Selfishness

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Andrew!

No, but neither did Christ MAKE UP such rules ... or at least, some of us believe. Thus we do NOT find such a brand of "Christianity" (patterning one's behavior after the Christ of Love) to be either appealing, or in the least bit inviting.

When "Love thy neighbor, and thine enemy (even!)" gets turned into a "member's only CLUB,"we no longer have what the Master intended. Not that he expected perfection, or immediate Planetary Peace (and true Brotherhood).

But we will WORK toward these goals, and endure whatever injustices, personal attacks, and so forth ... during the process. And one day, folks will catch on. Hopefully, soon enough to avert all sorts of disasters - which really occur, when everything is said & done, in the name of selfishness.

(or in the name of, "MY religion above ALL OTHERS" ... for this is exactly what is so trouble about the situation in parts of the Middle East - but not just there)

So you selfishly say...

 

[taijasi]

Kindest Regards, Andrew!


So you selfishly say...

No juan, selflessly so ...

For not for myself alone do I desire these things, but for you, and for all ... SEE MY EDIT (which I made before seeing your post )

Oh ye of little Faith ....

 

[Quahom1]

No, but neither did Christ MAKE UP such rules ... or at least, some of us believe. ...Thus we do NOT find such a brand of "Christianity" (patterning one's behavior after the Christ of Love) to be either appealing, or in the least bit inviting.

Yeah, He did make the rules... He said He is the truth, light and the way, only through Him can we get to the Father...pretty specific in instructions I should think...

It's ok if one does not choose to follow the "host's" rules, but then one doesn't have to sit at the host's banquet table either...

 

[Quahom1]

No juan, selflessly so ...

For not for myself alone do I desire these things, but for you, and for all ... SEE MY EDIT (which I made before seeing your post )

Oh ye of little Faith ....

Not when you "want" others to accept your perspective on things...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Andrew!

No juan, selflessly so ...

For not for myself alone do I desire these things, but for you, and for all ... SEE MY EDIT (which I made before seeing your post )

Oh ye of little Faith ....

No surprise I disagree. There is no such thing as "selflessness," it is illusion. How can a "self" not exist, and still write, care, love or have compassion? No, you have your selfish motives, whether disguised or open, whether consciously known or unknown. Altruism is at its very root a selfish act. Rand explains this far better than I. How selfishness acquired a bad connotation is beyond my understanding...simply put, selfishness is not evil unless it is pointed in that direction and used for such.

 

[juantoo3]

By extension, Jesus was the most perfectly selfish individual to live, precisely because he directed his motivations in line with those of the Heavenly Father in extending grace, love and forgiveness to all who looked to him.

 

[taijasi]

Yeah, He did make the rules... He said He is the truth, light and the way, only through Him can we get to the Father...pretty specific in instructions I should think...

It's ok if one does not choose to follow the "host's" rules, but then one doesn't have to sit at the host's banquet table either...

Last time I checked, it was still possible to understand Christ's words in a Universal context, being as how Christ seems a fairly Universal figure.

But don't let me break up your club.
(Heaven knows, I sure don't want to upset your preferred seating arrangements! )

Not when you "want" others to accept your perspective on things...

I don't want anything from you, Joshua. Don't try and make things personal.

There is no such thing as "selflessness," it is illusion.

You're trying to have your cake here, and eat it too. As an esotericist, I understand this as the distinction between a lesser self (or the personality - such as "you," me, Joshua, etc.) ... and a Greater. A synonym for the latter is Soul.

The idea, then, which is what Christ was getting at, is that we live for the sake of others, no less than, our "own" self. The Will of the Soul is the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.

And that, in a nutshell, is "my brand" of Christianity.

If I practice it, as a party of one, I am no less content.

 

[Quahom1]

Last time I checked, it was still possible to understand Christ's words in a Universal context, being as how Christ seems a fairly Universal figure.

But don't let me break up your club.
(Heaven knows, I sure don't want to upset your preferred seating arrangements! )

I don't want anything from you, Joshua. Don't try and make things personal.

You're trying to have your cake here, and eat it too. As an esotericist, I understand this as the distinction between a lesser self (or the personality - such as "you," me, Joshua, etc.) ... and a Greater. A synonym for the latter is Soul.

The idea, then, which is what Christ was getting at, is that we live for the sake of others, no less than, our "own" self. The Will of the Soul is the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.

And that, in a nutshell, is "my brand" of Christianity.

If I practice it, as a party of one, I am no less content.

My aspiration is to be the doorman...

I am my soul which has the name "Joshua".

I believe Christ said "Love God, love neighbor as self" (para).

By definition, the "will" is a self centered tool, and is essential to the existence of man's personage.

v/r

the soul named Joshua...

p.s. but it is personal. You want me to see things from your perspective. Nothing insulting about that. But it is "selfish"...

 

[Quahom1]

By extension, Jesus was the most perfectly selfish individual to live, precisely because he directed his motivations in line with those of the Heavenly Father in extending grace, love and forgiveness to all who looked to him.

Taken from that perspective...it makes sense. Afterall, God did make us for His pleasure and delight...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Andrew!

Last time I checked, it was still possible to understand Christ's words in a Universal context, being as how Christ seems a fairly Universal figure.

I suppose it is possible to view Christ in any ol' way a person chooses. How relevant it is to sacred scripture is another matter.

But don't let me break up your club.
(Heaven knows, I sure don't want to upset your preferred seating arrangements! )

I am thinking your selfish actions are betraying your words here.

You're trying to have your cake here, and eat it too. As an esotericist, I understand this as the distinction between a lesser self (or the personality - such as "you," me, Joshua, etc.) ... and a Greater. A synonym for the latter is Soul.

Oh my. I let myself get a little out of sorts with Taijasi. Because of such, I tried really, really hard to accommodate Zagreus. Now, Andrew shoves comments like these in my face...almost a dare? We are mincing semantics. You, as an esotericist, are going to invent words and apply meanings that are non-existent or irrelevant or completely contrary. As an exotericist, I am using the precise meaning of the word selfish. Now, if you could somehow tie "self" to "ego," perhaps in a Buddhist sense you might develop a coherent argument. But as it stands, what you have is opinion. No less than I do. Except I see my opinion as based in reality and established meaning, supported by a well known if somewhat obscure philosopher named Ayn Rand. Whereas I see your application fluctuate depending on company present, subject at hand and who you wish to buffalo for the moment. Hospitality has its limits; when a guest is rude, they are asked to leave, politely at first. Your disagreement is not the cause of my concern, the snide remarks that go along with your comments however, betray your "selflessness." Simply put, no matter what you say to the contrary, there is no evidence.

The idea, then, which is what Christ was getting at, is that we live for the sake of others, no less than, our "own" self. The Will of the Soul is the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.

And that, in a nutshell, is "my brand" of Christianity.

If I practice it, as a party of one, I am no less content.

Ah ha! Something we both can agree on! What a wonderful change! As long as one understands that "the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" must be tempered with respectful concern for those in the minority. Otherwise, you only have Mill's utilitarianism...also known as "the end justifies the means." Are you saying it is alright to trample the minority in order to sate the majority? I would hope not, and suggest you reconsider your selfish motives.

Jesus came to heal the sick (minority), not heal the well (majority).

 

[Quahom1]

You're trying to have your cake here, and eat it too. As an esotericist, I understand this as the distinction between a lesser self (or the personality - such as "you," me, Joshua, etc.) ... and a Greater.

That point made in and of itself is a segregator... You just seperated self from the rest. The connotation (whether intentional or not), is "Io Solo".

...and yes, I do have a degree in Psychology (lol), criminal psychology

 

[Quahom1]

...
Ah ha! Something we both can agree on! What a wonderful change! As long as one understands that "the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" must be tempered with respectful concern for those in the minority. Otherwise, you only have Mill's utilitarianism...also known as "the end justifies the means." Are you saying it is alright to trample the minority in order to sate the majority? I would hope not, and suggest you reconsider your selfish motives.

Um, does that mean the needs of the One, sometimes outway the needs of the many?...

(josh, you and your ST fascination...)

LOL

gotta love me, I'm the baby...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Q!

Um, does that mean the needs of the One, sometimes outway the needs of the many?...

Indeed. Logically.

 

[taijasi]

You want me to see things from your perspective. Nothing insulting about that. But it is "selfish"...

No Joshua, what I want, is for you, and for everyone, to Will the Divine Will, for all the planet. Sure, that's a bit selfish ... and thus, as Buddhistically as I can, I also strive to practice detachment, since I know that what you will, is your own "free will" ... and we do not always choose the Divine Will. Not you, not me, not 99.9% of Humanity.

But there are men, and women, who do ...

 

[Quahom1]

Kindest Regards, Q!

Indeed. Logically.

C? six muns ago I cunent spell inginneer...now I are one...

 

[Quahom1]

No Joshua, what I want, is for you, and for everyone, to Will the Divine Will, for all the planet. Sure, that's a bit selfish ... and thus, as Buddhistically as I can, I also strive to practice detachment, since I know that what you will, is your own "free will" ... and we do not always choose the Divine Will. Not you, not me, not 99.9% of Humanity.

But there are men, and women, who do ...

Only three, last count I took. Enoch, Ellijah, and...hmmm who was that other one?...

 

[taijasi]

But don't let me break up your club.
(Heaven knows, I sure don't want to upset your preferred seating arrangements! )

I am thinking your selfish actions are betraying your words here.

You lost me.

Oh my. I let myself get a little out of sorts with Taijasi. Because of such, I tried really, really hard to accommodate Zagreus. Now, Andrew shoves comments like these in my face...almost a dare? We are mincing semantics. You, as an esotericist, are going to invent words and apply meanings that are non-existent or irrelevant or completely contrary. As an exotericist, I am using the precise meaning of the word selfish. Now, if you could somehow tie "self" to "ego," perhaps in a Buddhist sense you might develop a coherent argument. But as it stands, what you have is opinion. No less than I do. Except I see my opinion as based in reality and established meaning, supported by a well known if somewhat obscure philosopher named Ayn Rand. Whereas I see your application fluctuate depending on company present, subject at hand and who you wish to buffalo for the moment. Hospitality has its limits; when a guest is rude, they are asked to leave, politely at first. Your disagreement is not the cause of my concern, the snide remarks that go along with your comments however, betray your "selflessness." Simply put, no matter what you say to the contrary, there is no evidence.

Just practice what you preach, Juantoo3, no more, no less. That's what I'm doing ... how about a little capitulatation? Asking too much? Ah well, I'll do your share. I do owe a few folks, a few favors ...

Are you saying it is alright to trample the minority in order to sate the majority?

Your words, your belief?

 

[taijasi]

That point made in and of itself is a segregator... You just seperated self from the rest. The connotation (whether intentional or not), is "Io Solo".

...and yes, I do have a degree in Psychology (lol), criminal psychology

No, Q, you too are invited to follow the narrow, razor's-edged Path. The separation is automatic. You can quibble with my language if you like, but do not take up God's System. It may seem to lack, in men's eyes, yet I haven't come across a better idea in my one & a half score and five (nor in all the prior lifetimes I can count). Can you?

GOD'S SYSTEM

Dare you ask? Or would you rather - suit yourself?

 

[taijasi]

Kindest Regards, Q!

Indeed. Logically.

he was, is, and always shall be ... my favorite (and a true friend)

 

[Quahom1]

No, Q, you too are invited to follow the narrow, razor's-edged Path. The separation is automatic. You can quibble with my language if you like, but do not take up God's System. It may seem to lack, in men's eyes, yet I haven't come across a better idea in my three score and five (nor in all the prior lifetimes I can count). Can you?

GOD'S SYSTEM

Dare you ask? Or would you rather - suit yourself?

I'm not interested in the internal Andrew. I like to selfishly do random acts of kindness...that's why I serve in the Coast Guard (for the last 30 years).