And don’t forget Hinduism, Stoicism, Jainism, and Taoism; and I’m sure plenty others.

I don’t agree with the woman part. I think that’s just evidence of man’s imperfect hands getting a hold of these influences — of a heaven (an afterlife) and a God of some kind. Like the wildly unnecessary incest in Genesis 19:30 for example, that’s only there because the Hebrews wanted to invent an origin story for their enemies — that they were born from incest.

Moral-anxiety & moral-learning are more of mothering than of male persuits, like hunting/killing.

I disagree considering it would’ve been the males duty and responsibility to keep the family/tribe safe from threats of both humans and predators.

The “grace” that we “fell” from

Are you quoting the story? Because words and concepts like grace, the fall, and even sin aren’t anywhere to found within it.

“Saints” aren’t people that drop everything and rely on the hard work of others to sustain them. I’m sorry to hear you have a bad experience with a handful of people that take pacifism and non-violence and apply this black and white kind of perspective on them. That is, to be a pacifist one must never, under any circumstances, ever use violence. Or to be selfless to its extremes one must forgo all their possessions and expect their contemporaries to pick up after them; to sustain them.

One would only need to explain to these people that in a world where it’s either sink or swim, but we choose to swim together to some degree via things like socialism because we realize swimming individually only leaves us vulnerable and ultimately, swimming together to ease the burden for everyone as a whole is simply more efficient because that way no one drowns or is left behind due to inabilities both physically and mentally that some people are simply born with or inherit from the world’s hands getting a hold of them via trauma brought on from war or even social interactions.

So don’t blame the great principle just because imperfect people ever since don’t fully understand it and become confused by people of the past and present that lead people to think it needs to be either or — violence or non-violence; selflessness to its extremes with zero room for selfishness, and that there’s apparently no in between.

I think I see what you’re saying. Do you have personal experience with this, if you don’t mind me asking?

Counterpoint: How do you help a MISSERABLE self-less martyr? People that keep giving after they have nothing left to give and end-up dragging everyone around them down with their misery and good intentions?

What do you mean here exactly? I’m not following. Do you mind explaining?

When you grind an obvious point into infertile dirt, the obviousness of it does nothing to prevent it becoming such dirt.

I’m sorry, again I’m not sure what you are saying. Do you mind clarifying?

Very insightful. I appreciate your perspective, thanks for sharing. I’ll dive deeper into it sooner than later.

I agree, well said. It’s called religious pluralism.

“Know thyself.” - The first of three Ancient Greek maxims chosen to be inscribed into the Temple of Apollo where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece

Why?

Tolstoy is saying much more here than simply “Desire is the root of dissatisfaction.” And love, but defined more as our unique and profound capacity for selflessness, is the only desire incapable of dissatisfaction.

You’re presenting an incoherent philosophical idea.

How would you know? You haven’t even read it lol You probably didn’t even read my comment in its entirety either, but that’s how it goes when one is drunk off self-assurance.

I’m not going to waste my time wading through the whole thing

Then just like the reviewer, your opinion is completely obsolete; don’t have time to consider the things you give your arrogant opinions on? Then I’m not going to waste time with your lazy, arrogant thoughts.

Good day and God bless

Just wanted to comment for the record: If you made something, and a reviewer began with, “I only considered the first part because it didn’t even make sense from the beginning.” You’re telling me the criticisms of that reviewer are valid? If so, why?

Edit: if a reviewer from IGN reviewed a video game, or anything really, the way you did, they’d be cooked; their career would be over.

Didn’t read the whole thing because it makes no sense from the get go.

Please let me know if you ever end up reading it, I’d be interested in your thoughts, thanks!

I’m sorry what?

Edit: what do you mean?

Yes but to live how God would’ve wanted to save ourselves from the double edged sword that is to know anything on top of the knowledge of any knowing being good or evil. And the snake representing that vulnerability to arrogance when something as capable of knowledge is guided by blind arrogant humans as opposed to a God that represents truth, but the truth of selflessness in a way over any dogma; knowledge, thus, consciousness more specifically, where any potential of truth originates.

“For kindness I desired [mercy, as Jesus specifies in 9:13], and not [animal] sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings [external worship].” - Hosea 6:6

It doesn’t matter if selflessness was something we lost, or if it is in God’s plan.

I’m not saying it was something we lost, or anything being in God’s plan, what I’m saying—this post has nothing to do with either of what you’re saying here.

If God wants us to be selfless, why did he first create us to be ignorant of selflessness?

Because knowledge needs to be gained, and what comes along with the knowledge of both selfishness and selflessness is our knowledge of death, that we would’ve otherwise have been blissfully unaware of. If the snake didn’t introduced its influence via its arrogance, then they would’ve simply listened to God and that would’ve been that, everyone and everything lives happily ever after. But God not knowing something creeped it’s way into knowing so much without its knowing, didn’t allow it to happen therefore, it’s something that again has the potential of happening to something capable of knowing so much that isn’t being guided by God, which the snake obviously wasn’t, and wouldn’t anyway being so arrogant, so blissfully self-assured.

You point out we need to regain what we lost through God. We need to regain our selflessness.

When did I make this claim/what are you gathering this from? I’m saying in order for either the individual or a collection of individuals to establish peace both within themselves and amongst themselves they would need to strive to become more ignorant of how aware they are of themselves. More specifically, what is right or wrong in relation to themselves, and replace that instinctive worry, need, or fear for themselves with the fear, worry, need for everything else.

Had they passed by a fish out of water

This wouldn’t have been a thing in Eden to begin with, presumably. I don’t equate Eden as a literal place and all of these literally happened so this is irrelevant to begin with.

How do we get back our pre-fall selflessness if Adam and Eve didn’t have it?

Did you even read my post?

I quoted Jesus; arrogance is at the root of all the hate and evil in then world.

Wow thanks that’s very nice of you. What’s your group all about?

What’s said about knowing and not knowing is what I wish people would get. All these social ideological sects that are appearing in society is because people think THEY are the only correct ones. Political and theological groups can be some of the most egregious in this manner.

Omg I could not agree more! That’s what Socrates took his life trying to teach, and die a martyr to.

People talk more than think. And usually think what others have talked to them about.

Beautifully said! I think people like Jesus would’ve agreed, considering the extent he would call out the dogma of his day; promising to believe something as unquestionably true would be an example of an oath: “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34

Alright great.

So what do you mean by “these places” exactly?

Any knowing is a knowledge. Our knowledge of time for example or even of the experience.

Just because blind men have attached their words and beliefs unto Jesus’ via the New Testament ever since, distorting the crap out of it 45 thousand different ways, that doesn’t make it what Jesus was really trying to say. “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34; of course making the promise to believe things as unquestionably true cna be catorgorized as an oath.