massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of the Lamb |
Fri 12/21/07 11:39 AM |
The only topic I wanted to discuss was whether the Bible -explicitly- states that biological evolution (admittedly undefined in this thread) is not possible.
I am curious about where Britty might be going with her thoughts, but I'm not interested in discussing the merits (such as they are, and aren't) of various parts of modern evolutionary theory. |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of Ignorance |
Fri 12/21/07 11:34 AM |
QUOTE: So you don't like my serious side, hey? laugh laugh laugh
I love you serious side! I just disagreed with (my understanding of) what you were saying.
QUOTE: So Mass - your doctrine is simply I DON'T KNOW, which you equate to ignorance.
Yes, the Doctrine of Ignorance teaches that "I don't know" is often the only truly honest answer to a question...but I'm not a good adherent to this Doctrine, and am burdened with an excess of personal opinions, opinionatedness, and shameful arrogance.
"I got nothing."  |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of the Lamb |
Fri 12/21/07 11:17 AM |
QUOTE: I will be interested in where this discussion leads.
Yes!
(settles in with his popcorn) |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of Ignorance |
Fri 12/21/07 11:14 AM |
QUOTE: Sorry, don't mean to offend or anything,
No offense taken here - I thought it was funny, on many levels.
"I got nothing."
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of Ignorance |
Fri 12/21/07 11:11 AM |
QUOTE: I think perhaps your doctrine is taking shape now.
Oh no! My personal dogmas (sigh) and 'doctrines' may be taking shape here, but I am not a perfect adherent of the Doctrine of Ignorance. The Doctrine of Ignorance doesn't speak on the topic of purpose (except to say "I don't know") as there is no need to.
Funnily enough, more 'shape' is given to the Doctrine of Ignorance in the "Doctrine of Knowledge" thread (http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/59763).
Also, The Doctrine of Ignorance teaches that enlightenment is only an idea, not a truth, and that most opinions about enlightenment and its nature are probably wrong.
--------------------------
official doctrine above, personal opinions below
--------------------------
QUOTE: It allows the 'ego' the illusion of 'reason for living', calming it, keeping it at bay - thereby keeping it ignorant.
I may not understand you, but as I understand this, I emphatically disagree. You are speaking from the perspective that they ego requires calming and keeping at bay, and requires 'purpose' for this - which is a collection of ideas/theories which I do not accept as 'truth'.
Further, if anything is providing the ego with illusions, it would be ideas, not feelings. A 'sense of purpose' is completely different than an 'idea of purpose'. It may be that being deeply rooted in the wordless experience of a sense of purpose, provides a kind of nourishment for the mind or heart which 'solves some of the problem' of the ego needing particular illusions for particular reasons - but I disagree that having a sense of purpose directly creates illusion. Its just a feeling, not a belief, not an idea.
QUOTE: For that sense of purpose as you describe, can only be a temporary state of mind.
Yay!
"I got nothing"
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of the Lamb |
Fri 12/21/07 10:45 AM |
QUOTE: Massagetrade: would you like to post your thoughts on human evolution - definition.
Also how you would define Mutations in humans, and heritable differences.
Sweet! You mean, -before- entering into debate, you want to first clarify the other's position?! Excellent! This should happen more often here on JSH. The sensibility of your approach entices me... but in the end I would not like to post very many of my thoughts on human evolution here, at this time.
I've read a half dozen -very long- threads on this topic here at JSH, and I think the signal is lost in the noise (from both 'camps'). Honestly, I'm a bit exhausted by it all. But if you or anyone else wants to re-read those old threads, and address anything I've said therein, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Just PM me and let me know, since I don't look at very many threads here. |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of Ignorance |
Fri 12/21/07 10:20 AM |
QUOTE: Or are we just fooling ourselves with illusion just because we have become 'self-aware'?
I would divide this into many separate questions (as this phrasing seems to suggest a foregone conclusion): Do we (collectively? individually?) actually have purpose? Regardless of that answer, are (some? all?) people fooling themselves with their particular ideas about purpose? If people are fooling themselves, (or for those that are) is the motive for the delusion a natural (immediate?) consequence of self awareness, or are there other motives/causes?
My answer to all is: I don't know.
But I also think a persons motives for asking these questions matters. Are we trying to fit reality and experience into a box of words? Are we attached to the game of word/idea manipulation? Have we lost the safety of one dogma (now demolished through open mindedness), and seek the safety of a more refined, but equally static, dogma? Are we truly questing for truth? Are we trying to address a personal confusion or issue by seeking answers on such lofty levels? What is more important - personal happiness/fulfillment, or having a sophisticated world view?
QUOTE: Could it be that even our 'self-awareness' is NOTHING more that an ego that can't imagine it's own worthlessness?"
Official Answer: I don't know. So yeah, it could be. I'm more concerned with whether 'believing that to be true' might lead someone to stop 'questioning the nature of ego and awareness'.
"I got nothing."
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of Ignorance |
Fri 12/21/07 09:59 AM |
QUOTE: If we really know nothing for sure, that what purpose is there to our existence? Do we have one?
The Official Answer from the Doctrine of Ignorance is: I don't know.
Disclaimer: Following paragraphs deviate from the official Doctrine of Ignorance:
On a -personal-, experiential level (and not a philosophical 'why are we here' level), I have the impression that having a 'sense of purpose' or 'feeling of purpose' in one's life is interwoven with our capacity for happiness and satisfaction - sometimes it appears to me that we may be wired this way. (But lets not confuse 'interwoven' with 'cause and effect').
This is an inner experience, and need not be tied to articulated 'purposes'! Its just waking up in the morning and knowing, without thinking about it, that you belong; its engaging in your activities, whatever they are, with enthusiasm and joy. I like to cultivate this 'feeling of purpose', but I don't see any need to state, proclaim, nor defend a stated 'purpose' for my existence.
It seems that many people find it easier to have a 'sense of purpose' if they also have an 'idea, statement of purpose'; when I start to lose that inner feeling/certainty of purpose, I turn to statements of purpose as a kind of crutch, but its a slippery slope to dogmatism (other people must have similar purposes as I! or 'My statement of purpose is right, and I must continue to believe its right and not allow myself to change') and limiting self-definitions (I am the one with this purpose).
As for how the Doctrine of Ignorance itself relates to your question, and as for what a True Believe might believe on this topic - you are free (encouraged) to entertain all manner of ideas about purpose; just be very cautious about what you insist is 'absolutely, undeniably true'. If you need to take a break, rest on a plateau and cling to a particular belief for a period of time - fine. But someday you should realize you are not done yet, that plateau is not 'absolute truth', go grab your backpack and continue climbing.
"I got nothing" |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of the Lamb |
Fri 12/21/07 09:11 AM |
QUOTE: open the worms.......I would welcome it....
FC,
Okay...all I was going to say was that:
21. Man did not evolve, he was created - Gen. 1:26
Is not even remotely stated -as such-, in the Bible. The Bible doesn't mention evolution, nor claim -directly- that we didn't evolve. Yes, an explanation of our origin is given in the Bible, which many (but not all!) people find incompatible with the idea of evolution.
But really, this topic has been discussed so thoroughly so many times here at JSH, I didn't want to start related arguments all over again.
 |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine Of Knowladge |
Thu 12/20/07 08:52 PM |
QUOTE: one can't know everything, and also that sometimes what we think we know turns out to be wrong.
Yes! Why, thats Tenet 18 in the "Secret & Sacred Texts of the Doctrine of Ignorance".
Hmmm... this isn't working out well. The best way to gain converts would be for us to disagree vigorously, so all of the Doctrine of Ignorance followers could feel superior to the Doctrine of Knowledge followers, and the other way around.
( Shameless plug: http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/59708 ) |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine Of Knowladge |
Thu 12/20/07 04:23 PM |
(I hope I'm not violating the spirit of the "Doctrine of..." idea which Redy put forth....)
Turtle,
Of course my previous comments were in play, but in seriousness acknowledging one's own ignorance is essential to gaining wisdom or any so called 'knowledge'. Those that accept rumors and opinions as facts are those that fail to realize their own ignorance. So those two tenets would be (i mean are! as per the unrevealed Sacred Texts!) part of my Doctrine of Ignorance. |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine Of Knowladge |
Thu 12/20/07 04:12 PM |
Agree to disagree?! I thought the whole point of having doctrines was to divide people into camps of hostile disagreement. 
Strangely, you have stolen (verbatim!) two tenets from the previously-unrevealed "Secret & Sacred Texts of the Doctrine of Ignorance":
Tenet 64: One should not hear a rumor & assume it is fact.
Tenet 113: One shall not be pushed into accepting opinions as fact.
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine Of Knowladge |
Thu 12/20/07 04:04 PM |
| A ha! You are now officially my Doctrinal Nemesis, due purely to our choice of wording. En garde! |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of the Lamb |
Thu 12/20/07 03:58 PM |
| One line in particular caught my attention, but I after thinking a bit I decided not to open that can of worms -all over again- here at JSH. But thanks for the invite - so I'll post later if anything else strikes my debating interest. |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of Ignorance |
Thu 12/20/07 11:55 AM |
As my current 'main teacher' is fond of saying:
"I got nothing."
None of us knows anything, really.
-----------------------
Thats probably too short to create much discussion; so be it.
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of the Lamb |
Thu 12/20/07 11:45 AM |
Oh, yes, the laws of the land, and the rules of JSH permit me to debate (yay!), but (my understanding of) the spirit of Redy's intentions in the "Doctrine of..." is that this thread is for like-minded people to discuss, not party crashers like myself to debate.
Its refreshing. |
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of the Lamb |
Thu 12/20/07 11:18 AM |
So we aren't supposed to debate?
(sigh)
Allowing for a very metaphorical use of language, I see many basic truths being expressed here.
|
|
|
|
massagetrade
Joined Thu 02/22/07
Posts: 3113
|
| Topic: Doctrine of LOVE |
Thu 12/20/07 10:55 AM |
Here again for daily devotions.
Thank you Kalamazoo for blowing gently on the coals in this thread - a little fire really gets people expressing their view of truth, making for a good read.
QUOTE: ... that which he possibly can relate to without touching on the aspects of your religion that he cannot. Is common ground that unlikely? -DKoW
QUOTE: I believe in God. I see God in all things good. -Kat
QUOTE: i'm sure that in the doctrine of
LOVE here that all are invited and that we all share the
pain of each others misfortunes and the joy of each others
delights... -S1owhand
Oh, and I agree with Abra - the OP strikes me as a very polite and considerate person.
to you all |
|
|
|
