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.
I guess I don't know what "evil" specifically is.
Suffering serves a purpose, I don't know if it is "evil".
Ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful, for sure.
Cessation of suffering is skillful.
Who determines what "ought" to be desired and shunned?One very simple and universal understanding is as follows: good is that which ought to be desired and evil is that which ought to be shunned. You might answer my post with that in mind.
Else, is skillfulness good, and unskillfulness evil? Should skillfulness be sought, and unskillfulness be shunned?
Who determines what "ought" to be desired and shunned?
Is it all relative? Something that is skillful for one person may not be skillful for another.
Yes, that is true. I cannot judge for others if they determine the same things to be skillful or unskillful.So when you told me that suffering serves a purpose, ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful, and cessation of suffering is skillful, you meant to say that, "Suffering serves a purpose for me, but it may not serve a purpose for others. Ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful/evil for me, but it may not be for others. Cessation of suffering is skillful/good for me, but it may not be for others."
Buddhism is skillful for those who recognize that it is skillful for them. Buddha never forced others to follow his Path, but encouraged everyone to follow what they know for themselves to be the truth.If it's not skillful/good for others, then why should anyone follow Buddhism? If the four noble truths are just subjective preferences, then why call them truths? And why is suffering unskillful/evil for some, but not for others? Is suffering beneficial or enjoyable to some people?
So why call it skillfulness? Isn't that a misnomer? Skill is objectively observable, and has little to do with subjective preferences.Yes, that is true. I cannot judge for others if they determine the same things to be skillful or unskillful.
Buddhism is skillful for those who recognize that it is skillful for them. Buddha never forced others to follow his Path, but encouraged everyone to follow what they know for themselves to be the truth.
In a sense, we are each creators of our own universes, and we are each sitting in judgment of all that is in our universe.So why call it skillfulness? Isn't that a misnomer? Skill is objectively observable, and has little to do with subjective preferences.
It seems simply nonsensical to talk about "Knowing for oneself what is true." This is because you mean neither knowledge nor truth when you write the sentence. When you know what is true, it goes beyond oneself. Apparently you think someone could "Know for themselves the truth that green is the very best color." Again, this has nothing to do with knowledge or truth.
It would therefore probably be more accurate to say that the Buddha encouraged everyone to do what they like, to follow their subjective preferences.
... how does that address my comment?
I guess what I'm trying to say is this:
Only those who are limited in space and time have the ability to "choose", because choices imply that the chooser possess a variety of options to choose from. And, if someone has multiple options, then that means that that person is limited, within spacetime.
Therefore, I state that your god seems to be within spacetime, and, thus, limited.
So you would say Bad intention is evil?
It's strange, confused stuff ('it is unlawful to be afraid of Ea'huah', 'Ea'huah is afraid', 'Elohym.. will... convince them to believe a lie' ?), but frightening?
Although, I suppose if you believed in an omnipotent God of love and compassion who's afraid of not being in control, and deliberately deceives people, fear might be appropriate - if it wasn't unlawful by decree...
In a sense, we are each creators of our own universes, and we are each sitting in judgment of all that is in our universe.
Sounds very Buddhist, where things are either skillfull or unskillful.
To have a "will", one must have access to choices. Is your god limited that he has arrays of choices to choose from?
The disciples of Jesus? I thought he reportedly said "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" Mt 28:19Resurrection or Reicarnation
Karma, or Do unto others as you would have another do unto you
Shinto or שת (spelled Shyn TW), 'Seth' the only surviving son of Adam (since the flood wiped out the others), he is Shinto 'the ancestor of ancestors', and because we are the many members of his body, plus him being the express image of Elohym, means he came back as Y'shua the Christ, who also claimed to be Shinto 'the door.
The disciples were told to go preach, but do not go into Asia.
Then it seems that your god should have no choices or will ...Man is in space time, God the I AM is an absolute that transcends both space and time.
I don't understand your way of thinking, why would God not have volition, mind, choice or will?
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?