If the point is to rise above duality why do you care about good

>>19216588

Who said the point was to rise above duality?

>>19216591
christianity, buddhism
everything that has a cycle of rebirth and suffering

because there is no good. there is only evil. therefore i must be the destroyer

>>19216588
I don't agree that rising "above duality" is the point. The point is to defeat evil.

>>19216620
>christianity
No. Christianity preaches a lot about good and evil.

I might sound like a nihilistic douchey edgelord here, but my sense of the matter is that neither do exist, and it's simply a man crafted set of laws within the spectrum of the human species. What exists is choice, and the product or consequence in the equation of those actions. Even then such a concept is not a tangible thing. We simply do. Feelings do not equate to morale. They are feelings. Neural impulses. I don't believe there is an actual altruistic judgment supremely mastering the concept of "good" or "evil".
Though if you're religious this is total bullshit.

>>19216861
No. Man doctrine preaches about good and evil. Christianity teaches you about how to be a good goy cuck for jews.

>>19216588
duality is not good and evil. Duality is the understanding that you are a spiritual being in a physical body. You exist in both ways, that is the dual nature of reality.

>>19216766
what is Righteousness?

>>19216944
a gook who thinks he is a god

>>19216937
This is the philosophy of Dualism. Or roughly speaking it is. Duality is an appreciation of everything existing somewhere within the balance of yin and yang; dark/receptive/still vs. light/productive/moving etc.

But yeah OP, 'rising above it' is not what it's about.

>>19216588
ok I accept that they exist.
move on already

File: IMG-20170620-WA0004.jpg (497KB, 1253x1600px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1253x1600px

>>19216905
Good and evil can be seen as human constructs. But who determines that, a collective consciousness maybe? That's what I would call God. We are made in his image, we have a knowledge in there.

>>19216588
>the point is to rise above duality
It is? I guess I should become a Buddhist.

File: images.jpg (14KB, 200x252px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x252px

Evil is what a system calls that which threatens it. Good is what a system calls that which affirms it, perpetuates it, more fully realizes it.

Good and evil are not subjective, not all the way, precisely because the breakdown, degeneration, and disorders of systems are phenomena that objectively exist, same with the good. And going beyond duality is realizing good and evil are in fact the reverse sides of one principle: being an autonomous agent in an objectively determined reality whose relationship with reality is either one of freedom or subservience to internal and external forces.

>>19217736
I like you.

>>19217626
Well, yeah. That would rely on what you perceive as "God". Is it a divine hivemind, an omnipresent being? Or is it us?
I speak with the latter; it is a thing constructed by us. The god of ourselves, our own virtues. I have been religious before, but my allegiances as you can see have shifted. But I have studied the Bible, though not as much as other religions that have piqued my interest. Though I am always pleased to hear what some religious folk have to share, in lieu of my questions for it. Albeit.. It gives me hope.
Though maybe the credibility of religion through the tried understanding through scientific logic may not be rational on my part. I admit, I think much on numbers and figures. Though I live by a very nihilistic perception-- I'm not acquainted with the ignorance to matter of factly tell others there is guaranteed, no God.

>>19217778
Good. Let's bang.

Ikaruga is the correct path.

>>19218302
I view God as all three and much more. Something we can't really know or understand until the end.

>>19216905

You still suffer though, a good place to start on morality is suffering vs well being, if something generates suffering, that's a good indication that it's not correct. There's reason behind the immutable laws of nature, and there's a better way of being if we would just listen

>>19216588
There is no definitive to the human mind, but civilization needs rules of law.

>>19217626

God isn't the collective consciousness, he's the one who set the laws in motion, our collective consciousness is a coparticipator in creation and for a long time we've been creating hell on earth

>>19216905
Wrong. Certain inclinations in behavior and thought give rise to the type of cooperation that can actually build civilizations and marvels like the internet and computers we use now. And the byproduct of amassing resources and success is that people come and try to steal it so you have to war and struggle to protect it.

People confuse random robberies and murders on the street with violence and "evil" in general when the fact of the matter is people need to have vurtuious values for their family, friends and community but never be afraid to exercise force and strength to protect what it theirs. Your unlimited moral relativism and navel gazing makes you a target and if people with your attitude were in charge we would never have gotten to where we are. Nihilism is pure bullshit and the only people who make a difference in this world are ones who take moral and ethical stands to achieve something.

>>19216917
Hey well, you're on the right track.

The world is a vampire.

>>19216766
False.

>>19218626
You've got the wrong idea. God is the collective consciousness--every thought that ever was, and ever could be.

Maybe some lesser entity set into motion the parameters for this particular version of the physical univeverse, perhaps even sketched out the individual anatomies of every living organism in every place in this physical universe. That doesn't make them a god, though. Just a person with a lot of time on their hands.

God is all that is. Any body who argues otherwise is trying to sell you some thing.

>>19220837
God is not just the sum of all thoughts, God is IN all thoughts but he is not thought itself, or just all minds put together, but also the mind whose thoughts are mind themselves, and the mind whose thought is such a thing as a mind... etc. You get it