like. For He who collects the soul, the 'image' is the constitution of the creature, i.e., our original trinitarian nature was a reflection of the Creator and thereby, we are made in His image.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Lord Jesus Christ's instruction to pay taxes had nothing to do with morality, as much as it corrected the thinking of the payee: give to each ruler as the image dictates.

For those who collect the rewards of this plane, their 'image' is struck on coinage, physical possessions and the like. For He who collects the soul, the 'image' is the constituti ...[text shortened]... l trinitarian nature was a reflection of the Creator and thereby, we are made in His image.

I see it this way: There are morally obligatory actions, morally permissible (but not obligatory) actions, and morally impermissible actions. I see Jesus' statement to support the moral permissibility of rendering to Caesar what his image (as you put it) was struck upon. Of course, interpretations may differ.

Originally posted by JS357
I question whether anyone DOES believe things on the basis that it is the safest epistemic option. So I do not insult you, in fact, I regard your thinking as more advanced than that.

Sure, a person can believe it is wise to pay his taxes because he might end up in jail for not paying, but this does not make him believe it is morally right to pay his taxes. ...[text shortened]... ch I do not believe you exemplify.

So now you have my response to your non-abstract example.

It appeared to me and still does to take Ghandis statement out of context, never the
less I am sure there are a great many nominal christians who 'believe', that its 'safer',
to accept Jesus than to suffer the wrath of what they perceive as a vindictive God. The
insult was with reference to the statement that i needed to remind you that i do not
'do', questions, this is simply not the case, not if they are clearly expressed and
without affectation, or motive.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Lord Jesus Christ's instruction to pay taxes had nothing to do with morality, as much as it corrected the thinking of the payee: give to each ruler as the image dictates.

For those who collect the rewards of this plane, their 'image' is struck on coinage, physical possessions and the like. For He who collects the soul, the 'image' is the constituti ...[text shortened]... l trinitarian nature was a reflection of the Creator and thereby, we are made in His image.

original trinitarian nature???, plueeeeze this is no place for your neo platonic metaphysical jive talk!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ghandis teaching is that cerebral acknowledgement is not enough, ones religious
convictions must percolate from the mind to the heart and motivate one to action.

This is the same as James in the Holy Bible when he was speaking of faith
and works.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is the same as James in the Holy Bible when he was speaking of faith
and works.

yes it is 🙂

Originally posted by kevcvs57
circular argument, god can only;a) not be a liar; if, b) god exists. b is a personal opinion not a fact.

A fact is still a fact regardless if we agree on the fact or not. God is a fact
of existence and you can argue until you die about it and it will still not
change that fact. God will still be in existence when we all die so we
argue in vain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Gandhi was a fascinating man and though a Hindu, he warmly honored and respected other religions, and the personal religous beliefs of others, and sought common religious ground to do good and for social justice.

I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian. -- Ghandi, 1928.

.

Yet, as we all know, he was definitely Hindu.

I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that goes by the name of Hindu scripture, and therefore in avataras and rebirth; I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic but not in its presently popular crude sense; I believe in the protection of cow … I do not disbelieve in murti puja. -- Ghandi, 1921

Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being … When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. -- Ghandi, 1925

I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God … God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. -- Ghandi, 1937

Originally posted by moon1969
Gandhi was a fascinating man and though a Hindu, he warmly honored and respected other religions, and the personal religous beliefs of others, and sought common religious ground to do good and for social justice.

I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, ...[text shortened]... e the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. -- Ghandi, 1937

It is clear to me that Gandhi was wrong about Jesus, because Jesus
is the Son of God and His resurrection and ascension proved it. 😏

P.S. We can only be sons of God by adoption.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is clear to me that Gandhi was wrong about Jesus, because Jesus
is the Son of God and His resurrection and ascension proved it. 😏

i think a much stronger argument is one that Christ is the Messiah, this can be
established textually.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think a much stronger argument is one that Christ is the Messiah, this can be
established textually.

Who else could be the Messiah but the Son of the Blessed One?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who else could be the Messiah but the Son of the Blessed One?

yes, but it could be no other than the Christ, fr no one else fulfil the legal requirements
which can be established scripturally.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, but it could be no other than the Christ, fr no one else fulfil the legal requirements
which can be established scripturally.

The Jews do not accept him as the Messiah.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Of course.
I still feel as though I would not be here conversing with you , on this path now, if I had not made some leaps of faith in the past. Abandoned old stale reasoning. Cast aside the lure of the world and embraced the reality of my dreams.

But , as we both know, it's just words. We make up a story to connect the dots, but it is not necess ...[text shortened]... s. I gotta tell myself that every now and then still. i still got a bit of child in me.
😵

Realizing that all things and all spiritual truths are no-things you don’t conceive within your mind arbitrary conceptions. So, breaking free from all attachment to appearances means breaking free from your contemplation of your conditioned existence in the Floating World. Since all conditioned existence to be seen is related to arbitrary mind-only conceptions, they are as solid as a dream. Thus by means of clinging to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena, attachment is strong and the way does not arise. Without attachment to appearances the way is void, void is self, self is the way, the way is you, you are empty of attachment, mind has discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self, of other people and of a universal self. Mind has discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, of other people and of a universal self. Mind has discarded all conceptions of your own selfhood, of other selves and of a universal self. Mind has discarded all notions of the non-existence of such concepts. All these concepts are just discarded like the raft once you reach the other shore. So, once you are there, discard all methods and all teachings and conduct your personal internally spontaneous intuitive process that lays in your inner nature. Once you are there be at both shores, see the two truths, your inner nature is the nature of the mind. Discard these words now, there are no Buddhas and there are no teachings. In truth there is neither karoly aczel nor black beetle and thus we both abide nowhere, we neither know nor we ignore bliss, we both are neither free from nor enslaved by our passions. Thus, developing a mind that does not rely on anything,


what is the sky?
😵