becoming Enlightened and go beyond

[j000han]

1)
Please, if you enter here and after reading
you feel inclined to respond to any part of the content then start a new thread
titled re-<threadname as is><
It is a simple procedure and though we have no means to prevent you from
not honouring this request,
it will be considered as an act of good Karma if indeed you leave this thread
alone and it will be considered as an act of bad Karma.if you choose to not honour this request.
The reason for this somewhat onconventional aproach is that on this forum
one can aquire a status of Guru merely based on the quantity of ones posts,
rahter then the quality of the content.
The seemingly hierarchic organization of this forum is questionable,
as indeed it could give rise to suspicion that the ‘rank’ of Guru is assigned rather
arbitrairily.
As it appears so these days,
any idiot who has dabbled a bit in ie. Budhism can present him/her self
as a Guru and worse even may lead to the believe that he/she actually is one but he/she in fact is (more or less) seriously misguided and hence could possibly seriously misguide earnest seekers/investigators.
This new era has been predicted by us (mainly in metaphores though somewhat convoluted),
in our previous notes see ie.
http://interlinear.biblos.com/revelation/1.htm

Once it has been understood that Budhissatva’s come
and go, return,
then go and then return and on and on it goes,
then what the commitment to becoming Enlightened and go beyond entails will be clear to those that have ears
and can hear
and those who have eyes
and can see.
Also it will be clear then what the word corruption means
particulary with regard to the practice of so called spiritual teaching at large.
Even a Budhisatva (male/female) can become (albeit temporarily) deluded and aquire the status of false prophet or ‘spiritual quack’ .
Premature acquisition of status Guru is entering the dangerzone
If a Budhisatva has not yet shaken of the shackles of a particular condition
and has yet failed to allign with the present Shanga.

[j000han]

2)
If there can be a theory of everything then,
also there must be a theory of nothing.
If everything is matter and life as we know it is matter, then a theory
of everything must explain and describe what matter is and what it does
in a coherent, consistent manner.
whereas a theory of nothing must explain and describe what nothing is.
Also in the final stage a theory of everything will have to
include nothing and the relation between nothing and everything.
Though it sounds paradoxal it is not when considered that
any theory is essentially a thought process.
So…
Obviously the utltimate theory of everything does not leave out the designer(s)
and/or co-designers(s).
Once nothing is being understood as the facilating quality that enables the choice
between mortality and in-mortality, then it becomes clear that everthing is the essence of the desire to be,
it is that desire that enables believe in the possiblity of eternal life.
Some reference to that:
http://multilingualbible.com/mark/4-31.htm
Naturally that was part of our explanation of the Logos in the previous era merely a preparation for (or better prelude to) this new era.
Obviously in that time the concept of ie. paralel universes,let alone the principle of recycling would not be possible to explain.
Nonetheless the seed parables are quite revealing, again that is for those who have ears and so on.
With regard to Budhissatva’s ranking there is indeed a hierarchic aspect to the WORK but this has nothing to do with what is commonly considered as a hierarchic structure it is more a matter of where the energy is needed that’s where we temporaly focus our attention,
at times that may appear as if there are higher/lower ranks.

[Smurf]

Everything is Nothing.

[jufa]

"A primary cause of anything or nothing; good karma or bad karma is delusion: our inability, because of subtly willful blindness, to see things the way they truly are but instead in a distorted way. The world is in fact a seamless and dynamic unity, a single living organism that is constantly undergoing change. Our minds, however, chop it up into separate, static bits and pieces, which we then try mentally and physically to manipulate. One of the mind's most dear creations is the idea of the person and, closest to home, of a very special person which each one of us calls I: a separate, enduring ego or self. There is "I"-- and there is all the rest. That means conflict--and pain, for "I" cannot control that fathomless vastness against which it is set. It will try, of course, as a flea might pit itself against an elephant, but it is a vain enterprise."

There is nothing but Consciousness. Everything else is a concept. But, in order to continue our course, we must attempt to conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized. The conventional concept of objective reality rests on shaky grounds. All separation between objects is purely conceptual because there is no separation within the wholeness of Consciousness. Likewise, the separation between pure Subjectivity (Awareness) and pure objectivity is also purely conceptual.

Since concepts are formed by splitting off one part of the whole from the rest, they invariably come in the form of polar pairs, that is, of pairs of inseparable opposites (e.g., "I" and not-"I"). A pair forms an indivisible whole. Thus, the two opposites must always appear together, and are conceived from what is inconceivable. Since wholeness appears to have been broken, nonduality appears to have been replaced by duality. However, this is only an appearance, a result of conceptualization, since Consciousness is always intrinsically whole. The appearance of duality implies a boundary line between one part and its opposite. One of the inevitable consequences of any boundary line is its potential to become a battle line, with all of the suffering that it entails. All polar pairs, or dualities, are only conceptualizations in mind, and come and go in mind without affecting Consciousness, just as a reflection can come and go without affecting its source. All conceptual phenomena are merely reflections of Consciousness in Consciousness. They are the restless waves that appear on the silent sea.

The yin/yang symbol of ancient Chinese philosophyi s a striking representation of duality within nonduality. It graphically shows how nonduality (the outer circle) appears to be broken into the two polar opposites, yin (dark) and yang (light). Each part contains the seed (a small dot) of the other part, representing the ease with which yin/yang can change into yang/yin. The boundary line between the two represents potential conflict, while nonduality itself is never disturbed by any appearances within it. In Chinese philosophy, yin signifies the female (moon) principle, and yang signifies the male (sun) principle, but, more generally, they represent any pair of polar opposites.


GOD IS EVERYTHING



EVERYTHING IS GOD



The appearace of sentience witin Consciousness
Sentience is the mechanism by which Consciousness becomes aware of Itself. (Objectively, sentience requires a brain connected to sensory organs. There can be no manifestation without sentience, and there can be no sentience without manifestation.

I have often used the term individual mind, although I know Mind is omnipresent which means Awareness of all minds is universal, not individual. In simplest conceptual terms, all experience can be divided into thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, and perceptions. All of these are nothing but concepts dividing Consciousness, so none is more real than another. However, we tend to equate intensity and persistence with reality, so the last items in the list can seem to be more real than the first items. For example, emotions, sensations, and perceptions can seem to be more real than feelings and thoughts because they can be more intense and persistent. However, sensations and perceptions are not inherently more real than feelings and thoughts are. On the contrary, the more attention-grabbing an object is, the more unreal it is likely to be, and the more subtle it is, the more real it is likely to be. For example, subtle feelings and thoughts are more likely to point to Reality than intense ones are, and very subtle perception (called apperception) is more likely to reveal the underlying Reality of the object than superficial perception is.

So the blanket of Life is not divided, and therefore, any concept pertaining to man having a dual nature is ego man separating and always in conflict with his inner Self by believing "I" and not-"I").

[j000han]

"A primary cause of anything or nothing; good karma or bad karma is delusion: our inability, because of subtly willful blindness, to see things the way they truly are but instead in a distorted way.
Then could you perhaps explain that what generally is observed as space?

[Smurf]

The appearace of sentience witin Consciousness
Sentience is the mechanism by which Consciousness becomes aware of Itself. (Objectively, sentience requires a brain connected to sensory organs. There can be no manifestation without sentience, and there can be no sentience without manifestation.

This is such a pointless philosophy.

[schrodinger]

One of the mind's most dear creations is the idea of the person and, closest to home, of a very special person which each one of us calls I: a separate, enduring ego or self. There is "I"-- and there is all the rest. That means conflict--and pain, for "I" cannot control that fathomless vastness against which it is set. It will try, of course, as a flea might pit itself against an elephant, but it is a vain enterprise.

There is nothing but Consciousness. Everything else is a concept. But, in order to continue our course, we must attempt to conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized. The conventional concept of objective reality rests on shaky grounds. All separation between objects is purely conceptual because there is no separation within the wholeness of Consciousness. Likewise, the separation between pure Subjectivity (Awareness) and pure objectivity is also purely conceptual.

GOD IS EVERYTHING



EVERYTHING IS GOD






This strikes me as the ultimate case of “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.” Here, on this side existence is manifested in the form of discrete individuals, each possessing his/her own ego and having some sense of an existence which is separate from everyone else’s ego. Yet, most of us have this sense of religion or whatever you want to call it, wherein we believe there is another ultimate reality which is manifested by some wonderful Oneness and we should strive to lose our egos and get assimilated. But, have you considered that on the other side of the fence is this homogenized blob which is yearning to break itself apart so it can experience the vast panorama that only a multitude of individuals can create? Maybe that wonderful Oneness thinks of itself as being on the wrong side of the fence and that we are in the highest state of reality. Personally, being assimilated into a homogenized Oneness somehow does not appeal to me and all the “suffering” that is associated with being human, including going through the difficulties of life, death and rebirth, seems far better than existing in eternity as part of a spiritual blob with only one identity, going nowhere and doing nothing.

[jufa]

This strikes me as the ultimate case of “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.” Here, on this side existence is manifested in the form of discrete individuals, each possessing his/her own ego and having some sense of an existence which is separate from everyone else’s ego. Yet, most of us have this sense of religion or whatever you want to call it, wherein we believe there is another ultimate reality which is manifested by some wonderful Oneness and we should strive to lose our egos and get assimilated. But, have you considered that on the other side of the fence is this homogenized blob which is yearning to break itself apart so it can experience the vast panorama that only a multitude of individuals can create? Maybe that wonderful Oneness thinks of itself as being on the wrong side of the fence and that we are in the highest state of reality. Personally, being assimilated into a homogenized Oneness somehow does not appeal to me and all the “suffering” that is associated with being human, including going through the difficulties of life, death and rebirth, seems far better than existing in eternity as part of a spiritual blob with only one identity, going nowhere and doing nothing.

It is obvious you have misread the writing here for self-justification by seeing a fence to begin with. The yin/yang position here clearly states that all intermingles because there is no separation of minds, just separation of interpretations.

To be sure, what separates your entrance into this dimension, your living within the arch of it, and your expiration from it that eliminates the Oneness which you: "Maybe that wonderful Oneness thinks of itself as being on the wrong side of the fence and that we are in the highest state of reality? All Life, Consciousness, nor divine Thought moves you in a separate direction than what I travel. All men have the same desires, needs, wants, and abilities to do as they deem necessary to adjust to their living within the arch of life. All are the Oneness you reject as some spiritual hocus pocus because all mankind exist because of Life. All mankind function because of Consciousness. All mankind is activated by Thought.

Your proposition of - "Personally, being assimilated into a homogenized Oneness somehow does not appeal to me and all the “suffering” that is associated with being human, including going through the difficulties of life, death and rebirth, seems far better than existing in eternity as part of a spiritual blob with only one identity, going nowhere and doing nothing" - is absurb because there is nowhere for you to go which would exclude you from you, nor your grass is green, or greener according to your thoughts and interpretations from those thoughts. Your thoughts are the reality of you because "as a man thinkest in his heart, so is he." And to take it a step further, as a man continues to think, so he remains.

You can assume my position on some mystical deity or place to to go, but in so doing, you should tell definitively what you are speaking about based upon your personal knowledge, not the writing of others or your assumed interpretations of that which you have not personally experienced, because:

"Tho you should soar into the heaven
Tho you should sink into the abyss
You never go out of yourself
It is always your own thoughts that
You preceive." - R. W. Emerson

[jufa]

Then could you perhaps explain that what generally is observed as space?

There is no space, for all the universe, including the univers of your thoughts are filled with the energy of that which is the inertia of all movement, inclusive of your thought movement.

[jufa]

This is such a pointless philosophy.

It is interesting when one points out a supposable flaw but does not show, nor explain what that flaw is. "Absent evidence is evidence absent."

[j000han]

Jufa:
[There is no space, for all the universe, including the univers of your thoughts are filled with the energy of that which is the inertia of all movement, inclusive of your thought movement.]

J000han:
Close but not (yet) a cigar.
As you are using the expression [filled with] this presuposes something that can be filled and/or is filled with and that is what generally is refererd to as space isn’it?
We’d agree when it is stated that:
ie. [Originally Posted by Smurf file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/johan/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?p=87882#post87882)
This is such a pointless philosophy.]
that it rather is pointless to critice when/if not pointing out what is pointless
and why it is considered as such.
We’d call that ‘bad’ Karma :D

[jufa]

Perhaps you should understand the meaning of full, and filled. Allow me to illustrate what I am say to ascertain what I am saying without suppositions on your part.

I present you with a glass of water, and you say "could you perhaps explain that what generally is observed as space?" and I say the space is the water itself for it fills the entire glass with its substance. Now the substance of water cannot be seen, but all the ingredience within its space is interconnected, weaved, and intermingles to form the solid liquid of water. If there is a presumption of presupposing this analogy is not correct, it is because he who is presupposing does not realize the contents of the glass is full. Now the only way the presupposer can determine whether the glass is filled with water or not is to touch the contents within the glass. You have not done so here in presupposing. Had you touched the water in the glass, you would have realized the space was the water, and the water filled the glass. Thus, the water was space fulfilled in all forms, and substance, and matter.

Now if "that it rather is pointless to critice when/if not pointing out what is pointless
and why it is considered as such.
We’d call that ‘bad’ Karma"

how can you maintain such wording with integrity when you address that which brings bad karma to you, and we -whosoever this community is- and is rather pointless?

[Smurf]

Which physical part of the brain is the interconnecting force within all minds?
Why would "god" (being the manifestaion of all conscious beings) hurt itself?
Why does "god" question itself?
Why does "god" delude itself?

[schrodinger]

Perhaps you should understand the meaning of full, and filled. Allow me to illustrate what I am say to ascertain what I am saying without suppositions on your part.

I present you with a glass of water, and you say "could you perhaps explain that what generally is observed as space?" and I say the space is the water itself for it fills the entire glass with its substance. Now the substance of water cannot be seen, but all the ingredience within its space is interconnected, weaved, and intermingles to form the solid liquid of water. If there is a presumption of presupposing this analogy is not correct, it is because he who is presupposing does not realize the contents of the glass is full. Now the only way the presupposer can determine whether the glass is filled with water or not is to touch the contents within the glass. You have not done so here in presupposing. Had you touched the water in the glass, you would have realized the space was the water, and the water filled the glass. Thus, the water was space fulfilled in all forms, and substance, and matter.

Now if "that it rather is pointless to critice when/if not pointing out what is pointless
and why it is considered as such.
We’d call that ‘bad’ Karma"

how can you maintain such wording with integrity when you address that which brings bad karma to you, and we -whosoever this community is- and is rather pointless?


Now, if you take that same glass, which is a 3D cylinder in 4D space time, containing the liquid water which is presumably, but not presupposedly, under the influence of a gravitational force, and turn it in such a way as to negate the effect of said force, will the liquid water flow out or stay in? Will space, which does not react to the force of gravity, flow into and supplant the presence of the water, or does the water flow out into space? Which of the entities is the most primordial, the water or the space? Is it more correct for the presumer or the presupposer to ascertain what the three laws of Newtonian physics dictate in such a situation, or should we just leave it all up to divine God to sort out? Now then, do you see how it is possible to write total gibberish while seeming to write something of deep significance? Perhaps I need to add a colorful and bold font for further effect in order to trick the gullible into believing that my empty words have meaning? In other words, jufa, you are fooling no one except yourself with this BS!

[jufa]

Let us look at your basura from factual standpoint, and not one which lies, such at the one you have presented here -- " Will space, which does not react to the force of gravity, flow into and supplant the presence of the water, or does the water flow out into space?" - Schrodinger -- is contrary to the Netonic Law you attempted to use to pinpoint your position. Moreover, the following will demonstrate the absurdity of you 3d-4d example as impossible because they cannot exist in different dimension in the same form.

Isaac Newton was the first important scientist both to do fundamental experiments and to devise comprehensive mathematical theories to explain them. He invented a theory of gravity to explain the laws of German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630) which describe the planetary orbits, made use of the famous free-fall experiments from the leaning tower of Pisa by Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642), and invented the calculus in order to give a proper mathematical framework to the laws of motion that he discovered. Newton considered himself to be a natural philosopher, but contemporary custom would accord him the title of physicist. Indeed, he, probably more than any other scientist, established physics as a separate scientific discipline because of his attempts to express his conclusions in terms of universal physical laws. He is thought by some to have been the greatest scientist that has ever lived. In 1687 at the age of 44 he published his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) in which he set forth his laws of motion and gravitation.

His three laws of motion can be written as follows:

1. A body moves with constant velocity (speed and direction) unless there is a nonzero net force acting on it. (A body at rest has a constant zero velocity, thus the net force acting on it must be zero.)

2. The rate of change of the velocity (change in speed or direction, called the acceleration) of a body is proportional to the force on the body.

3. If one body exerts a force on another body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force on the first.

In order to use these laws, the properties of the forces acting on a body must be known. As an example of a force and its properties, Newton's law of gravitation states that the gravitational force between two bodies, such as the earth and the moon, is proportional to the mass of each body and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This description of the gravitational force, when used together with Newton’s second law, explains why the planetary orbits are elliptical. Because of Newton’s third law, the force acting on the earth is equal and opposite to the force acting on the moon. Both bodies are constantly changing their speeds and directions because of the gravitational force continually acting on them.

Another example is the gravitational force acting between the earth and my body. Whenever my body is stationary, there must be another force acting on it, otherwise Newton’s first law would not be correct. If I am sitting on a chair, this other force is an upward force acting on my body by the chair, and this just cancels the gravitational force acting on my body by the earth. The force acting on my body by gravity (my weight) is equal and opposite to the force acting on my body by the chair, and vice versa.

Question: What is our immediate sensation of the gravitational force?
What if we are in free fall? Does gravitational force and light and wavelength fill and act within all the known universe?

Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics; entropy and the direction of time

Thermodynamics is the physics of heat flow and of the interconversion between heat energy and other forms of energy. Statistical mechanics is the theory that describes macroscopic properties such as pressure, volume and temperature of a system in terms of the average properties of its microscopic constituents, the atoms and molecules. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are both concerned with predicting the same properties and describing the same processes, thermodynamics from a macroscopic point of view, and statistical mechanics from a microscopic point of view.
In 1850, the German physicist Rudolf Clausius (1822 - 1888) proposed the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy may be converted from one form to another, such as heat energy into the mechanical rotation of a turbine, but it is always conserved. Since 1905 when German-Swiss-American physicist Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) invented the special theory of relativity, we know that energy and matter can be converted into each other. Hence, the first law actually applies jointly to both matter and energy. This law is probably the most fundamental one in nature. It applies to all systems, no matter how small or large, simple or complex, whether living or inanimate. We do not think it is ever violated anywhere in the universe. No new physical theory is ever proposed without checking to see whether it upholds this law.

Question: What are some everyday examples of the first law of thermodynamics?

The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways. The first statement of it, made by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, is that heat can flow spontaneously from a hot to a cold object but it cannot spontaneously pass from a cold to a hot object. The second statement of the second law was made later by Scottish physicist William Thomson Kelvin (1824 - 1907) and German physicist Max Planck (1858 - 1947): Heat energy cannot be completely transformed into mechanical energy, but mechanical energy can be completely transformed into heat energy. The third statement of the second law depends on a new concept, that of entropy.

[j000han]

3)
)
In order to understand what the word LOGOS (in this context) is intended to be a pointer to,
it is nessessary ,nay imperative to understand that it is pointing to a quality that is as well implicitly existing as, inherent to,as it is a property of any phenomen that is and/or can be experienced.
In other words, all phenomenea (including the experiencer him/her self) have the signature of that quality to which the word LOGOS is a pointer.
Though the existence of that quality itself IS independent of any condition of intuiting and/or understanding that a human being finds him/herself living on, the very intuition/understanding of that quality is either perfect, non perfect or non existant at all in his/her experience.
It should be noted that in this context intuition of that quality can very easily
be misinterpreted as well by the experiencer him/herself as it can by those who give
in any sense heed to the testamony of the experiencer aka believe and/or follow him/her.
as a representative of the ‘Truth’.
Furthermore once arrived at an understanding of that quality even when/if being it not (yet) perfectly comprehended, one finds this to be so fastly superior to any intuition of it,
that this can rightfully be discribed as being alife on a condition that is indeed beyond enlightenment.
So..
As we have attempted in 1) and 2) to point out that the ancient scriptures and tradition(s) that derrived from an intuition and/or understanding of LOGOS, can and must now be considered though not having been non functional and/or meaningless,
yet almost certainly will fail to help to bring agreement with regard to this new understanding of the role and the duty of a Budhissatva.
To wit: our duty at this point is, in order to further the WORK we first must protect our own asses from the ignorance of a majority that has a fairly wrong notions about individuality.

2)
If there can be a theory of everything then,
also there must be a theory of nothing.
If everything is matter and life as we know it is matter, then a theory
of everything must explain and describe what matter is and what it does
in a coherent, consistent manner.
whereas a theory of nothing must explain and describe what nothing is.
Also in the final stage a theory of everything will have to
include nothing and the relation between nothing and everything.
Though it sounds paradoxal it is not when considered that
any theory is essentially a thought process.
So…
Obviously the utltimate theory of everything does not leave out the designer(s)
and/or co-designers(s).
Once nothing is being understood as the facilating quality that enables the choice
between mortality and in-mortality, then it becomes clear that everthing is the essence of the desire to be,
it is that desire that enables believe in the possiblity of eternal life.
Some reference to that:
http://multilingualbible.com/mark/4-31.htm
Naturally that was part of our explanation of the Logos in the previous era merely a preparation for (or better prelude to) this new era.
Obviously in that time the concept of ie. paralel universes,let alone the principle of recycling would not be possible to explain.
Nonetheless the seed parables are quite revealing, again that is for those who have ears and so on.
With regard to Budhissatva’s ranking there is indeed a hierarchic aspect to the WORK but this has nothing to do with what is commonly considered as a hierarchic structure it is more a matter of where the energy is needed that’s where we temporaly focus our attention,
at times that may appear as if there are higher/lower ranks.

[schrodinger]

What are you using here, j000han, DadaDodo: http://www.jwz.org/dadadodo/ or just a random spam generator? Whatever it is, you are doing a great job of exterminating rational thought!:applause:

[j000han]

What are you using here, j000han, DadaDodo: http://www.jwz.org/dadadodo/ or just a random spam generator? Whatever it is, you are doing a great job of exterminating rational thought!:applause:

Thank you.
It would in the context of the subject of this thread be helpful if you could provide a discription of what you refer to with 'rational' thought.

[j000han]

This is such a pointless philosophy.

Conciousness I find a term too obscure and give rise to various misunderstandings, because sometimes it is used in a religious context and sometimes more in a segular sense however rarely without psychological ramifications of the need to define what it is.

Perception on the other hand is a clear cut pointer.
Same goes for experience (albeit this being on some level disputable with regard to clarity)
So..
Lets start with perception.
In order to perceive something a particular condition must be fullfilled.
So then what is that condition?
Ie.
On my desk there is a pen.
One might ask, if there is nobody in that room to see the pen, is then there actually a pen laying on that a desk or/and is there even a desk, a room?
These are of course silly questions, so we better not attempt to answer them.
We must presuppose that indeed a particular object in this case a pen is laying on that desk..
As there are various types of pens lets assume it is in this case a fountainpen.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen
[A pen (Latin penna, feather) is a writing instrument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_instrument) used to apply ink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ink) to a surface, usually paper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper). There are several different types, including ballpoint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballpoint_pen), rollerball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollerball_pen), fountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_pen), and felt-tip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felt-tip_pen). Historically, reed pens, quill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill) pens, and dip pens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dip_pen) were used.

A fountain pen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_pen) uses water-based liquid ink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ink) delivered through a nib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nib_%28pen%29). The ink flows from a reservoir through a “feed” to the nib, then through the nib, due to capillary action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action) and gravity. The nib has no moving parts and delivers ink through a thin slit to the writing surface. A fountain pen reservoir can be refillable or disposable, this disposable type being an ink cartridge.]
But wait is with the presumption that indeed there is an object that can be brought to the attention of an observer, the condition of perception being possible fullfilled?
More or less yes.
Provided that this particular object (defined as fountainpen),
is not inside a closed container or rapped up in whatever material it could be wrapped in,
there is sufficient light in that room,
the observer is in such a position such as that fotons that come radiating from that object (in this case a fountainpen) can reach the retina of the observer
and last but not least,
the observer has at least one fully functional eye open, then yes it is ‘more or less ’rather' safe to say that the condition of perception being possible is there.
Thus for anyone such an observer (irregardless of gender, age,race, whatever nationalistic/religious notions), that condition of perception is being fullfilled.
Can we now say that anyone such an observer also will agree that he/she indeed has
had the experience of he/she having seen a fountainpen?
Not very likely,
particulary not on a forum like this.
Some may argue that the fountainpen itself is actually invisible.
It is more accurate to discribe the process of experiencing of seeing an object,
as this being the result of the fotons radiating from an objects surface having caused chemical changes in receptors that are located in the retina.
Those chemical changes activate the the nervoussystem that is connected with the part of the brain in which the visual cortex is located where an image of that object is produced.
Iow. the photons are being treated as data that provide information to the brain to instruct it to generate an image of an object..
Thus it is a dubious proposition to pose that the experiencer is *not* defined by the object he/she experiences.
Prior to the defenition of an object comes the perception of it
Thus might one say that as soon as the observer has defined an object he/she first must have allowed that object to define him/her.

:huh:

[Smurf]

Thus might one say that as soon as the observer has defined an object he/she first must have allowed that object to define him/her.


The Subjective is the root of all definition, unless you are saying that pens can be subjective too, then that's fine. The "images" as you argue are posited by the subjective. Hence subjective defines itself, albeit through the objective, but the point of origin remains with the subjective. Pen does not say I am me, I say I am me. I say Pen is pen, but that is me saying that is pen. That is my experience of pen, thus that is what pen is in relation to me. The subjective defines the objective.

[j000han]

The Subjective is the root of all definition, unless you are saying that pens can be subjective too, then that's fine. The "images" as you argue are posited by the subjective. Hence subjective defines itself, albeit through the objective, but the point of origin remains with the subjective. Pen does not say I am me, I say I am me. I say Pen is pen, but that is me saying that is pen. That is my experience of pen, thus that is what pen is in relation to me. The subjective defines the objective.
Smurf:
The Subjective is the root of all definition, unless you are saying that pens can be subjective too, then that's fine.
J:
We’re saying that the subjective is not the root of any definition.
We’re saying that any definition has it’s roots in the perception of an object.
As it has been attempted to point out the experience of ie. seeing an object is more like a dialogue between the observer and the object.and it can argued that the object more or less
informs the observer what it is and allows him/her to recall the definition of it, thus the subject is in someway defined by the object.
You seem to disregard the fact that the image of that object consist merely of information with regard it’s shape and colour (provided that we talk about visual perception.)
Based on previous learning experiences the brain reccogneizes
that this information from a particular object can be reasonable inferred to fit into a particular category in this case the category of pens that is the moment that the pen is reccogneized as
pen and as a member of a particular kind of objects that can be defined as ‘fountainpens’.
Thus the objects helps the subject to attribute the definition.
Now what came first?
The object or the subject?
:huh:

[Smurf]

We’re saying that the subjective is not the root of any definition.
We’re saying that any definition has it’s roots in the perception of an object.

lol,
Perception is primarily a subjective attritbute!!!!
Perception is initiated subjectively!!!

You seem to disregard the fact that the image of that object consist merely of information with regard it’s shape and colour (provided that we talk about visual perception.

And those "shapes", "colours" and "meaning" are all different from each individual. I may like bananas, so the object that I subjectively percieve as a banana is good for me. But, for someone else who hates them then the object is bad for them. We do not, and can not share completely pristine equal view on "things"

Existence preceeds Essence. Things exist and then the subjective places importance upon them.

[j000han]

lol,
Perception is primarily a subjective attritbute!!!!
Perception is initiated subjectively!!!
And those "shapes", "colours" and "meaning" are all different from each individual. I may like bananas, so the object that I subjectively percieve as a banana is good for me. But, for someone else who hates them then the object is bad for them. We do not, and can not share completely pristine equal view on "things"

Existence preceeds Essence. Things exist and then the subjective places importance upon them.

It can be proven (scientificly ) that shape and colour are attributes of an object.
Both of them can be translated into digital data from which the same simulation of that object can be run over and over.
We have attempted to point out that the brain (in general) functions as an interpreter of those data and hence that the building of an image can be considered as a process inside the brain that process is in essence the same in any brain thus it isdisputable if there is indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual )
data input that result in perception of particular object.
Iow. what we call yellow may well be the same sensate experience (with regard to the visual aspect) as that what Smurf calls yellow.
Even when considering other sensorial inputs taste smell aso the association with like or dislike .may in the end result in an experience that is quite universal.
Iow. if we eat a bannana and like it and Smurfs eat a bannana and likes it then the
’banna-experience ‘ may be more or less the same.
To stubbornly hold on to a notion that those two experiences are in essence fundamental different,
is nothing less then extreme ontological solipsism.

[schrodinger]

It can be proven (scientificly ) that shape and colour are attributes of an object.
Both of them can be translated into digital data from which the same simulation of that object can be run over and over.
We have attempted to point out that the brain (in general) functions as an interpreter of those data and hence that the building of an image can be considered as a process inside the brain that process is in essence the same in any brain thus it isdisputable if there is indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual )
data input that result in perception of particular object.
Iow. what we call yellow may well be the same sensate experience (with regard to the visual aspect) as that what Smurf calls yellow.
Even when considering other sensorial inputs taste smell aso the association with like or dislike .may in the end result in an experience that is quite universal.
Iow. if we eat a bannana and like it and Smurfs eat a bannana and likes it then the
’banna-experience ‘ may be more or less the same.
To stubbornly hold on to a notion that those two experiences are in essence fundamental different,
is nothing less then extreme ontological solipsism.


You make it sound as if observation is a mechanical process of gathering hard facts from the “world around us” that everyone can generally agree on. Nothing could be further from the truth! There are very basic things that are generally accepted today, but only because our ancestors observed and compared and then passed that information down through teachings and learning. The things we observe are not always so basic and fundamental and the process of observation is a very creative process of the human mind. For many centuries people generally agreed that the earth was the center of the universe. This belief was based upon very detailed observation of the apparent motion of the sun, planets and stars. When Copernicus came up with his sun-centered model of the solar system, based upon the exact same observational data that was available to Ptolemy, his theory was widely rejected. How can that happen, if all we do is collect facts via a: "process {that} is in essence the same in any brain thus it is disputable if there is indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual ) data input that result in perception of particular object.”
Aristotle was probably the greatest scientist of antiquity and formulated many theories about the world from those observations. One such theory was his idea that the natural state of an object is at absolute rest, and a continuous force must be applied to keep it in motion. That theory was completely accepted for many centuries because it seemed so obvious based upon observation. But Galileo and Newton after him, through a creative process within the mind, determined that it was the force of friction which prevented an object in motion from staying in motion. In the absence of friction, the natural state of an object in motion is to remain in motion, with no need for any applied force. Again, the exact same visual data was available but it was interpreted very differently!
To call that “extreme ontological solipsism” is extremely ridiculous!

[j000han]

You make it sound as if observation is a mechanical process of gathering hard facts from the “world around us” that everyone can generally agree on. Nothing could be further from the truth! There are very basic things that are generally accepted today, but only because our ancestors observed and compared and then passed that information down through teachings and learning. The things we observe are not always so basic and fundamental and the process of observation is a very creative process of the human mind. For many centuries people generally agreed that the earth was the center of the universe. This belief was based upon very detailed observation of the apparent motion of the sun, planets and stars. When Copernicus came up with his sun-centered model of the solar system, based upon the exact same observational data that was available to Ptolemy, his theory was widely rejected. How can that happen, if all we do is collect facts via a: "process {that} is in essence the same in any brain thus it is disputable if there is indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual ) data input that result in perception of particular object.”
Aristotle was probably the greatest scientist of antiquity and formulated many theories about the world from those observations. One such theory was his idea that the natural state of an object is at absolute rest, and a continuous force must be applied to keep it in motion. That theory was completely accepted for many centuries because it seemed so obvious based upon observation. But Galileo and Newton after him, through a creative process within the mind, determined that it was the force of friction which prevented an object in motion from staying in motion. In the absence of friction, the natural state of an object in motion is to remain in motion, with no need for any applied force. Again, the exact same visual data was available but it was interpreted very differently!
To call that “extreme ontological solipsism” is extremely ridiculous!

S:
You make it sound as if observation is a mechanical process of gathering hard facts from the “world around us” that everyone can generally agree on.
j:
So…
Unless you (Schrodinger) make use of program that directly translates text into sound,
It is not inaccurate to presume that your brain has interpreted the provided information
such as that it sounds as if we say:
[‘observation is a mechanical process of gathering hard facts from the “world around us” that everyone can generally agree on’. end quote]
Though it may sound to you like that, we have not said anything like that, what we said was:
[the brain (in general) functions as an interpreter of those data and hence the building of an image can be considered as a process inside the brain that process is in essence the same independently thus it is indeed disputable if there is
indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual )
data input that results in perception of an object.]
S:
Nothing could be further from the truth!
J:
Well as you can glean from the underlined words at this point we have merely pointed out that
in the very early stage of perception the way visual data is transferred to the human brain is not much different from the way that happens in the case that a computer is connnected with
a device that can receive fotons, these fotons can be processed as information from which
an image can be constructed.
In that sense the process can be considered as a gathering of data,
however not a gathering of hard facts.
S:
There are very basic things that are generally accepted today, but only because our ancestors observed and compared and then passed that information down through teachings and learning.
The things we observe are not always so basic and fundamental and the process of observation is a very creative process of the human mind. For many centuries people generally agreed that the earth was the center of the universe. This belief was based upon very detailed observation of the apparent motion of the sun, planets and stars. When Copernicus came up with his sun-centered model of the solar system, based upon the exact same observational data that was available to Ptolemy, his theory was widely rejected. How can that happen, if all we do is collect facts via a: "process {that} is in essence the same in any brain thus it is disputable if there is indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual ) data input that result in perception of particular object.”
Aristotle was probably the greatest scientist of antiquity and formulated many theories about the world from those observations. One such theory was his idea that the natural state of an object is at absolute rest, and a continuous force must be applied to keep it in motion. That theory was completely accepted for many centuries because it seemed so obvious based upon observation. But Galileo and Newton after him, through a creative process within the mind, determined that it was the force of friction which prevented an object in motion from staying in motion. In the absence of friction, the natural state of an object in motion is to remain in motion, with no need for any applied force. Again, the exact same visual data was available but it was interpreted very differently!
To call that “extreme ontological solipsism” is extremely ridiculous!
J: Let us try.
What was stated was:
vis:
[To stubbornly hold on to a notion that those two experiences are in essence fundamental different,
is nothing less then extreme ontological solipsism (emp added)]
The intent was to refer to the process by which perception (seeing; indeed rather mechanical) and next reccognition (based on previous learning experience) is brought about, thereby suggesting that this overall processnot not nessescairly has to be fundamentally different by one brain or another.
To stubbornly insist on this diffrence as a definite fact while there is no way to either proove it or disproove, derrives in our opinion from an ontological solipsistic viewpoint.
Wheter this viewpoint derrives from extreme ontological solipsism and to what degree it is extreme if indeed it were, might well be considered to be disputable.
Your example deals with how the brain goes about with abstractions and asking questions and makeing inferences, deductions and conclusions.
Ie.data input perception of sun, moon, planets stars and motion (generally the same experience)
question: how comes that stuff is moving?
Apparently the capacity of questioning and reasoning may differ from person to person.
Nowhere we have stated that this is not the case.
However once arrived at the same conclusion, again we say,
[To stubbornly hold on to a notion….:).] as
it well may result in the same not in essence fundamental different experience.

[schrodinger]

We have attempted to point out that the brain (in general) functions as an interpreter of those data and hence that the building of an image can be considered as a process inside the brain that process is in essence the same in any brain thus it is disputable if there is indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual data input that result in perception of particular object.—J000han-

The intent was to refer to the process by which perception (seeing; indeed rather mechanical) and next reccognition (based on previous learning experience) is brought about, thereby suggesting that this overall process [is] not nessescairly has to be fundamentally different by one brain or another.-J000han-




These two statements are quite different. In the first you are not simply talking about the process, but go on to propose that since the process is fundamentally the same it is disputable that the experience and perception can be fundamentally different.

In the second statement you mention only the process.

My reply was to the first statement, and I have already shown how the exact same “input” can result in a very different conclusion about the nature of the world. The two examples I gave show beyond doubt that “perception” is based almost entirely on the individual, regardless of the input data or the fundamental process of data acquisition. Not everyone sees the same colors in the rainbow. Most people see only six distinct colors, while some claim to see dozens of distinct colors and some who see only white. (I am excluding blindness or damaged vision) Mathematically, the number of wavelengths, and thus colors, is infinite just as the numbers of fractions between the numbers one and two is infinite. White light consists of infinite colors, so who is seeing, experiencing and perceiving the rainbow more accurately? And who is the “we” you keep referring to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? :lol:

[j000han]

We have attempted to point out that the brain (in general) functions as an interpreter of those data and hence that the building of an image can be considered as a process inside the brain that process is in essence the same in any brain thus it is disputable if there is indeed a fundamental diffrence as to how any individual experiences the (visual data input that result in perception of particular object.—J000han-

The intent was to refer to the process by which perception (seeing; indeed rather mechanical) and next reccognition (based on previous learning experience) is brought about, thereby suggesting that this overall process [is] not nessescairly has to be fundamentally different by one brain or another.-J000han-




These two statements are quite different. In the first you are not simply talking about the process, but go on to propose that since the process is fundamentally the same it is disputable that the experience and perception can be fundamentally different.

In the second statement you mention only the process.

My reply was to the first statement, and I have already shown how the exact same “input” can result in a very different conclusion about the nature of the world. The two examples I gave show beyond doubt that “perception” is based almost entirely on the individual, regardless of the input data or the fundamental process of data acquisition. Not everyone sees the same colors in the rainbow. Most people see only six distinct colors, while some claim to see dozens of distinct colors and some who see only white. (I am excluding blindness or damaged vision) Mathematically, the number of wavelengths, and thus colors, is infinite just as the numbers of fractions between the numbers one and two is infinite. White light consists of infinite colors, so who is seeing, experiencing and perceiving the rainbow more accurately? And who is the “we” you keep referring to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? :lol:

S:
who is the “we” you keep referring to?
We is not, we are.
However we'd rather have asked the questionWhat is the we, that is being referred to?
We have not a mouse in our pocket.We are an umpteen trillion cells that somehow coorporate in concert to produce the kind of material, that you lately asked about if this material perhaps is being produced by applying a particular type of 'spam-generator':applause:

[wayland]

Is it logical to consider becoming Enlightened on a philosophically based level? jooohan this idea of the thread.... what is this? Take it easy on me now, I'm a newbie. I don't even know the definition of enlightenment but I'm reading this whole thread and thinking where is the science behind your spirit. Why hasn't anyone related your idea of going beyond to the idea of being able to see dark matter? I'm reading this and thinking "Here are all these senior members of the big idea trying to make sense of people who truly believe what they are saying about nothingness and they can't do anything about it because it's connected to Philosophy."

I'm dualistic. I see where you're coming from. Stretch the mind, right? My question is, why do it on a blog dedicated to the understanding and not the misunderstanding of people? You must be challenging your own beliefs.

I'm somewhat off base with the word logical. Let's change it to practical.

[j000han]

Is it logical to consider becoming Enlightened on a philosophically based level? jooohan this idea of the thread.... what is this?
>
I'm dualistic. I see where you're coming from. Stretch the mind, right?
My question is, why do it on a blog dedicated to the understanding and not the misunderstanding of people? You must be challenging your own beliefs.

I'm somewhat off base with the word logical. Let's change it to practical.

So..
You read all this crap about LOGOS, budhissatva''s and so on and you ask what is practical about that?
How does it work in my dayly life?
what is it like to see that it is not life that sucks or is a bitch and then you die, but
that is society that perpetuously broadcast the message life is the struggle 4 survival?
Are you asking that?

[j000han]

So..
You read all this crap about LOGOS, budhissatva''s and so on and you ask what is practical about that?

BE _4)
21/09/2008 06:43:41

15 billion years that is
1,5*10^13
100 years ago the universe was (1,5*10^13)-10^2 years old.
If you would have had 1000 incarnations each of a 100 year lifespan.
you could have started at 10^3*10^2= 10^5 years ago.
Hence the ‘universe’ as we believe it is
and thus now has been mapped out,
was younger, back then.

But,
what does a hundred thousand mean compared to a billion?
One can feel bamboozled by numbers and figures
and yet

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/johan/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.jpg


A hundred thousand stars that die
or
a billion stars that die,
is what scientifically speaking is,
merely a considerate statistic signifance;
a broad deviation of quantity of starlife in stock,
as it were .

The luninocity of one quasar is of a billion stars
and yet her size is merely
that of our solar system.

Think of a circle representing a process that starts at
at a point A and ends at point B.
B is on the half of the circle.
B represents the end of that process
and that’s were the process becomes reversed,
thus the reversal of that process ends in A and then begins again.
Ie. an icecube melting and becoming frozen
again
and again and
again…….

[j000han]

BE _4)
21/09/2008 06:43:41
The luninocity of one quasar is of a billion stars
and yet her size is merely
that of our solar system.
BE_4
24/09/2008 03:10:28
Just for the sake of getting a sense of the meaning of what is relative.
Perception and hence to some degree experience is relative to the condition of the observer.
To a blind man it matters not if he is in a room that is illuminated or dark.
Iow. his/her brain is not hardwired to discriminate between darkness and light.
The brain of the not blind is hardwired such as that he/she is enabled to make this discrimination.
Suppose the brain would be wired to reverse the perception of darkness and light.
Thus then what would it perceive on a clear bright night?
Bright light and tiny black spots in the sky?
What would it perceive on a clear cloudless day?
A large black hole and shades of grey predominately dark?
What if that picture would resemble reality better then we happen to perceive it?
Could it be that our brains are hardwired to indeed reverse what we perceive?
Iow. what we perceive as darkness, is in fact incredible luminocity?
That would give rise to a hypothesis that we are inside (this universe) a giant black hole, wouldn’t it:huh::)

[j000han]

BE_4
24/09/2008 03:10:28
Just for the sake of getting a sense of the meaning of what is relative.
Perception and hence to some degree experience is relative to the condition of the observer.


In some respects what happens in nature is rather fluently.
Though we talk about seasons and deliniate the beginnings/endings quite distinctly winter/spring/summer/autumn these distinctions, as to what the properties of these seasons entail, are somewhat vague, ie. on average summer is warmer then autumn.
Nonetheless the part of the globe were I live, we have had lately temperatures that are quite beyond average as considered to be normal for this season.
On the other hand the distinction between water as being in a solid state or liquid is sharp.
A tiny deviation in temperature causes this medium to behave quite radically different- above zero it has a fluid apearance and below it apears as solid.- which becomes obvious as a change of property if one were for instance to try to stack waterdrops, like one can stack ice cubes on top of each other.
Science has a rather ‘neat’ explanation for this fenomen.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force)
the van der Waals force (or van der Waals interaction), named after Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Netherlands) scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals), is the attractive or repulsive force.]
However as this explanation is based on the assumption that there exists an attracting/repulsing force between the atoms of which any particular element consists, I wonder could that perhaps be a wrong assumption?
Wrong even though this force can be measured?
What if the attractive/repulsive forces are not intrinsic to the properties of matter?
^note that is matter that is generally discribed in terms of molecules/atoms/electrons/neutrons/
leptons/mesons/godknowswhatsons. End note^
What if matter could in some respect be considered as space that can morph into various structures that appear to be relatively ‘solid’ and hence measurable and/or perceiveable?
Has space perhaps implicit properties that cause matter to appear as we can perceive/measure it?
Iow. is space sometimes appearing as space and sometimes appearing as matter?
Could inertia be explained by any such properties?
I think it could.
What if the process of an effort of bringing an ‘object’ into motion,
has at the core a process of informing space to reshape itself and adjust to that new condition that arises, then that very interval between what the previous condition is and the new condition perhaps reflects the ‘resistance’ to change that would bring disbalance in the overal condition that the universe is on at that very moment.
Iow. any movement entails a reorganization of the entire universe; is it too bold to assume that we at least must experience some of that resisstance to change as a force.
This would entail that contrary to what is most commonly assumed, ‘space’ is most definitely not ‘nothing’ nor is it ‘vacuuum’ or ‘émptyness’ by any scientific, religious or spiritual definition.
Space in this context, thus can be realy considered as to be the ‘final frontier’ of the human mind.

[j000han]

Which physical part of the brain is the interconnecting force within all minds?
Why would "god" (being the manifestaion of all conscious beings) hurt itself?
Why does "god" question itself?
Why does "god" delude itself?

Intro:
The Omnicreative Mind (as I have refered in two threads
about enlightenment) to me is most certainly *not* imaginairy.
Neither is the commitment of the Budhissatva; the one
that has rejected Nirwana as the ultimate goal to reach for oneself only
and commits him/her self to life rather then eternal oblivion..
That is imo. the final litmustest for any
adspirant seeker of/enquirer into an ultimate Truth.
To believe.in immortality one surely must take the position that life is worth
living regardless of a present condition on which it is being lived.
Good times and not so good times, any persons life is a swing in between those two conditions.
Iow. if I were to live 4ever would it be good enough as it is now?.
Therefor IF such an ultimate Truth exists in the sense that this lifetime is *not* the only lifetime, then how does one find out? End intro]


scameter:
I am attempting to narrow down my specific views on the Bible, and too how it relates to daily life, science, and other things, such as other religions and politics.
J000han:
Do i want to live 4ever?
if so..
Is that that possible?
is there any substantial evidence to provide that indeed that possiblity has some reasonable ground to be not considered as impossible?
What do i need to do in order to find out?
scameter::
To me personally, I desire to know the ultimate truth, which I do believe in, that is behind reality and my life in it.
j000han:
When it comes down to interpreting the meaning of the Bible and/or to find out what is true/false about it or perhaps últimately true.
It seems to be helpfull to get some assistance in this endeaveour.
I find this one of the most elucidating contributions that thus far i have encountered on my quest to do so:
so i'm well please in sharing this from:
http://2012-comet.com/phpbb/2012/oba...t-t147-90.html (http://2012-comet.com/phpbb/2012/obama-the-anti-christ-t147-90.html)
Scameter:
I prefer biblical interpretation that while scholarly, is fully honest and entirely biblical in the original languages, and that takes the full Bible into consideration rather than taking any verse by itself unless it is meant to be.
J000han:
well the 666 reference was sort of to 'test' the waters it is all to easy as i have mentioned in two threads about enlightenment to get astray from one own path because of various reasons.
Vlatko:
I personally pick and choose whichever document i find suitable given circumstances.
The Bible is nothing more than an outdated religious-political Judeo-Christian brochure. To shorten up here is pretty short video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E) that supports what I think about the Bible.
Chan Tiger:
I acknowledge that the Bible may contain truth without necessarily containing much in the way of fact. There is an important distinction between the two which many people on both sides of the Christian/Atheist debate seem to forget.
Akamu:
I think the Bible should be respected as a philosophical text in which one can draw on parts of the Truth, but I think to establish a religion based on this text in which billions of people adhere to is treading on very thin ice.
Michael:
All will be well, all manner of things will be well
Chan Tiger:
Faced with a messy and inherently "subjective" reality, human beings have always turned to symbols and narratives, which act as guides for living. This is very simply the human way. When certain narratives or meta-narratives become dominant, they become traditions, religions, "cultural operating systems", if you will. Often times, we view these narratives as homogeneous and static, but actually they are constantly changing, being rewritten, subverted, interacting with different narratives, being abandoned, forgotten, rediscovered.
Michael:
I speak of the rotten theology at the heart of the Abrahamic religions, developed and protected by entrenched burocracies that betray the innocents into hatred, judgement, seperation. I do not speak of the mystics, the intellectuals, the truth seekers that are always with us.
Chan Tiger:
Rather than simply branding any religion as "rotten" or "horrific", I am more interested in its potential for liberation and how its followers practice it.
Akamu:
Very few people approach the Bible without intent or purpose...whether that is to obtain truth, affirm their own beliefs or discredit the Bible, that approach skews any credibility of their findings because it is already tainted with bias.
…..
I realize the Bible is a conglomeration of all human aspects and humanities in general, just as I know these things are subjective and ever changing.
J000han:
the motives of the one(s) to question, critice, (re)interpret, ridicule, rebel against, condemn,or promote are in many cases best considered as to be dubious.Anything can be called BS but personally i think then a better alternative needs to be offered.
Scameter:
I am mostly a "fundamentalist" Christian in viewpoint, though I feel that my views are based on reason rather than assumption or emotion.
Thomas:
I am wondering how fundamentalism goes along with reason. It's my impression that fundamentalism is quite corrosive to reason (and vice versa).
Schrodinger:
Uh Oh! It appears we will be in Hell Together, Michael!
J000han:
hmmm..
Flux:
I like the story of Jesus's miracles, death, and resurrection. It reflects so many deeply significant themes, such as man's desire to overcome death, and the value of caring for others. From the story, I can glean lessons that are true, though the story itself is not. Consider another source of inspiration--Greek mythology.
Scameter:
I think, and this disgusts me thoroughly, that throughout history since the birth of the Christian church, there have been many many Christians who have interpreted the Bible to suit themselves or their group, or who did wrong things in the name of the Bible (which are much fewer than atheists would have you believe), and this has made many modern people dislike Christianity and either further misinterpret it into liberalism, or reject it altogether.
Thomas:
Fundamentalism, I believe, is the unconditinal committment to religious doctrine. That's how it is commonly understood, isn't it? Therefore, fundamentalism doesn't allow those doctrines to be questioned. When doctrines cannot be questioned, reason is automatically shut out. Therefore, fundamentalism is principally the opposite attitude to rational analysis.
……
Of course, not all questions can be answered by reason alone. But religious doctrines and reason have a tendency to get in the way of each other.
Flux:
Revelations 20:10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever…….
How is one to interpret that?
J000han:
Yep, how is one to interpret:
for ever and ever…….
How does this
relates to daily life, science, and other things, such as other religions and politics?
http://biblecc.com/1_corinthians/15-52.htm (http://biblecc.com/1_corinthians/15-52.htm)
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(King James)