Is everything permissible?

[doppelganger]

Only if the wise-person deems it nessary. I would say that a wise person knows when to have compassion and when not to, according to their wisdom.

Sounds like a new law to me.

EDIT: Then again, I do not claim to be a wise-person, so I may be mistaken in the finer definitive qualifiers.

Carry on, my wayward son.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Only if the wise-person deems it nessary. I would say that a wise person knows when to have compassion and when not to, according to their wisdom.

EDIT: Then again, I do not claim to be a wise-person, so I may be mistaken in the finer definitive qualifiers.

Does wisdom trump compassion when it comes to how permissable behavior is, then?




Peace,
Mystic

 

[DallasApple]

Does wisdom trump compassion when it comes to how permissable behavior is, then?




Peace,
Mystic

We should always be compassionate while using our wisdom..They should go hand in hand..Not be seperated.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[lunamoth]

Galatians 2:

Thank you.

Whether you or Jesus thought they were "twisting" it is beside the point. The purpose of the law is to be twisted to suit the purposes and power of the "law givers." They were doing what the law and tradition commanded of them. The fact that you think that the tradition should be different is irrelevant so long as you still support tradition and authority. You substitute one law for another, but no real transformation occurs.

Now Brendan, I really do not understand where you get the point underlined above. The purpose of law is not self-perpetuation, but to help us get along with each other in an imperfect world.

I agree with your point about authority, but I don't think it's a good solution to go to the opposite extreme of 'everything is permissible.' The role of the prophet is at least in part to overthrow authority, but the two must always exist together in a dynamic tension.

But what are you saying when you suggest that this Gospel is not for everyone? Aren't you actually saying that you recognize the idea that 'everything is permissible' is very dangerous if not taken along with the idea that there is some higher governing idea (call it love, wisdom, enlightenment, knowledge) that is also needed to keep the man of no law from being a monster?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sounds like a new law to me.

Yeah, I'm coming from the Stoic point of view that I think characterizes Paul. I certainly think that there are differences in what wise-people think a wise-person is, while they may recognize eachother. That is, a completely pascifist Buddhist wiseman may recognize a non-pascifist Stoic wiseman and vice-versa, but they disagree on finer points of wisdom.

My point of view is that a wiseperson will sometimes show compassion and sometimes not, even if their goal is to be compassionate. There are always cracks in this earthen vessel.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does wisdom trump compassion when it comes to how permissable behavior is, then?

That is exactly my point. Wisdom guides all choices, be they compassionate or not. I would think that from a certain point of view, no matter what the wise-person does while facing a tough choice, they are not having compassion at some point.

 

[lunamoth]

That is exactly my point. Wisdom guides all choices, be they compassionate or not. I would think that from a certain point of view, no matter what the wise-person does while facing a tough choice, they are not having compassion at some point.

I think so too, and I think that this is part and parcel of 'the Fall.'

 

[doppelganger]

Now Brendan, I really do not understand where you get the point underlined above.

From studying the law.

The purpose of law is not self-perpetuation, but to help us get along with each other in an imperfect world.

Are you sure about that? What harm to you want to impose on someone that is checked solely because you've been told it is "unlawful"?

I agree with your point about authority, but I don't think it's a good solution to go to the opposite extreme of 'everything is permissible.'

It's the secret mystery of the personal remedy. The symbols point inward.

The role of the prophet is at least in part to overthrow authority, but the two must always exist together in a dynamic tension.

Why "must" they? What would you do if not constrained by the law?

But what are you saying when you suggest that this Gospel is not for everyone? Aren't you actually saying that you recognize the idea that 'everything is permissible' is very dangerous if not taken along with the idea that there is some higher governing idea (call it love, wisdom, enlightenment, knowledge) that is also needed to keep the man of no law from being a monster?

Rules and laws are a sign of a lack of faith in unconditional love ‑ and a symptom of the decline of life. Does that mean everyone is free of all rules and laws? That’s part of the secret of the message: freedom from the Law is only for one who awakens to life, and it has nothing to do with the obligations or perceptions of others. Inevitably, all remedies are personal and internal. To talk about them "objectively" or propose or view them as affecting movements, ideologies, communities and institutions is to strip the awakening of its essential meaning. The Kingdom of God is within . . . and it's right now.

The Tao te Ching explains this paradox of the individual subjugation to law as a result of the decline of our internal ability to live fully:

When the Way is forgotten
Duty and justice appear;
Then knowledge and wisdom are born
Along with hypocrisy.

When harmonious relationships dissolve
Then respect and devotion arise;
When a nation falls to chaos
Then loyalty and patriotism are born.

If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom
Then people would profit a hundredfold;
If we could abolish duty and justice
Then harmonious relationships would form;

If we could abolish artifice and profit
Then waste and theft would disappear.
Yet such remedies treat only symptoms
And so they are inadequate.

People need personal remedies:
Reveal your naked self and embrace your original nature;
Bind your self‑interest and control your ambition;
Forget your habits and simplify your affairs.

​

The “fruit of the Spirit” Paul describes in Galatians 5 (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control) become manifest the more I am awakened to the spirit of love carrying my thinking and my identity past my self - not because of obligation, but because this fruit is the natural product of a life lived abundantly.

The Law never was and never will be an adequate substitute for life lived in fullness. That's what Paul is getting at in Chapters 7 and 8 - the sin nature (self awareness) depends on the law. But the spirit moves us beyond our self and into unity (with others and with “God&#8221 eliminating the separation mythologically indicated by “the Fall and its fruits - judgment, shame and fear - mediated through the law, rather than the direct experience of the Divine.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think so too, and I think that this is part and parcel of 'the Fall.'

It simply means that we are not gods - and even the gods it seems cannot do this. In any case, Ghandi may be amoung a few wisemen who could have done it.

 

[DallasApple]

My point of view is that a wiseperson will sometimes show compassion and sometimes not, even if their goal is to be compassionate. There are always cracks in this earthen vessel.

Transient compassion ...But ...are you beign very "wise" when you lose compassion even for a moment?..

Also can discipline or righteous anger sometimes be mistaken for lack of compassion?

In other words can things that you say or do out of wisdom and compassion seem at first glance to be to lacking compassion or even both?

Blessings

Dallas

 

[tomspug]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. [/FONT]

I think you've misunderstood the context of this passage. It's always important when quoting the Bible to examine the text around it.

Clearly, Paul says, "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God". Paul, being an apologist, is accounting for why the Lord allows the wicked to exist. God permits us to live as we would, but what Paul clearly illustrates here is that we were designed with a particular purpose, which is obedience. Paul argues that, like our stomach was designed to process food, so we were designed to be a tool for God's greater purpose.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Law never was and never will be an adequate substitute for life lived in fullness. That's what Paul is getting at in Chapters 7 and 8 - the sin nature (self awareness) depends on the law. But the spirit moves us beyond our self and into unity (with others and with “God”) eliminating the separation mythologically indicated by “the Fall and its fruits - judgment, shame and fear - mediated through the law, rather than the direct experience of the Divine.

Yes... the wise have never needed a law. As the Spirit makes us wiser, the need for the law is decreased - we can know ourselves and our sin and self-discipline ourselves rather than others imposing it on us.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That is exactly my point. Wisdom guides all choices, be they compassionate or not. I would think that from a certain point of view, no matter what the wise-person does while facing a tough choice, they are not having compassion at some point.

Is it feasible to suggest that with compassion hand-in-hand with wisdom - there are no tough choices?




Peace,
Mystic

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think you've misunderstood the context of this passage. It's always important when quoting the Bible to examine the text around it.

Clearly, Paul says, "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God". Paul, being an apologist, is accounting for why the Lord allows the wicked to exist. God permits us to live as we would, but what Paul clearly illustrates here is that we were designed with a particular purpose, which is obedience. Paul argues that, like our stomach was designed to process food, so we were designed to be a tool for God's greater purpose.

Who are you talking to?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is it feasible to suggest that with compassion hand-in-hand with wisdom - there are no tough choices?

Yes, I think that's feasible. I don't know if a wise-person struggles with any choices, but I can imagine that when they address choices that are tough for us - when there are a limited array of options and all cause pain and loss for everyone involved - that whatever they choose will seem uncompassionate from some point of view. Therefore, having compassion as a defining characteristic of wisdom is not very wise.

 

[Wandered Off]

What would you do if not constrained by the law?

A little tangent here... I don't see laws as what stop people from behavior, but the behavior has to be spelled out in order for society to set the consequences.

People may not cease to kill because there's a law, but the law clarifies what society will do in the unfortunate event. It's not that most of us would suddenly change our behavior absent laws, but we wouldn't have the consistency that facilitates society.

Is that unrealistic?

 

[DallasApple]

A little tangent here... I don't see laws as what stop people from behavior, but the behavior has to be spelled out in order for society to set the consequences.

People may not cease to kill because there's a law, but the law clarifies what society will do in the unfortunate event. It's not that most of us would suddenly change our behavior absent laws, but we wouldn't have the consistency that facilitates society.

Is that unrealistic?

I'm not so sure about that...I must confess..If there were now laws??..I don't think I would pay taxes..I mean if it was "optional" not "pay or else you go to jail"..I might pay something out of good consience and logic..but not what they ask for now.

I would also probably park in the handicap spot if there were more than one available or in a fire lane if I was "only going to be few minutes" that is (Im not a monster ya know).And I know for sure I would drive a lot faster.Oh..and if there were NO cars coming???..I would dirve through a red light no problem there.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not so sure about that...I must confess..If there were now laws??..I don't think I would pay taxes..I mean if it was "optional" not "pay or else you go to jail"..I might pay something out of good consience and logic..but not what they ask for now.

I would also probably park in the handicap spot if there were more than one available or in a fire lane if I was "only going to be few minutes" that is (Im not a monster ya know).And I know for sure I would drive a lot faster.Oh..and if there were NO cars coming???..I would dirve through a red light no problem there.

Blessings

Dallas

Seneca said that a true wiseman was only born once every 500 years.

That's why we need laws.

 

[DallasApple]

Oh yeah..I would also have sex in public..Again as long as no one was around.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Seneca said that a true wiseman was only born once every 500 years.

That's why we need laws.

Hey Now!! Are you insinutaing I lack wisdom!!! :drool:....LOL!

I think sometimes we are just not thinking or being selfish and temproraily loose sight of how our actions affect or can possibly affect negatively that of the greater good...

Blessings

Dallas