Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: Repentance
SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/19/08 12:41 AM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sun 10/19/08 12:42 AM
TLW: personal agendas are set aside in order to try to reach the common good... See... I believe this is completely within the realm of possibility. I just want to point out that "the common good" must, by definition, encompass "the personal good" for all the people involved. So you can't really "set aside personal agenda" because "common good" is the collective "personal agendas". yes but to what degree? There is no other way to answer that than “to whatever degree each individual deems is appropriate for the achievement of his own individual goals and/or purposes”. You could say that “the team” is an entity, separate from all the individual members of that team. And the good of “the team” is separate from the good of any individual team member. So the good of “the team” must be considered as being a concern separate from any individual team member. But in that sense, “the team agenda” is really just another agenda that must be considered when determining the “common” good that includes the good of the team as well as the good of all the team members individually. And when it comes right down to it, the only way to make a decision as to what constitutes “common” good is for each individual to base it on their own goals as relates the group as a whole as well as each individual member. the first peoples [native Americans] were brought up to give freely to anyone in need, to take care of those who could not, to take in strangers and orphans and raise them up in love, it was a pure form of communism in the best sense of the word - all for one and one for all - it's a mind set Sky, and it can be done and has been done - now this didn't mean they did not war with other tribes or nations, but it was never their desire to do so - only to protect what was Good for them … Exactly! It was always relative to each individual and his relationship to something. It did not matter whether that something was “self” or “family” or “tribe” or “gods” or “trees” or “strangers” or anything. It is always relative to the individual’s relationship to something. That is the only possible way to make a logical decision on any matter of “right and wrong” as it relates to something other than oneself. i don't think you can ever get that basic survival issue out of man no matter what, That is precisely what I’m saying. It must always be relative to the goals and purposes of each individual. I'd be willing to get back to that point again as a human, how bout you? Most definitely! So to reiterate my first sentence, one can only decide on “the greatest good for the greatest number” based on one’s own goals and purposes. If that does not happen, then the choice has nothing to do with morals or ethics at all as it is not a self-determined choice.

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/19/08 07:39 AM
TLW: personal agendas are set aside in order to try to reach the common good... See... I believe this is completely within the realm of possibility. I just want to point out that "the common good" must, by definition, encompass "the personal good" for all the people involved. So you can't really "set aside personal agenda" because "common good" is the collective "personal agendas". yes but to what degree? There is no other way to answer that than “to whatever degree each individual deems is appropriate for the achievement of his own individual goals and/or purposes”. You could say that “the team” is an entity, separate from all the individual members of that team. And the good of “the team” is separate from the good of any individual team member. So the good of “the team” must be considered as being a concern separate from any individual team member. But in that sense, “the team agenda” is really just another agenda that must be considered when determining the “common” good that includes the good of the team as well as the good of all the team members individually. And when it comes right down to it, the only way to make a decision as to what constitutes “common” good is for each individual to base it on their own goals as relates the group as a whole as well as each individual member. the first peoples [native Americans] were brought up to give freely to anyone in need, to take care of those who could not, to take in strangers and orphans and raise them up in love, it was a pure form of communism in the best sense of the word - all for one and one for all - it's a mind set Sky, and it can be done and has been done - now this didn't mean they did not war with other tribes or nations, but it was never their desire to do so - only to protect what was Good for them … Exactly! It was always relative to each individual and his relationship to something. It did not matter whether that something was “self” or “family” or “tribe” or “gods” or “trees” or “strangers” or anything. It is always relative to the individual’s relationship to something. That is the only possible way to make a logical decision on any matter of “right and wrong” as it relates to something other than oneself. i don't think you can ever get that basic survival issue out of man no matter what, That is precisely what I’m saying. It must always be relative to the goals and purposes of each individual. I'd be willing to get back to that point again as a human, how bout you? Most definitely! So to reiterate my first sentence, one can only decide on “the greatest good for the greatest number” based on one’s own goals and purposes. If that does not happen, then the choice has nothing to do with morals or ethics at all as it is not a self-determined choice. are you trying to make a point Sky?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/19/08 07:58 AM
TLW: personal agendas are set aside in order to try to reach the common good... See... I believe this is completely within the realm of possibility. I just want to point out that "the common good" must, by definition, encompass "the personal good" for all the people involved. So you can't really "set aside personal agenda" because "common good" is the collective "personal agendas". yes but to what degree? There is no other way to answer that than “to whatever degree each individual deems is appropriate for the achievement of his own individual goals and/or purposes”. You could say that “the team” is an entity, separate from all the individual members of that team. And the good of “the team” is separate from the good of any individual team member. So the good of “the team” must be considered as being a concern separate from any individual team member. But in that sense, “the team agenda” is really just another agenda that must be considered when determining the “common” good that includes the good of the team as well as the good of all the team members individually. And when it comes right down to it, the only way to make a decision as to what constitutes “common” good is for each individual to base it on their own goals as relates the group as a whole as well as each individual member. the first peoples [native Americans] were brought up to give freely to anyone in need, to take care of those who could not, to take in strangers and orphans and raise them up in love, it was a pure form of communism in the best sense of the word - all for one and one for all - it's a mind set Sky, and it can be done and has been done - now this didn't mean they did not war with other tribes or nations, but it was never their desire to do so - only to protect what was Good for them … Exactly! It was always relative to each individual and his relationship to something. It did not matter whether that something was “self” or “family” or “tribe” or “gods” or “trees” or “strangers” or anything. It is always relative to the individual’s relationship to something. That is the only possible way to make a logical decision on any matter of “right and wrong” as it relates to something other than oneself. i don't think you can ever get that basic survival issue out of man no matter what, That is precisely what I’m saying. It must always be relative to the goals and purposes of each individual. I'd be willing to get back to that point again as a human, how bout you? Most definitely! So to reiterate my first sentence, one can only decide on “the greatest good for the greatest number” based on one’s own goals and purposes. If that does not happen, then the choice has nothing to do with morals or ethics at all as it is not a self-determined choice. are you trying to make a point Sky? Ummmm.... I guess I did go off on a bit of a rant there. I probably shouldn't try to make sensible posts after coming home from a party.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 10/19/08 08:29 AM Edited by splendidlife on Sun 10/19/08 09:07 AM
TLW: personal agendas are set aside in order to try to reach the common good... See... I believe this is completely within the realm of possibility. I just want to point out that "the common good" must, by definition, encompass "the personal good" for all the people involved. So you can't really "set aside personal agenda" because "common good" is the collective "personal agendas". Perhaps I should have pointed out what TLW said here: The problem is that the human race is cursed with egoism When one's ego is at the helm, all one can see through is their personal agenda. True... we cannot erase personal agenda... All for one and one for all leaves no one out. Its when no one can see past personal agenda to the rest of the human race that the common good gets lost. Exactly. It's when the personal agenda ignores and denies all other agendas that the problem arises. See... This is one of the extraordinary things about you, SkyHook. You're more interested in finding the common ground than just the sport of expressing conflicting opinion. It goes somewhere...

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 10/19/08 09:15 AM Edited by splendidlife on Sun 10/19/08 09:17 AM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? What's it gonna take to move toward a paradigm of common ground?

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/19/08 09:56 AM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? What's it gonna take to move toward a paradigm of common ground? are you talking within a philisophical frame work or in "reality"

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 10/19/08 10:13 AM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? What's it gonna take to move toward a paradigm of common ground? are you talking within a philisophical frame work or in "reality" Both! Why not?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/19/08 11:07 AM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? How can there not be judgement if one agenda is in direct opposition to another? You can’t separate judgment from agenda. The agenda is what makes judgment necessary. Without the agenda, there would be no judgment. Without judgment, there is no way to determine if the agenda is progressing. What we’re really talking about is the definitions of “good” and “bad”. Those terms are only meaningful when evaluated relative to some goal. “good” = “assisting in the attainment of a goal”, “bad” = “opposing the attainment of a goal”. “Judgment” is the determination of goodness or badness. “Agenda” is the goal. Letting go of judgment would be essentially abandoning any means of determining whether or not you were making progress toward the goal.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/19/08 11:13 AM
What's it gonna take to move toward a paradigm of common ground? In an absolute sense, there is only one way that can happen: For all people to have all the same goals.

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/19/08 11:16 AM Edited by tribo on Sun 10/19/08 11:20 AM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? What's it gonna take to move toward a paradigm of common ground? are you talking within a philosophical frame work or in "reality" Both! Why not? HMMM - though i may be able to talk about it philosophically, I'm not sure it would be possible in the world as it was or is or maybe in the future[ yeah i know jb, but this is just a discussion so lay low on there's only the present for awhile OK?] - From the philly view, it would have to begin with what we teach our young [are very young] not as to words but as to actions. in my book " trueness of being" i talk of the family and how children are taught one thing but really learn from watching their parents/peers actions. you can tell someone you love them all day long but if your actions towards them are unloving - which will they eventually believe? love can be used as a noun or a verb, it's truth is found in the verb form not that of it use as a noun. This also holds true of "all" agenda's of mans making. without agenda's there would be no judgement as such - just acceptance - it seems to me the older you get the more aware you are of this. and i believe that is why grandparents make better role models than parents a lot of the time. not always though. they may also be responsible for putting upon them their own agenda's also. But if and when we begin to get rid of showing our true beliefs to our children [those things they hear and see us or others do]then there could be real perceivable changes. as long as there is potential for mimicking there elders, this will not be the case, if the teachers of the children are prejudice, this will become evident to a child in the teachers mannerisms - kids are a lot smarter than thought, they are our mirrors through which we can see ourselves as we rightly should, when we get upset with them its usually a direct refection of things taught to them by observation and behavior of there teachers [parents'peers' etc] and they often don't understand why we get upset when its our own behavior they are reflecting and we don't like that in ourselves to begin with and find it unacceptable in them, yet it should be a wake up call to us that this is something within us that we should address so as not to reflect it upon them. so my take on it is as stated it has to begin first within the teachers, then the children will be able to see clearly what is correct as to being non agendic.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 10/19/08 11:41 AM Edited by splendidlife on Sun 10/19/08 11:45 AM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? What's it gonna take to move toward a paradigm of common ground? are you talking within a philosophical frame work or in "reality" Both! Why not? HMMM - though i may be able to talk about it philosophically, I'm not sure it would be possible in the world as it was or is or maybe in the future[ yeah i know jb, but this is just a discussion so lay low on there's only the present for awhile OK?] - From the philly view, it would have to begin with what we teach our young [are very young] not as to words but as to actions. in my book " trueness of being" i talk of the family and how children are taught one thing but really learn from watching their parents/peers actions. you can tell someone you love them all day long but if your actions towards them are unloving - which will they eventually believe? love can be used as a noun or a verb, it's truth is found in the verb form not that of it use as a noun. This is exactly where I am with my little one. How AM I being with her? Am I teaching her who she is in this world according to how I was taught or according to what I think I'm learning today? Sometimes I catch myself saying things to her that just appall me. Things that would outwardly seem totally acceptable. Things that could send her down a path I've already taken. Sometimes it just comes out automatically. When I recognize it, I attempt to stop right then and there and restructure / re-frame it. She's gonna be 3 in January. Being a parent has been teaching me so much more about myself. She teaches me SO much. This also hlds true of "all" agenda's of mans making. without agenda's there would be no judgement as such - just acceptence - it seems to me the older you get the more aware you are of this. and i believe that is why grandparents make better role models than parents alot of the time. not always though. they may also be resposible for putting upon them their own agenda's also. But if and when we begin to get rid of showing our true beliefs to our children [those things they hear and see us or others do]then there could be real percievable changes. as long as there is potential for mimicing there elders, this will not be the case, if the teachers of the children are predjudice, this will become evident to a child in the teachers mannerisms - kids are alot smarter than thought, they are our mirrors through which we can see ourselves as we roghtly shoud, when we get upset with them its usually a direct refection of things taught to them by observation and behavior of there teachers [parents'peers' etc] and they often dont understand why we get upset when its our own behavior they are reflecting and we don't like that in ourselves to begin with and find it unacceptable in them, yet it shoud be a wake up call to us that this is something within us that we should address so as not to reflect it upon them. Yikes! More and more, I've been awakening to the presence of this in my relationship with my girl... so my taake on it is as stated it has to begin first within the teachers, then the children will be able to see clearly what is correct as to being non agendic. Indeed... It starts right here with the teaching of our children. Can't teach them squat 'til we start learning for our selves.

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/19/08 11:50 AM
well i'm glad you agree - now its opening the eyes of two or three billion other people, which i hope i can reach with this after i retire. i found this to when raising my son - the proof is in the results, he is 10 times the father i was and his sons are better than he.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 10/19/08 11:53 AM
well i'm glad you agree - now its opening the eyes of two or three billion other people, which i hope i can reach with this after i retire. i found this to when raising my son - the proof is in the results, he is 10 times the father i was and his sons are better than he. With each generation they get smarter and smarter.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 10/19/08 12:02 PM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? How can there not be judgement if one agenda is in direct opposition to another? You can’t separate judgment from agenda. The agenda is what makes judgment necessary. Without the agenda, there would be no judgment. Without judgment, there is no way to determine if the agenda is progressing. What we’re really talking about is the definitions of “good” and “bad”. Those terms are only meaningful when evaluated relative to some goal. “good” = “assisting in the attainment of a goal”, “bad” = “opposing the attainment of a goal”. “Judgment” is the determination of goodness or badness. “Agenda” is the goal. Letting go of judgment would be essentially abandoning any means of determining whether or not you were making progress toward the goal. So... As humans we're meant to be judgmental. Where do we go from here?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/19/08 12:59 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sun 10/19/08 12:59 PM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? How can there not be judgement if one agenda is in direct opposition to another? You can’t separate judgment from agenda. The agenda is what makes judgment necessary. Without the agenda, there would be no judgment. Without judgment, there is no way to determine if the agenda is progressing. What we’re really talking about is the definitions of “good” and “bad”. Those terms are only meaningful when evaluated relative to some goal. “good” = “assisting in the attainment of a goal”, “bad” = “opposing the attainment of a goal”. “Judgment” is the determination of goodness or badness. “Agenda” is the goal. Letting go of judgment would be essentially abandoning any means of determining whether or not you were making progress toward the goal. So... As humans we're meant to be judgmental. Well, "judgemental” has a pretty negative connotation. What I had in mind when I used “judgment” was something more like “discernment” or “reasoning”, whereas “judgmental” implies something more like “intolerance”. Where do we go from here? Toward our goals. Yeah, that sounds pretty glib, but what other answer could there be? Give up all goals? Everyone have exactly the same goals? Both of those options only lead to ... well ... some kind of an “everything is the same as everything else” state that is a fairly concise description of what I, personally, would consider to be a totally meaningless existence.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/19/08 01:04 PM
TLW: personal agendas are set aside in order to try to reach the common good... See... I believe this is completely within the realm of possibility. I just want to point out that "the common good" must, by definition, encompass "the personal good" for all the people involved. So you can't really "set aside personal agenda" because "common good" is the collective "personal agendas". Perhaps I should have pointed out what TLW said here: The problem is that the human race is cursed with egoism When one's ego is at the helm, all one can see through is their personal agenda. True... we cannot erase personal agenda... All for one and one for all leaves no one out. Its when no one can see past personal agenda to the rest of the human race that the common good gets lost. Exactly. It's when the personal agenda ignores and denies all other agendas that the problem arises. See... This is one of the extraordinary things about you, SkyHook. You're more interested in finding the common ground than just the sport of expressing conflicting opinion. It goes somewhere... Y'see now that's where you're wrong.

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/19/08 01:07 PM Edited by tribo on Sun 10/19/08 01:50 PM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? How can there not be judgement if one agenda is in direct opposition to another? You can’t separate judgment from agenda. The agenda is what makes judgment necessary. Without the agenda, there would be no judgment. Without judgment, there is no way to determine if the agenda is progressing. What we’re really talking about is the definitions of “good” and “bad”. Those terms are only meaningful when evaluated relative to some goal. “good” = “assisting in the attainment of a goal”, “bad” = “opposing the attainment of a goal”. “Judgment” is the determination of goodness or badness. “Agenda” is the goal. Letting go of judgment would be essentially abandoning any means of determining whether or not you were making progress toward the goal. So... As humans we're meant to be judgmental. Well, "judgemental” has a pretty negative connotation. What I had in mind when I used “judgment” was something more like “discernment” or “reasoning”, whereas “judgmental” implies something more like “intolerance”. Where do we go from here? Toward our goals. Yeah, that sounds pretty glib, but what other answer could there be? Give up all goals? Everyone have exactly the same goals? Both of those options only lead to ... well ... some kind of an “everything is the same as everything else” state that is a fairly concise description of what I, personally, would consider to be a totally meaningless existence. Sky what if the goal is like that of the natives to revere nature and family and spirit, with utmost respect to all and to what is best for the family [tribes] in all unselfishness? they really were brought up to share and not to consider anything really there own but only for there use as needed, for them this has worked for centuries. Again i know they warred against each other and there definitely were agendas but even then you see them coming together to form the six nations and others doing the same, and it did get better for all and harmony reigned much more than dis-harmony, it may not be the perfect way but it so surpasses today's me me me generation agreed?

MicheleNC Joined Sat 05/26/07 Posts: 1640	Sun 10/19/08 01:21 PM
Ahhh, to repent. Did my repenting last week on Yom Kippur. All clear for the year now. The Book of Life is closed and my fate is sealed. L'Shana Tovah! M not being jewish just how does that work? you say your good to go till next yom kippur? does that mean if you sin sometime next week your forgiven in advance? interested - Sounds alright to me. yeh i will look into that if theres no reaponse back - i was not aware of that hmmm? Oops, busy weekend supporting the troops (okay, my Soldier) and did not log on. Sorry for the delay in response. Jews have the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This is when we repent. Decisions have already been made while the Book of Life was open during the Days of Awe (the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah/Jewish New Year and Yom Kippur). Hope that helps. As to current sins and transgressions, these I will atone to G-d for next Jewish New Year. Personally, I try to atone and/or ask forgiveness to those I have hurt when I realize that I have hurt someone. M PS-I saw you in here, my Miguel! Miss you!

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/19/08 01:42 PM
Ahhh, to repent. Did my repenting last week on Yom Kippur. All clear for the year now. The Book of Life is closed and my fate is sealed. L'Shana Tovah! M not being jewish just how does that work? you say your good to go till next yom kippur? does that mean if you sin sometime next week your forgiven in advance? interested - Sounds alright to me. yeh i will look into that if theres no reaponse back - i was not aware of that hmmm? Oops, busy weekend supporting the troops (okay, my Soldier) and did not log on. Sorry for the delay in response. Jews have the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This is when we repent. Decisions have already been made while the Book of Life was open during the Days of Awe (the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah/Jewish New Year and Yom Kippur). Hope that helps. As to current sins and transgressions, these I will atone to G-d for next Jewish New Year. Personally, I try to atone and/or ask forgiveness to those I have hurt when I realize that I have hurt someone. M PS-I saw you in here, my Miguel! Miss you! thnx M

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/19/08 02:09 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sun 10/19/08 02:12 PM
How do we, all of humanity, wake up to the world of ALL agendas and begin to let go of judgment? How can there not be judgement if one agenda is in direct opposition to another? You can’t separate judgment from agenda. The agenda is what makes judgment necessary. Without the agenda, there would be no judgment. Without judgment, there is no way to determine if the agenda is progressing. What we’re really talking about is the definitions of “good” and “bad”. Those terms are only meaningful when evaluated relative to some goal. “good” = “assisting in the attainment of a goal”, “bad” = “opposing the attainment of a goal”. “Judgment” is the determination of goodness or badness. “Agenda” is the goal. Letting go of judgment would be essentially abandoning any means of determining whether or not you were making progress toward the goal. So... As humans we're meant to be judgmental. Well, "judgemental” has a pretty negative connotation. What I had in mind when I used “judgment” was something more like “discernment” or “reasoning”, whereas “judgmental” implies something more like “intolerance”. Where do we go from here? Toward our goals. Yeah, that sounds pretty glib, but what other answer could there be? Give up all goals? Everyone have exactly the same goals? Both of those options only lead to ... well ... some kind of an “everything is the same as everything else” state that is a fairly concise description of what I, personally, would consider to be a totally meaningless existence. Sky what if the goal is like that of the natives to revere nature and family and spirit, with utmost respect to all and to what is best for the family[tribes] in all unselfishness? they really were brought up to share and not to consider anything really there own but only for there use as needed, for them this has worked for centuries, again i know they warred against each other and there definitely were agendas but even the n you see them coming together to form the six nations and others doing the same and it did get better for all and harmony reigned much more than dis-harmony, it may not be the perfect way but it so surpasses today's me me me generation agreed? Yes, I definitely would agree with that. "Harmony in all things" is a personal goal of mine. (Although I am egregiously lacking in the achievement thereof. ) (analogy incoming) I think of the problem of "opposing goals" and SplendidLife's "all agendas" as being like team sports. Each team has opposing goals. Anythying that helps you win is "good". Anything that hinders you from winning is "bad". But those good and bad things only exist within the game. Outside of the game they are meaningless. There can be four friends who go out to play basketball. They split up into a two-on-two game. They play rough and with full intention to win. But once the game is over, they are still friends. And in fact, they remained friends throughout the game, even though they were all trying their best to defeat the other team. But here's where the real problem comes in. If we take this to the level of professional sports, we can see huge amounts of animosity and prejudice based solely on where someone lives. So the problem is not in playing the game, the problem is in identifying with the game. In other words, if one thinks that there isnothing but the game, then one cannot but consider anything and everything that hinders his "winning of the game" to be bad. It is this inability to separate from the game that is the real cause of "insistence on being right". Examples: A person who believes that they will cease to exist if their team loses will be pretty fearful of their team losing and pretty adamant about doing whatever they can to get their team to win. A person who believes they will cease to exist if their car stops running will be pretty fearful of their car stopping running and pretty adamant about keeping their car well maintained. A person who believes they will cease to exist if their body stops running, will be pretty fearful of dying and adamant about staying alive. Dang! Went off on a rant there. Yes, having common goals (as the indians did) is crucial to harmony. And I personally favor harmony over disharmony - usually.