Should we let go of our feelings?

mistybison said:No one actually knows the answer to that. Everyone is simply making assumptions.

Exactly, God is like a jukebox that grants everyone their every wish.👍

The real issue is whether one is foolish enough to wish for something trivial, which happens far more often than wishing for something wise.

There are New Age beliefs suggesting that the soul selects various bodies, lives, and experiences to facilitate learning and maturity. In this view, life is merely a dream from which the soul awakens after death, only to choose the next dream-life to acquire new wisdom. Consequently, pain, suffering, illness, and death aren't truly real, even if they feel that way while we experience them.

Of course, this belief is just as unprovable as any other.

I'm actually on board with that.
The spirit comes first—it creates this deep-seated craving for realization, and then the physical body basically gets shaped to match that specific demand.

We aren't born this way by accident; we were born this way because that's who we already are. 😉

David Vaughn75 said:Whether Buddhism counts as a "religion" really just boils down to how many rituals and ceremonies Buddha cooked up for his new movement versus how much of it was just him blending in with the local folks over in Asia.

But honestly, this whole debate kicked off because of that one thing Joseph Bailey41 said—you know, that claim that there's absolutely no reason for our existence other than basic biological copulation. Are you seriously telling me Buddhism teaches that we just popped out of nowhere without any kind of purpose whatsoever?

Even Krishna didn't invent specific rituals; those things develop later.

Rituals have certainly been part of Buddhism since its early days and are documented in the oldest texts, likely starting with those centered around stupas.
All religions are essentially blends. It’s not like Jesus dictated every single Catholic rite either—there’s plenty of pagan influence in there too. And don't even get me started on Hinduism. Even your entire bhakti movement would probably look very different if Islam and Tantra hadn't woven themselves into the foundation, which was already a mix of local tribal cults and Vedic religion.

Our personal goal might be escaping samsara, but if there wasn't a moment of creation and we didn't come from nowhere—if there isn't some spiritual essence that makes an individual separate from conditioned processes, or if nothing began from a recognizable starting point—then where would any inherent purpose come from? We're just a collection of cause-and-effect processes with no clear beginning, just like everything else.

David Vaughn75 said:The truth of a matter doesn't depend on how hard I try to prove it, and honestly, feel free to go ahead and list all those religions where people just stumble into faith by total accident without any logic behind it. I’ve personally never run into one, so why don't you educate me, 🙂

You're trying to Distort things. If you look at most faiths, the entire reason and purpose for a human being's existence—just like everything else—really boils down to two words: God's will.

So, it’s not like you were trying to rule or control material reality or anything like that. God willed it, and you don't get a vote. How you choose to deal with that is entirely up to you.

Joseph Bailey41 said:You're trying to Distort things. If you look at most faiths, the entire reason and purpose for a human being's existence—just like everything else—really boils down to two words: God's will.

So, it’s not like you were trying to rule or control material reality or anything like that. God willed it, and you don't get a vote. How you choose to deal with that is entirely up to you.

While some argue Prabhupada was influenced by Christianity regarding the idea of the "fall," (more so than traditional Vaishnavism), it's questionable how much of it is actually Christian. And it certainly isn't universal.

As for mainstream Christians, the pre-existence of the soul is rejected (Origen), and God creates the soul (in Protestant views, parents create it, not God) along with the body. It doesn't exist beforehand to choose to fall because of certain desires. The fall itself is conditioned by original sin and passed down from parents (in both versions of soul creation—whether Divine or parental), rather than being a result of a decision, karma, or the desires of a soul in a non-existent pre-existence.

In Prabhupada's cosmology, however, souls pre-exist in the spiritual world in their eternal, natural relationship with Krishna, from which they fall into a conditioned material birth and subsequent karmic entanglement.
Of course, this isn't a universal view, not even among theistic religions, nor even all Gaudiya Vaishnavas to whom he belongs—many traditional Gaudyas (who are outside and precede the Gaudiya Math and its successors like ISKCON, though I'm not even sure if the GM necessarily shares Prabhupada's views here, I don't know) believe that developing a relationship with Krishna means establishing that connection, not necessarily returning to a pre-existent state (which is partly tied to the conflict over siddha deval, which holds different values depending on whether one believes in a pre-existent relationship in the spiritual world or a newly established one).

And, as I mentioned, there are religions that aren't even part of this entire debate because they don't have a creation or a creator, and some don't even have a soul.

Joseph Bailey41 said:You're trying to Distort things. If you look at most faiths, the entire reason and purpose for a human being's existence—just like everything else—really boils down to two words: God's will.

So, it’s not like you were trying to rule or control material reality or anything like that. God willed it, and you don't get a vote. How you choose to deal with that is entirely up to you.

But what if God doesn't actually care what you do?

bluemason3 said:While some argue Prabhupada was influenced by Christianity regarding the idea of the "fall," (more so than traditional Vaishnavism), it's questionable how much of it is actually Christian. And it certainly isn't universal.

As for mainstream Christians, the pre-existence of the soul is rejected (Origen), and God creates the soul (in Protestant views, parents create it, not God) along with the body. It doesn't exist beforehand to choose to fall because of certain desires. The fall itself is conditioned by original sin and passed down from parents (in both versions of soul creation—whether Divine or parental), rather than being a result of a decision, karma, or the desires of a soul in a non-existent pre-existence.

In Prabhupada's cosmology, however, souls pre-exist in the spiritual world in their eternal, natural relationship with Krishna, from which they fall into a conditioned material birth and subsequent karmic entanglement.
Of course, this isn't a universal view, not even among theistic religions, nor even all Gaudiya Vaishnavas to whom he belongs—many traditional Gaudyas (who are outside and precede the Gaudiya Math and its successors like ISKCON, though I'm not even sure if the GM necessarily shares Prabhupada's views here, I don't know) believe that developing a relationship with Krishna means establishing that connection, not necessarily returning to a pre-existent state (which is partly tied to the conflict over siddha deval, which holds different values depending on whether one believes in a pre-existent relationship in the spiritual world or a newly established one).

And, as I mentioned, there are religions that aren't even part of this entire debate because they don't have a creation or a creator, and some don't even have a soul.

Before Jesus died on the cross, he said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

So where does the soul fit in there?

casualmoose82 said:Before Jesus died on the cross, he said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

So where does the soul fit in there?

Maybe check with an American Catholic theologian.😁

bluemason3 said:Maybe check with an American Catholic theologian.😁

Well, I'm asking you. You're the one writing all this stuff about the soul.

casualmoose82 said:But what if God doesn't actually care what you do?

Then I don't really care about Him either. ☕

To be honest, I'm pretty indifferent... to the point where I don't even care if He exists. And if He does (which I doubt), I couldn't care less about what He wants. He's just not on my radar.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Then I don't really care about Him either. ☕

To be honest, I'm pretty indifferent... to the point where I don't even care if He exists. And if He does (which I doubt), I couldn't care less about what He wants. He's just not on my radar.

He is. I know it, and I think you do too. He’s always going to care about you, whether you find him important or not.

mistybison said:No one actually knows the answer to that. Everyone is simply making assumptions.

Exactly, God is like a jukebox that grants everyone their every wish.👍

The real issue is whether one is foolish enough to wish for something trivial, which happens far more often than wishing for something wise.

There are New Age beliefs suggesting that the soul selects various bodies, lives, and experiences to facilitate learning and maturity. In this view, life is merely a dream from which the soul awakens after death, only to choose the next dream-life to acquire new wisdom. Consequently, pain, suffering, illness, and death aren't truly real, even if they feel that way while we experience them.

Of course, this belief is just as unprovable as any other.

Look, if you can't possibly know what everyone else already knows, then the whole statement is just plain nonsense.

David Vaughn75 said:Quote: around the forum

hollowpuma762 says: Your thread title is total nonsense—and honestly, it’s not even the first time you've pulled this—so I'm looking at two possible conclusions here: - You're just bad at judging things - You're just Operiras

How can a question be "nonsense"? I didn't even include any kind of judgment in the title

Quote:Bice.

There's no such thing as "clearing away emotions." Being emotional is part of being human, it's

That’s exactly why—because we're emotional—we actually have the potential to become the complete opposite.

Look, please, just walk me through your logic. How did you land on this idea of "cleansing oneself of emotions"? What does that even mean to you? And what's your take on that last point I made—about things having the potential to flip into their opposites?

hollowpuma762 said:Look, if you can't possibly know what everyone else already knows, then the whole statement is just plain nonsense.

The only thing we can call objective knowledge is exact science. Everything else is just daydreaming, philosophical fluff, delusions, or general nonsense.

If science hasn't figured it out yet—meaning there isn't a solid consensus backed by hard evidence—then saying "nobody knows" is perfectly accurate. Beyond that, everything else is epistemologically shaky.

bluemason3 said:The only thing we can call objective knowledge is exact science. Everything else is just daydreaming, philosophical fluff, delusions, or general nonsense.

If science hasn't figured it out yet—meaning there isn't a solid consensus backed by hard evidence—then saying "nobody knows" is perfectly accurate. Beyond that, everything else is epistemologically shaky.

And honestly, this whole argument is a total wash.

Someone's personal take on what "counts" as knowledge—using their own subjective value system as if it were some universal yardstick for reality—doesn't hold water. They're trying to define what can or can't be known based on their own narrow view, acting like it's an objective truth when it's really just one person's opinion. You can't claim "knowledge" is just a matter of belief, because if you actually *know* something, it isn't just a belief anymore; it's fact. To suggest otherwise is just circular nonsense.
It’s completely nonsensical.

Intellectual blindness, fueled by subversive ideologies and conditioned idiocy, is a constant hurdle for both individuals and society at large.

If you've got the capacity, you'll find a way to dig deeper and figure things out.
If you don't, well, just keep swallowing whatever they shove down your throat.

bluemason3 said:In a way, that's true. Because stories hit you on an emotional and symbolic level, they bypass the rational, critical part of the brain. That allows them to trigger shifts in behavior at a more instinctive, irrational level.
It can be a positive thing, but it can also be negative.

There are psychotherapies and therapists who use carefully crafted, suggestive storytelling and communication styles for that exact purpose. If that’s what someone needs, it’s better to turn to professionals who follow established ethical guidelines and professional oversight.

With religions (including cults and sects—they're essentially the same thing), the primary goal is indoctrination. At the very least, it's about maintaining the flock, and for most, it's about recruiting new members. Everything else is secondary to that goal, including (more often than not, highly exaggerated if not outright fabricated) potential benefits.

The other issue is that these benefits are often short-lived—more like a temporary fix than a permanent cure.
Personality traits are hard, if not impossible, to fundamentally change in adulthood. However, through constant indoctrination and social pressure, a person can develop a sort of "pseudo-ego"—a permanent role they play just to fit into the religious narrative.
That said, you usually notice that once someone leaves a religion, sect, or cult, they revert back to their core personality. There wasn't actually any lasting change.

How would you explain it when, for example, doctors tell someone they have an incurable disease, but then that illness vanishes after prayer and fasting?
You can't just dismiss that as fantasy or positive thinking.

There are specific conditions and miracles required at shrines; I'm not really familiar with how that works, so I can't comment.

I will say, however, that the "fantasy" lies in how those events are interpreted.

Reality isn't binary. Nothing is strictly mortal or immortal. There are cases where people die laughing, and others who survive free-falling from a plane (without a parachute).

Both are extremely rare, but they happen. The reason we consider falling from a plane deadly and laughter healthy isn't based on absolute certainty, but on high probabilities.

Take a disease with a 99% mortality rate. We call it fatal, but there is still that 1 in 100 who survives.
Most people are believers, and everyone prays when their life is on the line. Even people who aren't religious tend to find faith in those moments.

This means it is statistically quite likely that the one person who was going to survive anyway happened to be praying. That single instance is then held up as proof of a miraculous healing, while completely ignoring the thousands of people who prayed and didn't get better.

It's the same story with shrines or canonizations—"miracles" are pulled out of thin air without context, relevant data sets, control groups, or statistical analysis. How many people visit a famous shrine? Hundreds of thousands a year? Millions? It's incredibly easy to find a cluster of healings in a group that large. It isn't evidence; it's just math.

The only way to actually prove something like this would be to demonstrate that, in practice, people experience significantly more healings through prayer or divine intervention than a control group of similar individuals who don't engage in those rituals.

As far as I know, the only studies of this kind I've come across were conducted right here in the States, and they failed to show any solid positive correlation.(One study even suggested a slight negative correlation—worse health outcomes for the group being prayed for, which most likely points to a nocebo effect.)

Since there are plenty of educated people working within the church who understand how to conduct research aimed at objectively testing a hypothesis, I’m left with one conclusion: when it comes to formal procedures like canonization, they intentionally use outdated methods. It doesn't prove anything; it just creates a pseudo-scientific illusion of proof. In other words, it feels like a deliberate hoax.

My view of faith doesn't primarily revolve around sects or organized religion. It isn't about that sort of thing.
Even if I weren't Catholic—if I were from some other faith or even an atheist—I would still arrive at the same conclusion. God exists. Regardless of what people choose to call Him these days.

Do you know anyone in your area who has converted?

hollowpuma762 said:And honestly, this whole argument is a total wash.

Someone's personal take on what "counts" as knowledge—using their own subjective value system as if it were some universal yardstick for reality—doesn't hold water. They're trying to define what can or can't be known based on their own narrow view, acting like it's an objective truth when it's really just one person's opinion. You can't claim "knowledge" is just a matter of belief, because if you actually *know* something, it isn't just a belief anymore; it's fact. To suggest otherwise is just circular nonsense.
It’s completely nonsensical.

Intellectual blindness, fueled by subversive ideologies and conditioned idiocy, is a constant hurdle for both individuals and society at large.

If you've got the capacity, you'll find a way to dig deeper and figure things out.
If you don't, well, just keep swallowing whatever they shove down your throat.

It's just Deleuzian self-defense through sloppy pseudo-philosophy.

Look, I don't think we need to just kill off our emotions entirely—but how the hell are we supposed to actually keep them under control? Being way too emotional just leads to total instability, and honestly, it probably doesn't do much for your spiritual practice either, right?

James Miller2 said:My view of faith doesn't primarily revolve around sects or organized religion. It isn't about that sort of thing.
Even if I weren't Catholic—if I were from some other faith or even an atheist—I would still arrive at the same conclusion. God exists. Regardless of what people choose to call Him these days.

Do you know anyone in your area who has converted?

That feels like a bit of a non sequitur, if you ask me. 🤔

I mean, cultists will be cultists.

bluemason3 said:It's just Deleuzian self-defense through sloppy pseudo-philosophy.

Honestly, if you don't know your philosophy from a hole in the wall and you're already swallowing whatever ideology is being spoon-fed to you, I guess that's the kind of impression you're gonna get.

hollowpuma762 said:Honestly, if you don't know your philosophy from a hole in the wall and you're already swallowing whatever ideology is being spoon-fed to you, I guess that's the kind of impression you're gonna get.

When you lose common sense to sectarian indoctrination, you end up fantasizing about "truths" that aren't actually there.