Total posts: 906
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
3. MISS TRADESECRET’S QUOTE IN A ROUND ABOUT WAY MENTIONING HER BIBLE STUPIDITY: “Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering.”I don't think you have a point to make. Your character to this point has shown you take pleasure in pointing out others' flaws, so there's no reason you would have avoided taking pleasure in plainly addressing my blindness.Simply put for your inept mind, what part of this post to you didn't you understand?
What part of the original comment was stupid: “Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering.”
If anything, it was blatantly irrefutable given my further proof in comment 31 reposted below.
Regarding question three, I don't see any problem. It is widely known that those who are unaware of how to avoid suffering will stumble into it more often.If I one is stupid, and never learns their dog chases squirrels, they will never know to grab the leash tightly when passing a squirrel. This will inevitably cause them to suffer from unpleasant experiences due to stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)This verse may seem shocking or confusing at first, but the key to understanding this verse is to realize that Jesus is using a figure of speech called hyperbole.WRONG! Jesus said what He did in a direct way, no hyperbole accepted! Where in the hell do you get the authority to "try" and change the DIRECT WORDS of Jesus the Christ?! Answer this very simple question!
Do you then believe the Bible is in contradiction, invalidating its legitimacy?
How do you reconcile your stance given the verses I provided in comment 36?
I believe it is not absurd to believe God's words were not always literal.
The Bible is full of stories and passages that show God’s wit, irony, sarcasm, and creativity.
Here are some of the examples that I found:
Job and his friends (Job 38-42): God used rhetorical questions to challenge Job and his friends, who had been debating about the cause and meaning of Job’s suffering. God asked Job over 70 questions about the creation and operation of the universe, such as "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?" or "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?" These questions exposed the ignorance and arrogance of Job and his friends, who had been speaking without knowledge or reverence. God also mocked Job’s friends for their false accusations and bad advice, saying "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?" or "Will you condemn me to justify yourself?" God’s rhetorical questions humbled Job and his friends and taught them to trust in His wisdom and sovereignty.
Nathan and David (2 Samuel 12:1-15): God used a parable to confront David, who had committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah. God sent Nathan, a prophet, to tell David a story about a rich man who stole a poor man’s only lamb and killed it for his guest. David was outraged by the story and said “The man who did this deserves to die!” Then Nathan said to David “You are the man!” Nathan revealed that the story was a metaphor for David’s sin and announced God’s judgment on him. God’s parable exposed David’s hypocrisy and guilt and led him to repentance.
Ezekiel and the dry bones (Ezekiel 37:1-14): God used a vision to inspire Ezekiel, who was among the exiles in Babylon. God showed Ezekiel a valley full of dry bones and asked him “Son of man, can these bones live?” Ezekiel answered “Sovereign Lord, you alone know.” Then God told Ezekiel to prophesy to the bones and say “I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.” As Ezekiel prophesied, the bones came together, flesh covered them, and breath entered them. They became a vast army. God explained that the bones represented the people of Israel, who had lost hope in their exile. God promised to restore them and bring them back to their land. God’s vision encouraged Ezekiel and his fellow exiles and showed them His power and faithfulness.
In essence, I believe that my stance seems to take more of God's words into account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1. Furthermore, don't forget to address Tradesecret as a "FEMALE" as shown in this lin under her gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4. Therefore, "she" is not even supposed to be on this forum as a female to begin with in teaching or to exercise the authority over the superior man, so saith our God Jesus' inspired words herewith: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent." (1 Timothy 2:11)YOUR IDIOT RESPONSE TO MY QUOTE ABOVE: "Perhaps it relative to the time and culture, and perhaps not. It could mean that a true Christian women should refrain from teaching, but I didnt see anywhere that tells men to stop women from preaching; it might have been implicit."WTF did you just say?!!! Then in your pathetic thinking, if women are not to teach and just STFU in that time and culture only, then we're not to follow the Ten Commandments, love our serial killer God, forgive others, to love your enemies, and ask forgiveness of our sins, etc., because these entities were only to be followed in the Bible time and culture ONLY?! ROFLOL!!
You still haven't explained why there were many women, although fewer than men, who spoke God's word in the Bible, such as the few I listed in comment 29.
Do you have an explanation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR QUOTE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPREHEND SIMPLE ENGLISH TO THE QUESTIONS POSED TO YOU: "What were you trying to pointing out?"I don't have time to school your English ignorance where you are trying to decipher what was SIMPLY posed to you, understand? Therefore, to not make you the greater fool in this esteemed Religion Forum, I suggest that you take an English Reading Comprehension Class before you stumble all over yourself again in front of the membership, okay? Good.
I don't think you have a point to make. Your character to this point has shown you take pleasure in pointing out others' flaws, so there's no reason you would have avoided taking pleasure in plainly addressing my blindness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
TRUE CHRISTIAN OFFSPRING HAVE TO HATE THEIR PARENTS TO BE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS:“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
I researched the verse to verify your words:
This is a verse from the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus is teaching about the cost of being his disciple. He says:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
This verse may seem shocking or confusing at first, but the key to understanding this verse is to realize that Jesus is using a figure of speech called hyperbole. Hyperbole is when you exaggerate something to make a point or emphasize a contrast. For example, if you say “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”, you don’t literally mean that you want to eat a horse. You are just expressing how hungry you are.
In the same way, Jesus is not literally asking us to hate our family and ourselves. He is using hyperbole to show how much we should love him and follow him. He is saying that our love for him should be so great that compared to it, our love for anyone else, even our closest relatives and ourselves, would seem like hate. He is also saying that we should be willing to give up anything that might hinder us from following him, even if it means leaving behind our family or our own life.
Jesus is not contradicting his own commandment to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He is actually fulfilling it by showing us the ultimate example of love: laying down his life for us on the cross. He is inviting us to share in his love and his mission by being his disciples. He is also warning us that being his disciple will not be easy or comfortable. It will require sacrifice, commitment, and obedience. It will mean carrying our own cross and following him.
Ephesians 6:1-3 - "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother—which is the first commandment with a promise—so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." This verse shows us that God wants us to respect and obey our parents, and that He will bless us if we do so.
Proverbs 15:20 - "A wise son brings joy to his father, but a foolish man despises his mother." This verse teaches us that wisdom and folly have different effects on our parents. Wisdom makes them happy, but folly makes them sad. We should seek to be wise and not foolish.
Luke 18:16 - "But Jesus called the children to him and said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.’" This verse reveals how much Jesus loves children and values their faith. He welcomes them and blesses them. We should also love and care for children as Jesus does.
1 John 4:7-8 - "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." This verse explains the source and nature of love. Love comes from God, who is love Himself. If we love others, we show that we belong to God and know Him. If we do not love others, we show that we do not know God or His love.
Romans 12:10 - "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves." This verse instructs us how to love one another in the family of God. We should be loyal, faithful, and committed to each other. We should also honor and respect each other, putting their interests above our own.
Therefore, when we love God, we should also hate what He hates and love what He loves. We should hate sin and evil in ourselves and in the world, because they separate us from God and harm others. We should love righteousness and goodness in ourselves and in the world, because they please God and bless others. We should also love our neighbors as ourselves, because they are made in God’s image and need His grace. We should show them compassion, kindness, forgiveness, and generosity, as God has shown us.
However, loving our neighbors does not mean that we should compromise with their sin or condone their evil. We should also speak the truth in love to them and warn them of the consequences of their choices. We should pray for them and seek their salvation, but we should not join them in their rebellion or support their wickedness. We should be salt and light in the world, not sugar or darkness.
In summary, God wants us to love others rather than hate them, but we need to understand what love and hate mean in the Bible. Love is not a sentimental feeling or a blind acceptance of everything. Love is a choice to favor someone according to God’s will and for their good. Hate is not a malicious emotion or a violent rejection of everything. Hate is a choice to disfavor someone according to God’s will and for their judgment. To love God is to hate what He hates and love what He loves.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
2. When Jesus died, and as the only true God of the universe where how could this happen in the first place, a factual and real sacrifice is that you remain DEAD, period, where one does NOT come back to life three days later! As an example, a true sacrifice is when USA soldiers remained dead after they gave their lives to protect the United States of America in WW2!
I don't know what your asking, but for being a all powerful and supernatural deity, I don't think it's absurd that he can make an ultimate sacrifice by dying and coming back.
“Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering.”
Regarding question three, I don't see any problem. It is widely known that those who are unaware of how to avoid suffering will stumble into it more often.
If I one is stupid, and never learns their dog chases squirrels, they will never know to grab the leash tightly when passing a squirrel. This will inevitably cause them to suffer from unpleasant experiences due to stupidity.
What were you trying to pointing out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
#1 YOUR DOUBLE SPEAK AND EMBARRASSING QUOTES: "While it may be true I lack a religion, or feel insecure to defend my stance and therefore chose not to display, it could also be true my religion was not listed in the short drop-down list, or I might not entirely agree with any one religion."#2 YOUR ***CONTRADICTING*** QUOTE TO YOUR INSIPID QUOTE ABOVE: "I believe that God intended us to read his whole Bible, it would be inappropriate to take his words out of context. In order to take his word wholly, we must read them together."
It was not a contradiction. I said that I believe that God intended for us to read his whole scripture; this does not imply I believe he exists.
I can believe that Anakin Skywalker had good in his heart, yet he became overtook by by the dark side. This does not mean I believe starwars is real, but that I believe in a trait of his character.
In essence, there was no contradiction. My words remain. Please remember to answer the question regarding reading his scripture as a whole, sharing your thoughts on the scriptures meaning, without forgetting scripture 3.
I am truly sorry that Miss Tradesecret has run away from discussion with you in your thread, that is her true modus operandi showing itself once again.
I do wish she didn't let it bother her, but I do hope she continues to read the thread. I joined, not because of your harassment, as that is the mods job, but because this was my forum; thus, I'm obligated to respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1. Furthermore, don't forget to address Tradesecret as a "FEMALE" as shown in this lin under her gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4. Therefore, "she" is not even supposed to be on this forum as a female to begin with in teaching or to exercise the authority over the superior man, so saith our God Jesus' inspired words herewith: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent." (1 Timothy 2:11)
Perhaps it relative to the time and culture, and perhaps not. It could mean that a true Christian women should refrain from teaching, but I didnt see anywhere that tells men to stop women from preaching; it might have been implicit.
I also know there are several women that speak God's word in the bible. Here are just a few:
Miriam: She was the sister of Moses and Aaron, and a leader of the Israelites. She sang a song of praise to God after he delivered them from the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20-21). She also prophesied along with her brothers (Numbers 12:1-2).
Deborah: She was a judge and a prophetess in Israel. She led the people in war against the Canaanites, and sang a victory song with Barak, the commander of the army (Judges 4-5). She also gave wise counsel and guidance to the people (Judges 4:4-5).
Huldah: She was a prophetess who lived in Jerusalem during the reign of King Josiah. She confirmed the authenticity and authority of the book of the law that was found in the temple, and gave a message from God to the king and his officials (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chronicles 34:22-28).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
When the Bible said to preach to all the world, do you believe the intention was simply for the person the preach, or to bring more people to know God?
To my understanding, God loves all and wishes for all to know him so they can go to heaven; with this in mind, I believe the intention was to bring more people to know God and go to heaven.
I don't believe you are giving a positive Christian experience for those that don't believe in the Christian God, perhaps even pushing some away. What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Heads up fool, where you are too SCARED to list your religion, or the lack thereof, or your political views your biography, and relative to me allegedly being irrational, what part if these Jesus inspired passages shown below don't you understand AGAIN? Do I need to define them for you in a grade school manner, huh? Besides, where do YOU get the authority to usurp Jesus' words below?!
While it may be true I lack a religion, or feel insecure to defend my stance and therefore chose not to display, it could also be true my religion was not listed in the short drop-down list, or I might not entirely agree with any one religion. It's important to have outside the box thinking when engaging in debates.
I believe that God intended us to read his whole Bible, it would be inappropriate to take his words out of context. In order to take his word wholly, we must read them together.
1. “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” aka always be ready to Preach and prove your faith (2 Timothy 4:2)
2. “And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” aka (Mark 16:15)
3. “Do not cast your pearls before swine.” aka preach to those that value your words. (Matthew 7:6)
Now we can see his meaning more comprehensively: Always be ready to preach and prove your faith telling everyone throughout the world, but only share with those that value your word, otherwise they will cast them out to be trampled in the mud.
Do you agree God intended we follow all of his words, or do you believe that some of his words should only be followed in certain circumstances, or perhaps some of his words are outdated or superceded by his later ones. I don't think he would have made the mistake of contradicting himself, or chosing words to that would become outdated. What do you think?
Created:
-->
@Barney
Here is my updated list of points for a productive debate.
I'm not looking to impose this on others; I'm seeking the most self-benefiting way to debate.
Even if another does not follow these steps, one who uses them will still benefit from the debate.
I define a productive debate as one that rewards a greater ability to navigate reality to success.
Understanding:
- Arguments and Debates: Arguments seek to win, while debates seek solutions.
- Gladiator Colosseum: A debate is a colosseum full of gladiators who rationally fight for dominance until only the champion theories remain.
- Purpose of Debate: Gaining a more comprehensive understanding of reality, so we can navigate life to success.
- Value of Disputes: Disagreement has the potential of discovering a more rigid understanding.
- Wisdom in Experience: Wisdom lies not in words, but in the underlying life experience they represent.
- Courageous Exposure: Contending is the brave exposure of one's potential incompetence, motivated to reach a stronger theory.
Before Debating:
- Definitive Intention: Establish a clear and concise mutually agreed problem and desired outcome.
- Intersubjective debating: Ensure the problem and goal are intersubjective, rather than subjective.
- Reframe Subjective Topics: Transform subjective topics into concrete, intersubjective questions. (Best book becomes, most sold book)
- Effective Communication: Acquire the vocabulary necessary to transmit and recieve thoughts accurately.
During the Debate:
- Respect Others: Their beliefs are the culmination of all their past life experience abstracted into invaluable conceptual knowledge about reality.
- Paraphrase Arguments: Before criticizing, you should paraphrase the alternative arguments, this proves your comprehension and thus readiness to dispute, since you cannot disagree with what you don’t understand.
- Productive Criticism: It is a debate member’s duty is to logically invalidate all presented theories, so that only true theories can survive.
- Gentle Criticism: Rather than blatantly addressing a theory’s flaw, try asking a question that will present the problem; this will not only free the individual of direct critique, but also yourself if you overlooked the solution.
- Identifying Communication Breakdowns: Recognize when communication seems nonsensical and seek to understand the intended meaning.
- Storytelling: Use storytelling and analogies when words fail to convey the meaning of an experience due to incapable transmittance or receptance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Taoism and Buddhism goes directly against Christianity, therefore my God Jesus tells me to refute them when appropriate;
While that is correct, you aren't simply refuting them as the passage says; you are taking your own actions to not just confront but harass others.
If you want to follow the whole of God's scriptures you should read the Bible as a whole and follow all his teachings, rather than being conveniently selective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Let me find enjoyment in challenging myself to logically invalidate your stance within the religious standards of Christianity, your homefield.
Moreover, I will maintain my composure to demonstrate my stability and thoughtfulness in the matter.
The Bible verse where Jesus said “Do not cast your pearls before swine” is found in Matthew 7:6. It is part of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus taught his disciples and the crowds about various aspects of the kingdom of God.
Here is a list of interpretations for this verse:
- Do not share your most precious gifts with those who do not appreciate them.
- Be careful not to waste your time and energy on those who are not interested in the truth.
- Know when to speak and when to be silent, and do not force your faith on those who are hostile or indifferent to it.
- Respect the holy things of God, and do not let them be trampled or attacked by those who do not understand them.
This verse also reminds us that we are responsible for how we treat the holy things of God. We should not take them for granted, or misuse them, or expose them to ridicule or abuse. We should treasure them in our hearts, and live according to them, and share them with those who are hungry and thirsty for God.
How many ways do you believe you have broken this passage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Secondly ,you allowed the #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret to bring into play her Christianity many times in her feeble posts, therefore do not call me out in the same manner, understood?
Not quite, as there was a difference. Tradesecret was pointing out the relations, you were attempting to logically invalidate one religion with another, which is not rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I don't understand what you think you proved...?
This is a discussion about Buddhism, so quoting the Christian text is hardly considered relevant in this forum.
However, I would be interested in engaging if you created a Christian forum; I also have created one about Taoism, since I wish to learn more about these other widely accepted religions.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
While that is true, Stoics don't simply find rationality as appealing to navigate life but place it as the highest divinity, or at least the branch I'm familiar with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
How can we be certain that humans have full (360 degree) consciousness if super-consciousness lays beyond what we are conscious of?
Created:
In a debate, a higher number of participants often leads to increased complexity and potential chaos.
Imagine an individual with 100% average concentration and focus. With two others in the debate, this would mean a 50% connection with each. However, when there are four participants, it drops to 25% for each, and maintaining these four connections requires additional effort. At 100% focus, no efficiency is lost, but at 50% focus, errors can occur while balancing two, and even more so with four participants. In practice, a 50% connection for two is closer to 45% each, totaling 90% efficiency, while 25% for four is more like 15% each, totaling 60% efficiency.
If each task were completed independently, it would likely be faster than balancing all four simultaneously. However, there's the issue of missing perspectives from future participants that past participants may not consider. This necessitates a conversation between the original participants and those joining later. This undermines the efficiency of consecutive tasks.
To address these concerns while maintaining direct connections for maximum efficiency, a larger party could advocate for two of the most rational individuals to support multiple perspectives. For instance, if there are three main perspectives, three primary advocates would suffice. Instead of involving a large group of approximately 20 debate members, these advocates would represent a perspective, while the rest remain the debate audience. This approach would enable a select few to engage in a highly efficient debate. Audience members could ask questions or highlight problems for the advocates to rationally address. The duty of the audience would be to present perspectives or issues for the selected advocates to solve and discuss. This approach aims to be efficient, comprehensive, and inclusive of various viewpoints while effectively addressing a higher number of problems.
Created:
I went ahead and did some further research on Havruta and surrounding debating strategies and tactics.
Havruta: This Jewish debate tradition involves studying texts in pairs or small groups, paraphrasing each other’s arguments, and refuting them only after agreement. It fosters deep understanding, respectful dialogue, and constructive criticism. However, it may require suitable partners and extensive background knowledge.
Pros:
- Fosters deep understanding, respectful dialogue, and constructive criticism
- Cultivates character traits such as humility, patience, honesty, and empathy
- Connects to the tradition and its values
Cons:
- May be difficult to find suitable partners
- May require extensive background knowledge
- May not be applicable to all topics or contexts
Implementation: To implement this strategy, find a debate partner or form small debate study groups. Select a text or topic to study and debate. Paraphrase each other's arguments and ideas, ensuring you understand them thoroughly before moving on to refutations. The key to Havruta is fostering deep understanding, respectful dialogue, and constructive criticism.
Socratic Questioning: This method uses a series of questions to challenge assumptions, expose contradictions, and reveal underlying principles. It clarifies one’s thinking and examines beliefs but can be time-consuming and intimidating for some.
Pros:
- Clarifies one’s own thinking, examines one’s own beliefs, and discovers one’s own errors
- Engages in respectful and constructive dialogue with others who have different views
- Reveals underlying principles and assumptions
Cons:
- May be time-consuming, frustrating, and intimidating for some people
- May not lead to a definitive answer or conclusion
- May depend on the quality of the questions and the responses
Implementation: To implement this strategy, start with a debatable topic or statement. Ask a series of open-ended questions to explore the topic deeply. Challenge assumptions and seek underlying principles while encouraging others to respond with thoughtful answers. Keep the discussion focused on the topic at hand to uncover insights.
Rhetorical Analysis: This method examines how language is used to persuade, inform, or entertain an audience. It understands the purpose, audience, context, and rhetorical strategies but can be subjective and complex.
Pros:
- Understands the purpose, audience, context, and genre of a text
- Appreciates the effectiveness, creativity, and beauty of language
- Evaluates the rhetorical strategies and devices employed by the author
Cons:
- May be subjective, complex, and dependent on the quality of the text
- May not address the validity or soundness of the arguments or claims
- May not consider the ethical or moral implications of the text
Implementation: To implement this strategy, select a persuasive text, speech, or article. Examine the purpose, audience, and context of the communication. Identify rhetorical strategies employed by the author, such as ethos, pathos, and logos. Analyze how language is effectively used to persuade and discuss the overall effectiveness of the communication.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate: A one-on-one debate format focusing on moral and philosophical implications. It allows in-depth exploration of values and principles but may be abstract and technical.
Pros:
- Allows for in-depth exploration of values and principles
- Enables personal expression and creativity
- Enhances moral and philosophical reasoning
Cons:
- May be abstract, technical, and limited in scope
- May not address practical or empirical aspects of the resolution
- May depend on the quality of the evidence and the values
Implementation: To implement this format, decide on a moral or philosophical resolution. Assign one debater as the affirmative and one as the negative. Develop clear arguments grounded in principles and values. Engage in structured cross-examination and rebuttals while focusing on the moral implications and philosophical foundations of the topic.
British Parliamentary Debate: A team debate format with four teams of two speakers each, representing the government and the opposition. Encourages quick thinking and teamwork but can be chaotic.
Pros:
- Encourages quick thinking, teamwork, and adaptability to different motions and positions
- Reflects the style of debate used in the British Parliament
- Provides a variety of perspectives and arguments
Cons:
- May be chaotic, confusing, and unfair for some teams
- May not allow for sufficient depth or development of arguments
- May not consider the ethical or moral implications of the motion
Implementation: To implement this format, form four teams and assign two as the government and two as the opposition. Receive a motion or topic to debate on the spot, and quickly develop arguments and responses in a limited preparation time. This format emphasizes quick thinking, teamwork, and adaptability to different motions and positions.
World Schools Debate: A team debate format with two teams of three speakers each, representing the proposition and opposition sides. Allows for a wide range of topics and rigorous analysis but can be demanding.
Pros:
- Allows for a wide range of topics and perspectives
- Requires rigorous analysis and evidence
- Develops skills such as research, writing, speaking, and listening
Cons:
- May be demanding, competitive, and stressful for some debaters
- May not account for cultural or contextual differences among countries or organizations
- May depend on the quality of the judges and the criteria
Implementation: To implement this format, create two teams and assign one as the proposition and the other as the opposition. Prepare and deliver speeches on a given motion following a structured format with defined speaking roles. World Schools debate allows for the analysis of a wide range of topics and perspectives.
Public Forum Debate: A team debate format with two teams of two speakers each, representing the pro and con sides of a resolution. Relates to current events and logic but may be superficial.
Pros:
- Relates to current events and controversial issues that affect the general public
- Appeals to logic, evidence, and rhetoric
- Engages the judges and the audience
Cons:
- May be superficial, repetitive, and biased for some topics
- May not address the underlying causes or consequences of the resolution
- May depend on the quality of the sources and the presentation
Implementation: To implement this format, form two teams and assign one as pro and the other as con for a resolution. Research current events or controversial issues and construct arguments using logic, evidence, and rhetoric. Engage in a structured debate with crossfire and rebuttals, focusing on the logical and persuasive aspects of the topic.
Model United Nations: A simulation debate involving students representing different countries or organizations. Educates about global issues and develops skills but may be unrealistic.
Pros:
- Educates students about global issues, diplomacy, and cooperation
- Develops skills such as research, writing, speaking, and negotiation
- Fosters a sense of community and friendship among students
Cons:
- May be unrealistic, complex, and politicized for some situations
- May not reflect the actual views or interests of the countries or organizations represented
- May depend on the quality of the chairs and the rules of procedure
Implementation: To implement this format, simulate a UN session, assigning participants as delegates representing countries or organizations. Research and prepare positions on global issues, engage in formal debates, negotiations, and resolutions. MUN emphasizes diplomacy, cooperation, and consensus-building while educating students about global issues.
Drama-Based Education: Uses theater techniques to enhance learning and engagement, developing creativity and critical thinking. It can be challenging and time-consuming for some learners.
Pros:
- Develops skills such as creativity, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving
- Explores Jewish themes and values through storytelling, role-playing, improvisation, and performance
- Enhances learning and engagement through experience, interaction, and personal relevance
Cons:
- May be challenging, time-consuming, and uncomfortable for some learners
- May not address the factual or analytical aspects of the topic or text
- May depend on the quality of the facilitator and the feedback
Implementation: To implement this method, incorporate debates or discussions into dramatic scenarios. Encourage students to embody different perspectives and enhance their learning through creativity and active participation. Reflect on the experience and insights gained during this immersive learning approach.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Thank you for sharing your knowledge about paraphrasing to understand the opponent. I often do this unknowingly, but since you pointed it out, I believe it is an essential aspect of a debate. After all, one cannot disagree with what one doesn't understand.
I have done some research to gain a better understanding of the method.
Here is what I found:
The Jewish debate tradition of listening to someone’s arguments, until you can paraphrase it back to them, have them agree that’s their argument, and only then refute it, is called havruta. Havruta means “friendship” or “companionship” in Aramaic, and it refers to the practice of studying Jewish texts in pairs or small groups. Havruta learning is based on the principle that “two heads are better than one” and that engaging with different perspectives can deepen one’s understanding and sharpen one’s reasoning.
Havruta learning involves three elements: the text, the partner, and the self. The text is the source of the debate, usually a passage from the Talmud or another rabbinic work. The partner is the person with whom one studies the text, exchanging questions, interpretations, and arguments. The self is the individual learner who brings his or her own background, assumptions, and insights to the discussion. Havruta learning requires active listening, respectful dialogue, and constructive criticism.
Havruta learning is not only a method of acquiring knowledge, but also a way of cultivating character traits such as humility, patience, honesty, and empathy. Havruta learning fosters a sense of community and friendship among learners, as well as a connection to the tradition and its values. Havruta learning is considered one of the highest forms of Jewish learning, as it reflects the ideal of “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17).
Created:
-->
@Reece101
No problem. What do you think about the case for Stoicism being considered as a rational religion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity?A primary example would be rubber; It is flexible, but it has a constraint on flexibility.Respectfully that is a terrible example. I'm not sure what to do with it. It doesn't help at all.
That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.
The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.
Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education. Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse.
- Enlightenment in Buddhism is commonly referred to as "Nirvana" (or "Nibbana" in Pali), and it represents the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path. Nirvana is a state of profound spiritual realization and liberation from suffering. It involves a complete extinguishing of suffering and the causes of suffering, resulting in a state of peace, wisdom, and spiritual awakening.
- I suppose, if you have explained that communism leads to more suffering than not, then it would not be considered enlightenment.
- I personally believe enlightenment is a sort of self-salvation, as you are saving yourself from your past self's flaws. Even if you prefer not to call it self-salvation, educational enlightenment ceases self-inflicted torture.
I'm not sure why you would think any of what you have said is helpful in our discussion. You seem to be going around in circles. Are you feeling stumped?
You had a dispute on enlightenment, the first thing to do would be:
- define enlightenment from the perspective of the religion
- then to respond to you dispute
- then to explain my personal thoughts if I have any disputes with the religion's definition.
What more could you have asked for?
I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples?I think that one person might find classical music peaceful, while another might find it boringly dreadful. (Subjective)Meanwhile, no one finds torture peaceful. (Intersubjective)I use these two cases to prove that peace is a subjective sensation, though it has a level of constraint in which all will find not peaceful.I'm pretty sure that all people would agree with the view that torture is bad. But what does that have to do with inner peace?
Peace is the state or quality of being free from violence, conflict, or disturbance, both internally and externally.
Being free from torture is a part of being at peace.
Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering.Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.Really. On what basis do you think that?
As you said above...
Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely, we should avoid that kind of suffering.
I'm speaking of the same suffering. We should become more conscious, so we can avoid suffering caused by ignorance.
Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness. Curious really.I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.You could be right, but you have not shown why. What does altruism mean? and what do both religions hold to in relation to altruism?
Altruism is the quality or practice of caring for the well-being of others without expecting anything in return, even if it means sacrificing one’s own interests or happiness.
I believe both religions show that being moral is at one's own self-interest.
When asking for empirical evidence, remember this is a religious forum, so not everything is founded in rationality.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I think it would be a waste of my time to humiliate someone as simple minded as you have described. I agree that most people who go into a debate believe that they already know the truth, but the question is whether it is the most accurate truth. The way we understand the world is by extracting abstract conceptual knowledge about the world, but extraction requires a takeaway with our limited mental capacity, and conceptualizing requires derived simplification, both of which people cannot know if they have truly reached and most possibly will never. I believe it is possible there is always a better explanation than the one I have concluded for being most probable. I agree that closed-minded people cannot learn, but they can teach, and even if they have an irrational conclusion, it is still possible, and I find this to be true, that at least part of their train of thought is a new rational perspective I hadn't considered. It is through collaboration that we can gain the knowledge of others and select the parts of our choice to craft ourselves into our ideal. I think debates are necessary to gather more experience than one person could ever on their own, and the person with the most experience has the most knowledge about the world, And the person with the most knowledge can have the most comprehensive understanding of the world, and then they can extract the most encompassing and abstract concepts to navigate life towards success of their chosen destination.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Religion is a broad term for the beliefs and practices of a faith community.
Dogma is a narrow term for the official and unchangeable teachings of a religion that are believed to come from God.
Dogma can help preserve and communicate the core truths of a religion, but it can also cause division and conflict if it is followed too rigidly or dogmatically.
Would you explicitly state what you are implying? I don't want to speculate because I find that is where the greatest number of unproductive misinterpretations lie.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm trying to highlight that Stoicism is considered a philosophy rather than a religion because it is founded in rationality, highlighting its difference from many other philosophies that are qualifying religions, so while stoicism is not a logical religion it is a logical set of beliefs with a core value, quite similar to a religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity?
A primary example would be rubber; It is flexible, but it has a constraint on flexibility.
Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education. Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse.
Enlightenment in Buddhism is commonly referred to as "Nirvana" (or "Nibbana" in Pali), and it represents the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path. Nirvana is a state of profound spiritual realization and liberation from suffering. It involves a complete extinguishing of suffering and the causes of suffering, resulting in a state of peace, wisdom, and spiritual awakening.
I suppose, if you have explained that communism leads to more suffering than not, then it would not be considered enlightenment.
I personally believe enlightenment is a sort of self-salvation, as you are saving yourself from your past self's flaws.
Even if you prefer not to call it self-salvation, educational enlightenment ceases self-inflicted torture.
I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples?
I think that one person might find classical music peaceful, while another might find it boringly dreadful. (Subjective)
Meanwhile, no one finds torture peaceful. (Intersubjective)
I use these two cases to prove that peace is a subjective sensation, though it has a level of constraint in which all will find not peaceful.
Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering.
Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.
I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.
Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness. Curious really.
I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.
I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Philosophy is a rational and critical inquiry into fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and the nature of reality. It involves the pursuit of wisdom through reasoned argumentation and examination of ideas.
Religion, on the other hand, is a specific type of philosophy that includes beliefs and practices related to the sacred, the divine, and the supernatural. It often involves organized rituals, moral codes, and a sense of community.
In summary, while religion is a philosophy with a focus on the sacred and divine, philosophy is a broader intellectual pursuit that encompasses a wide range of rational and critical inquiries, not necessarily tied to the sacred or the supernatural. So, religion is always a philosophy, but philosophies are not always religions.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I've discovered that Stoicism is commonly regarded as a philosophy rather than a religion. However, my personal perspective suggests that religion often centers around emotional values. If an individual places a high value on logic, then Stoicism could be seen as their logical framework.
Atheists typically don't attribute value to divinity and may not perceive anything as divine. In contrast, Stoics identify divinity in logic, while traditional religion assigns value to the supernatural. From this viewpoint, it appears that Atheism is the logical dismissal of the unknown, religion is the belief in the unknowable, and Stoicism appreciates what can be known, essentially tying the two together.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Stoicism seeks to find divinity in what is logical, but not in a cold or impersonal way. Stoicism believes that divinity is not only the source of order and harmony, but also of wisdom and goodness. Stoicism also believes that divinity is provident and benevolent, meaning that it cares for and guides all things toward their proper ends. Stoicism also believes that divinity is immanent and pantheistic, meaning that it is not separate from or above nature, but within and identical to nature, though others believe divinity is the concepts that transcend form, such as the laws of nature. Stoicism also believes that divinity is part of human nature, as we share the same rational faculty and moral sense as the divine logos.
Stoicism recognizes that human beings are not purely rational, but also have emotions, passions, and desires. Stoicism does not aim to suppress or eliminate these aspects of human nature, but rather to moderate and align them with reason and virtue. Stoicism teaches that we can reduce unnecessary suffering in our lives by distinguishing between what is in our control and what is not, and by focusing on our actions and judgments rather than on external events and outcomes. Stoicism also teaches that we can cultivate positive emotions such as joy, gratitude, love, and compassion by living according to nature and virtue.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I wasn't implying that religion is derived from Stoicism, but rather questioning whether it is the middle ground between religion and atheism.
Some people seek to be religious beyond logical reason, others reject all ideas of Divinity, the question is whether Stoicism seeks to find Divinity in what is logical.
To me, it seems Stoicism means to idealize rationality, believing it can reduce unnecessary suffering in our lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I think it is obvious that there are disparities of conscious levels among members of a species.
If this is true, this would imply that jellyfish generally have 20 degrees, but may have 19 or 21.
However, assuming we are using the geometric values ranging from 1 to 360, and then placing humans at 360, this would imply that humans, having a disparity in consciousness, could be 359 or 361. Acknowledging that there cannot be 361, as it goes beyond the geometric scale, and limit to the framework of this theory, it would imply that humans cannot have 361 degrees.
Being that the human species averages at 360, and cannot be 361, it means that every human is exactly 360 degrees, which implies humans don't have a disparity, even with the apparent disparity, and I don't see how this theory can reconcile this.
Moreover, we cannot know if there is a maximum consciousness because it would lay beyond what we are conscious of, so any conscious framework that places a limit or maximum, is only done by choice and not by observation or verifiable there; it is as speculative as the existence of a supernatural deity. Therefore, consciousness cannot be logically given a maximum value, such as 360.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
In Buddhism, the path to Nirvana is not rigid, but there are constraints to which paths will lead there.
The many paths that don't lead to Nirvana actually aligns with Christianity, "the path to heaven is a narrow road, and to stray will lead to hell."
How then is the person to know where the race track boundaries are? And why is inner peace and enlightenment the end outcome anyway?
The road with many paths seems to be constrained to the abstracted idea presented by the eight principles. I believe the point is to understand reality through enlightenment, enabling us to align ourselves with reality, leading to consciousness and mindfulness.
This helps us live life with our eyes open.
Once enlightend and now understanding, we can see unnecessary suffering coming a mile away, thus avoiding it.
I believe that most suffering in life is self-inflicted through willful blindness.
Surely the goal of inner peace is subjective all by itself? I might indicate for instance that I think inner peace is something I found a long time ago, but not because I went looking for it in my own mindfulness. But rather because God came to me and brought peace with him.
I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.
Isn't happiness the primary goal? Perhaps you might define and explain what inner peace looks like. And also what is enlightenment?
Jordan Peterson defines happiness as what brings positive feelings in the moment, but it is not worth living for. He says meaning is what will bring light to our times of darkness, and it is worth living for.
Enlightenment is when we understand reality, and I define understanding reality as the ability to navigate through the uncharted seas of life. It is not just knowing what to do with what you have learned, but also knowing what to do when you are in a new environment.
I believe the end goal of Buddhism is to avoid unnecessary suffering by understanding through enlightenment.
Created:
Topic Description:
We will be discussing Stoicism and its relation to Atheism and religion.
Questions to start:
Is Stoicism the center of Atheism and religion?
Is Stoicism a logical philosophy?
Can a person be both a stoic and atheist?
Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
In Stoicism, the concept of "Logos" holds significant importance. Logos can be understood in several ways:
- Reason and Rationality: Logos is often associated with reason and rationality. It represents the divine and universal rational principle that governs the cosmos. According to Stoic philosophy, humans possess the faculty of reason, which allows them to align their own thoughts and actions with the rationality of the Logos.
- Nature and Order: Logos is seen as the underlying order and structure of the universe. It's the idea that there's a rational and purposeful design to the world, and everything in it follows this natural order. Stoics believe that living in accordance with nature and the Logos leads to a virtuous and fulfilling life.
- Interconnectedness: Stoicism emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things. The Logos connects all living beings and events in the cosmos. This interconnectedness implies that our individual actions and choices can have ripple effects throughout the universe, emphasizing the importance of ethical living.
- Fate and Acceptance: Stoics believe in accepting the natural course of events, even if they seem adverse. This acceptance is rooted in the idea that the Logos determines the fate of individuals and the world. Stoics advocate for embracing what happens as part of a larger, rational plan.
- Divine Reason: Some Stoics also view Logos as a form of divine reason or providence. While not necessarily a personal deity, it represents an overarching divine intelligence or wisdom that guides the universe.
In summary, the concept of Logos in Stoicism encapsulates reason, nature, interconnectedness, and the idea of living in harmony with the rational and purposeful order of the cosmos. It plays a central role in Stoic ethics and provides a framework for understanding the world and one's place within it.
Created:
Posted in:
In Taoism, the key idea is to align yourself with the natural flow of the world, allowing events to unfold naturally without unnecessary resistance. This is often referred to as "Wu Wei" or "effortless action," where you act in harmony with the Tao, the natural order of the universe, rather than against it. The goal is to minimize interference and live in balance with both personal goals and the world's natural rhythms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Imagine the concept of reaching Nirvana as if it were a racetrack with a single finish line, symbolizing the destination of inner peace and enlightenment. This racetrack represents the journey of spiritual growth and self-realization.
Within this racetrack, there exist multiple paths or lanes, akin to the various approaches, practices, and teachings that individuals may follow on their spiritual journey. Much like a racetrack offers the inside lane, the outside lane, the middle lane, and countless combinations for drivers to choose from, there are many paths on the road to Nirvana.
However, it's crucial to note that while there are many legitimate paths within the racetrack that lead to Nirvana, there are also countless other paths that stray from the road altogether. These divergent paths do not align with the journey towards inner peace and enlightenment and may lead individuals away from the ultimate destination.
So, just as racers adhere to the racetrack's boundaries, those seeking Nirvana stay on the path toward enlightenment, selecting from the array of legitimate approaches while avoiding those that deviate from the true course.
Ultimately, there are many paths to Nirvana, but even more that lead elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
To my understanding, the Buddha did not believe in a rigid path, but rather a destination with a general direction which people can pursue within the boundaries of the path.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Do you believe all consciousness exists in integral increments between 0 and 360?
How many people truly have 360, and what does the average person have?
How many degrees is super consciousness, and is there such a thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
How did you choose the specific values of degrees for each entity’s ability of consciousness, and why are the degrees assigned not one more or less? I can see that more consciousness means more observation and more relation, but what is the logic behind assigning 20 degrees to a jellyfish for its simple nervous system and environment relation, 55 degrees to a bird for its magnetic field sense, 260 degrees to a dolphin for its language and cooperation with other species, and 360 degrees to a human for its meta-space access with the mind? Please explain your rationale and method for your scale.
You assigned humanity with 360 degrees of consciousness; would that imply that all humans have the same level of consciousness?
I believe there are various levels of consciousness for different individuals.
Additionally, do people with autism get placed at 360?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I'm trying to understand, so please correct me if I interpret your notations incorrectly.
Literary explanation:
Consciousness is the ability to observe and relate to others. A scale of 1-360 degrees is used to measure the complexity of consciousness in different entities, based on the type and number of relationships they can form. For example, a sponge has a very low degree of consciousness (5 degrees) because it has no nervous system and no relationships with other entities. A jellyfish has a slightly higher degree of consciousness (20 degrees) because it has a simple nervous system and a relationship with its environment. A bird has a higher degree of consciousness (55 degrees) because it can sense magnetic fields and navigate long distances. A dolphin has a very high degree of consciousness (260 degrees) because it can communicate and cooperate with other species. A human has the highest degree of consciousness (360 degrees) because it can access meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i.
Symbol notation explanation:
Consciousness = o------o { observer o and observed o }1. I use 1-360 scale for complexity of o------o. Ex sponge = -5- { no o------o }. Jellyfish = -20- { simple o------o }. Bird = -55- { magnetic o------o }. Dolphin = } +260- { language o------o }. Human = 8 } +360+ { meta-space o------o }.
This notation means that:
- Consciousness is defined as the ability to observe and relate to others (o------o).
- A scale of 1-360 degrees is used to measure the complexity of the relationship between the observer and the observed (o------o).
- The author gives some examples of different degrees of consciousness in different entities, such as:
- A sponge has zero degree of consciousness (0 degrees) because it has no relationship with other entities (no o------o).
- A jellyfish has a low degree of consciousness (20 degrees) because it has a simple relationship with its environment (simple o------o).
- A bird has a moderate degree of consciousness (55 degrees) because it can sense magnetic fields and navigate long distances (magnetic o------o).
- A dolphin has a high degree of consciousness (260 degrees) because it can communicate and cooperate with other species (language o------o).
- A human has the highest degree of consciousness (360 degrees) because it can access meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i (meta-space o------o).
- A sponge has zero degree of consciousness (0 degrees) because it has no relationship with other entities (no o------o).
Here is what I think they mean:
- The symbol o represents an entity that can observe or be observed, such as an animal, a plant, or a physical object.
- The symbol ------ represents a line-of-relationship between two entities, such as sight, smell, touch, hearing, taste, infrared sensing, magnetic sensing, or abstract reasoning.
- The symbol 8 represents a circle or a loop, which implies a self-referential or self-aware relationship, such as meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i.
- The symbol } represents a bracket or a boundary, which implies a distinction or a separation between different types of relationships.
- The symbol + represents a positive sign or an increase, which implies a higher degree of complexity or consciousness.
- The symbol - represents a negative sign or a decrease, which implies a lower degree of complexity or consciousness.
So, for example, the notation 8 } +360+ { means that the entity has a self-referential relationship (8) that is the highest degree of complexity or consciousness (+360+) among all possible types of relationships ({}).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The Eightfold Path consists of eight interconnected aspects of ethical and mental development.
These aspects are:
- Right View: Understanding the nature of suffering, the causes of suffering, and the path to its cessation.
- Right Intention: Developing wholesome and compassionate intentions in all actions.
- Right Speech: Speaking truthfully, kindly, and in ways that promote harmony.
- Right Action: Engaging in ethical and morally upright conduct, avoiding harm to others.
- Right Livelihood: Choosing a livelihood that aligns with ethical and moral principles, avoiding harm and exploitation.
- Right Effort: Cultivating a balanced and persistent effort in the practice of meditation and moral conduct.
- Right Mindfulness: Developing keen awareness of one's thoughts, feelings, and actions in the present moment.
- Right Concentration: Cultivating focused and concentrated states of mind through meditation.
These aspects are not necessarily intuitive or innate, and individuals may have different understandings of what is "right" based on their cultural, social, or personal backgrounds. Therefore, Buddhist practice often involves guidance from teachers, study of sacred texts, and meditation to refine one's understanding of these principles and apply them in daily life.
“Right” in Buddhism is a relative and contextual concept that depends on various factors. It is guided by the teachings and precepts of the Buddha, especially the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths. It is also determined by one’s own intention, motivation, and understanding. Different people may have different views of what is “right”, but they can all follow the same path to liberation from suffering.
Ultimately, the rules and guidelines are typically considered flexible and contextual rather than fixed and dogmatic.
Created:
Posted in:
Here are some of the main aspects of Buddhism:
The Buddha: The Buddha, which means “the awakened one”, is the title given to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism. He was born as a prince in present-day Nepal around the 5th century BCE, but he renounced his wealth and privilege after witnessing the suffering of human life. He embarked on a spiritual quest for truth and enlightenment, and after years of meditation and asceticism, he attained nirvana, the ultimate state of liberation from the cycle of rebirth. He then spent the rest of his life teaching his doctrine and method to others, until he passed away at the age of 80. The Buddha is not considered a god or a deity, but rather an extraordinary human being who achieved the highest potential of human existence.
The Dharma: The Dharma, which means “the teaching” or “the law”, is the collective term for the teachings and doctrines of the Buddha. The Dharma is based on the Four Noble Truths, which are: 1) Life is suffering (dukkha); 2) The cause of suffering is craving (tanha); 3) The cessation of suffering is possible by overcoming craving (nirodha); 4) The way to overcome craving and attain nirvana is by following the Eightfold Path (magga). The Eightfold Path consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. The Dharma also includes various ethical precepts, such as the Five Precepts (to refrain from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and intoxication), and various philosophical concepts, such as karma (the law of cause and effect), rebirth (the continuous cycle of existence), anatta (the doctrine of no-self), anicca (the doctrine of impermanence), and dependent origination (the principle that all phenomena arise and cease in dependence on conditions).
The Sangha: The Sangha, which means “the community” or “the assembly”, is the term for the followers and practitioners of Buddhism. The Sangha consists of two main groups: the monastic Sangha and the lay Sangha. The monastic Sangha are those who have renounced worldly life and taken vows to live according to strict rules of discipline and celibacy. They are also known as bhikkhus (monks) and bhikkhunis (nuns), and they devote their lives to studying, teaching, and practicing the Dharma. The lay Sangha are those who have not taken monastic vows, but still follow the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism. They are also known as upasakas (male lay followers) and upasikas (female lay followers), and they support the monastic Sangha by providing them with material necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. Both groups form a mutually beneficial relationship based on respect, gratitude, and generosity.
Created:
Posted in:
Here are some of the main aspects of Taoism:
The Tao: The Tao (or Dao) is the central concept of Taoism. It is often translated as ‘way’, ‘path’, or ‘principle’, but it has no exact equivalent in English. The Tao is the ultimate reality, the origin and essence of all things, the natural order of the universe, and the way of life that conforms to it. The Tao is ineffable, meaning that it cannot be fully expressed or defined by words. It can only be experienced or intuited through observation, meditation, and practice. The Tao is also dynamic, meaning that it is constantly changing and evolving according to the circumstances. The Tao is not a personal or anthropomorphic deity, but rather an impersonal and transcendent force that guides and sustains everything.
The Yin and Yang: The Yin and Yang are two complementary and interdependent aspects of the Tao. They represent the opposite and balanced forces that make up the universe and everything in it. Yin is the passive, receptive, feminine, dark, cold, and negative principle, while Yang is the active, creative, masculine, bright, hot, and positive principle. Yin and Yang are not fixed or absolute, but rather relative and dynamic. They constantly interact and transform each other in a cyclical process of creation and destruction. Everything contains both Yin and Yang in varying degrees, and the harmony between them is essential for health, happiness, and prosperity.
The Wu Wei: The Wu Wei is a key concept of Taoist ethics and practice. It is often translated as ‘non-action’, ‘effortless action’, or ‘action without intention’, but it does not mean passivity or laziness. Rather, it means acting in accordance with the Tao, following the natural flow of things, and avoiding unnecessary interference or resistance. Wu Wei implies spontaneity, simplicity, flexibility, and adaptability. It also implies detachment from selfish desires, expectations, and outcomes. By practicing Wu Wei, one can achieve harmony with oneself, others, and nature, as well as attain a state of inner peace and joy.
The De: The De (or Te) is another important concept of Taoism. It is often translated as ‘virtue’, ‘power’, or ‘integrity’, but it has a broader meaning than these terms suggest. De is the manifestation of the Tao in oneself and in the world. It is the quality or character that results from living in accordance with the Tao. De is also the influence or effect that one has on others and on the environment by embodying the Tao. De can be cultivated by practicing Wu Wei, by aligning one’s thoughts, words, and actions with the Tao, and by expressing one’s true nature without pretense or artifice. By developing De, one can enhance one’s life force or energy (Qi), achieve harmony with oneself and others, and fulfill one’s potential as a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
Here are some of the main aspects of stoicism:
The four cardinal virtues: The Stoics believed that there are four main virtues that are essential for human excellence: wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. Wisdom is the ability to use reason and knowledge to make good decisions and avoid errors. Courage is the ability to face difficulties and dangers with confidence and resilience. Justice is the ability to treat others fairly and impartially, and to uphold one’s moral obligations. Temperance is the ability to control one’s desires and emotions, and to act moderately and appropriately.
The dichotomy of control: The Stoics distinguished between things that are in our control and things that are not in our control. Things that are in our control are our own thoughts, opinions, judgments, actions, and reactions. Things that are not in our control are external events, circumstances, outcomes, and other people’s actions and reactions. The Stoics advised us to focus on what is in our control, and to accept what is not in our control as part of the natural order of things. By doing so, we can avoid unnecessary stress, frustration, anger, fear, and disappointment, and instead achieve peace of mind, tranquility, and happiness.
The natural law: The Stoics believed that the universe is governed by a rational principle called the logos, which is also the source of all life and intelligence. The logos creates and sustains everything according to a divine plan or a natural law. The natural law is the expression of the logos in the physical world, and it determines how everything should function and behave. The Stoics argued that humans have a special relationship with the logos, since they share a part of it in their rational faculty or soul. Therefore, humans have the ability and the duty to live in accordance with the natural law, by using their reason to discover and follow its rules. By living according to nature, humans can achieve their true purpose and fulfill their potential as rational beings.
The cosmopolitanism: The Stoics viewed themselves as citizens of the world, rather than belonging to any particular nation or culture. They believed that all humans are brothers and sisters, since they share a common origin and a common nature. They also believed that all humans have a moral obligation to care for each other and to contribute to the common good of humanity. The Stoics advocated for universal justice, equality, tolerance, compassion, and benevolence. They also encouraged people to participate in social and political affairs, as long as they do not compromise their integrity or virtue.
Created:
Posted in:
Topic Description:
I would like to build a strong understanding of the ideas and theories related to the subject philosophy.
Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
Topic Description:
I would like to build a strong understanding of the ideas and beliefs related to the subject religion.
Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
Topic Description:
I would like to build a strong understanding of the ideas and beliefs related to the subject religion.
Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Glad you are back, and I hope we have some more positive interactions in the future. :)
Created:
This is not a comprehensive list, but these are the three categories which I wish to articulate. I am open and asking for perspectives that align to rigidify criticize to reconstruct or amend to grow my structure of debating.
Understanding:
Purpose of Debate: To gain a more comprehensive understanding of reality.
Value of Disputes: Disagreement has the potential of discovering a more rigid understanding.
Wisdom in Experience: Wisdom lies not in words, but in the underlying life experience they represent.
Courageous Exposure: Contending is the brave exposure of one's potential incompetence, motivated to reach a stronger theory.
Before Debating:
Definitive Intention: Establish a clear and concise mutually agreed problem and desired outcome.
Intersubjective debating: Ensure the problem and goal are intersubjective, rather than subjective.
Reframe Subjective Topics: Transform subjective topics into concrete, intersubjective questions. (Best book becomes, most sold book)
Effective Communication: Acquire the vocabulary necessary to express thoughts accurately.
During the Debate:
Worthy Environment: Create an environment where participants feel valued, so they wish to share more of their experience in the future.
Productive Criticism: It is a debatees duty to destroy all presented theories, so that only the strongest can survive.
Identifying Communication Breakdowns: Recognize when communication seems nonsensical and seek to understand the intended meaning.
Storytelling: Use storytelling and analogies when words fail to convey the meaning of an experience due to incapable transmittance or receptance.
Created:
It is essential to have a clearly defined problem and goal which you wish to achieve, and it must be collectively agreed.
The problem and goal cannot be subjective, otherwise it is not a true contender, because it undermines the purpose of collaboration in the firstplace.
If a problem and go are subjective, reframe them into an intersubjective question.
For example, what is the best book, is a subjective question, but it can be reframed into an intersubjective question, what is the number one bestseller.
Created: