Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Similarly it is the similance of what we call emotion more like a sentiment, but of itself it is likened to a desire to experience the sentiment more deeply as only an emotional being can. As you say these areas are difficult to frame in words. That's why it's fun.What then, is this seeking that G-d does? What is the motivation behind seeking to experience the human capacity for love, is this not emotion in and of itself?
I'm having an extreme difficulty in trying to put into words the things I'm thinking on this.
That could also be right.It could also be that Izarya bes simply mistaken.
(Nothing personal Iz)
It bes always the possibility for any human perception or opinion on something, that the thoughts any given individual forms about anything could, at any time, simply be in error.
Without allowing for this possibility we would waste countless hours seeking to harmoniously resolve the disparate, disjointed, dissimilar notions of every mind what ever conceived a notion.
Sounds good and all, but unlikely... at least according to my understanding. The whole goal of mankind as per ancient tradition was become less emotional and more rational. At least in the sense that one cannot make true judgement and deal equitably when one is emotionally involved. Emotions are a human condition, at least from where I'm standing.Or it could be that G-d bes the wellspring of all emotion, already experiences on a deeper scale what humans merely taste in their greatest intensities thereof, and being the Author thereof has placed this limited reflection of His own experience inside those He created in His image. Thus He needs not seek the human experience thereof for His own bes the source and origin of that, just as the mighty river bes the source of the trickling creek and it, in turn, of the tiny rivulets.
It bes not necessarily accurate to conceive God as more "stoic". Isaiah 55:8-9 leaves many possibilities open to exploration.
[bible]Isaiah 55:8-9[/bible]
Similarly it is the similance of what we call emotion more like a sentiment, but of itself it is likened to a desire to experience the sentiment more deeply as only an emotional being can. As you say these areas are difficult to frame in words. That's why it's fun.
Sounds good and all, but unlikely... at least according to my understanding. The whole goal of mankind as per ancient tradition was become less emotional and more rational. At least in the sense that one cannot make true judgement and deal equitably when one is emotionally involved. Emotions are a human condition, at least from where I'm standing.
Hmm. I have to wonder also, then, if G-d...
Human imbalances considered largely the product of "the Virus" bes now to be made the measure of assessing the plausibility of Divine emotion? *LOL*Sounds good and all, but unlikely... at least according to my understanding. The whole goal of mankind as per ancient tradition was become less emotional and more rational. At least in the sense that one cannot make true judgement and deal equitably when one is emotionally involved. Emotions are a human condition, at least from where I'm standing.
What are your thoughts on guardian angels? Entities assigned to watch over you and protect you?
[edit]
So, who was that lady??
Sorry for the off topic questinon but why do you type the reference to God like G-d?
There bes just as much imbalance in the opposite direction, IMO. Lack of investment and involvement does not produce greater levels of objectivity but, on the contrary, bigger pockets of ignorance of the full picture leading to, in some cases (not all), an even worse form of subjectivity than that produced by "being too close to the situation".I have a notion that ultimately, the human (more specifically, the soul that drives the human) will reconcile the emotional with the rational, such that true judgment be a holistic--and therefor, truer--judgment.
Again. Words. Not enough to do justice.
There bes just as much imbalance in the opposite direction, IMO. Lack of investment and involvement does not produce greater levels of objectivity but, on the contrary, bigger pockets of ignorance of the full picture leading to, in some cases (not all), an even worse form of subjectivity than that produced by "being too close to the situation".
JMO, YMMV.
CW bes you certain of that? Have you personally ever harmonized the two in perfect balance and tested your theory? Have you ever heard firsthand the account of anyone who has?
See, we can speculate endlessly -- and speculation bes fun -- but our cleverness in abstraction does not necessarily mean its products would be as we imagine could we live everything we guess and postulate.
Again, think outside the box. It bes not either/or. Infinite possibilities. Infinite numbers of combinations and potential configurations. Not just the thousands we might be able to achieve conceiving if we had the time to so devote and the breadth of awareness to so birth, but infinite countless ones beyond those.
And yet like stupid talking monkeys we tend to sit bickering over "either/or" zero sum game propositions
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?