Everyone piles on the Catholic church about idolatry, but I just realized today that all of Christianity has deep roots in idolatry, even back to the times of the Bible, though most idols are not as obvious as the ones in the Catholic church.
We've all seen vampire movies or The Exorcist or something similar where the "evil" is driven back by a cross or crucifix. That symbol is a form of idol. Christians believe the shape itself to have power. It is a "holy" symbol. And at the front of most churches you will find an altar, as the Bible mentions were in the tabernacles of the day. That altar is a form of idol. It is a physical thing which links people to their deity. Hell, the Bible itself is an idol. Mention that you wipe your ass with its pages and you may get your ass kicked in the wrong company. I remember I once hit a Bible which was dusty to show how much dust was on it and got chewed out about it (apparently me striking the idol was a far worse offense than its owner leaving it untouched for months on the dash of his car).
The idols of general Christianity are not in the shapes of people or God himself (except for the crucifix, which portrays Jesus), but every Christian church I have ever been in has some idol in it, not even counting the Bibles or the altar. My old Pentecostal church had a portrait of Jesus for a while until they decided that was to "idol-y" and removed it. For a long time they had a cross with a crown of thorns placed on it until they decided the cross was too "idol-y". Last I knew they had just the crown of thorns on the back wall, likely because that item was so unusual that the "upper management" never thought to specifically spell out that, also, was an improper object of worship.
When you think about it, that is actually a running theme in all the Judeo-Christian religions, as well as others. Catholicism is by far the worst at it, of course. They need a new idol in the form of a "saint" every few years, but they all seem to feel the need to have some physical object to connect them to their deity. Muslims have the meteorite that they pretend current understanding doesn't explain. Jews practically invented the altar in the Old Testament. Hindus have depictions of their various gods. Buddhists have their Buddha statues. Wiccans have their various magical instruments. Catholics have...well, most everything on the planet. Even native Americans have various animals and devices of worship such as dream catchers and medicine sacks. Hell, I can't think of a single religious belief system which doesn't have some form of physical thing which is revered as somehow being connected to the particular magical thing they believe in. All of these things could arguably be called "idols".
I just found the thought interesting. Even more so as I was typing and realized that when you look at it this way the only thing which really sets any given religious or spiritual belief system apart from any other is when, as in the Catholic Church, the sheer number of physical connections they need to their object of worship grows to ridiculous proportions. It seems to be a running theme throughout history, too. Ancient Egyptians were buried with their magic spells. Simply "casting" the spell wasn't enough. They needed a physical copy for it to be "real". It makes me wonder exactly what's going on in the mind to cause this strange effect, to fuel the need to have some physical thing to connect people to the spiritual world. They accept the pure spiritual nature of their particular object of worship only in concept, not as an actual reality. They need some physical thing that they can see and touch to feel connected to it.
To materialists .... nature has no spirituality. There isn't any point in connecting what is to what is not.
Idolatry in Christianity has always been the pot calling the kettle black ... also in Judaism and in Islam. Iconoclasm is a universal phenomena ... as is idolatry. It is rhetorical not serious. It is no more possible to stop that than to stop breathing. One of the mis-understood aspects of Christianity is the notion that G-d is incarnate. But ancients mostly took non-human objects or animals and plants, as idols. In that sense they were anti-humanist in a way the Christianity isn't. And idolatry was primarily directed against non-human objects (a statue might look human, but it isn't).
Quote from: widdershins on November 23, 2016, 05:42:35 PM
Everyone piles on the Catholic church about idolatry, but I just realized today that all of Christianity has deep roots in idolatry, even back to the times of the Bible, though most idols are not as obvious as the ones in the Catholic church.
We've all seen vampire movies or The Exorcist or something similar where the "evil" is driven back by a cross or crucifix. That symbol is a form of idol. Christians believe the shape itself to have power. It is a "holy" symbol. And at the front of most churches you will find an altar, as the Bible mentions were in the tabernacles of the day. That altar is a form of idol. It is a physical thing which links people to their deity. Hell, the Bible itself is an idol. Mention that you wipe your ass with its pages and you may get your ass kicked in the wrong company. I remember I once hit a Bible which was dusty to show how much dust was on it and got chewed out about it (apparently me striking the idol was a far worse offense than its owner leaving it untouched for months on the dash of his car).
The idols of general Christianity are not in the shapes of people or God himself (except for the crucifix, which portrays Jesus), but every Christian church I have ever been in has some idol in it, not even counting the Bibles or the altar. My old Pentecostal church had a portrait of Jesus for a while until they decided that was to "idol-y" and removed it. For a long time they had a cross with a crown of thorns placed on it until they decided the cross was too "idol-y". Last I knew they had just the crown of thorns on the back wall, likely because that item was so unusual that the "upper management" never thought to specifically spell out that, also, was an improper object of worship.
When you think about it, that is actually a running theme in all the Judeo-Christian religions, as well as others. Catholicism is by far the worst at it, of course. They need a new idol in the form of a "saint" every few years, but they all seem to feel the need to have some physical object to connect them to their deity. Muslims have the meteorite that they pretend current understanding doesn't explain. Jews practically invented the altar in the Old Testament. Hindus have depictions of their various gods. Buddhists have their Buddha statues. Wiccans have their various magical instruments. Catholics have...well, most everything on the planet. Even native Americans have various animals and devices of worship such as dream catchers and medicine sacks. Hell, I can't think of a single religious belief system which doesn't have some form of physical thing which is revered as somehow being connected to the particular magical thing they believe in. All of these things could arguably be called "idols".
I just found the thought interesting. Even more so as I was typing and realized that when you look at it this way the only thing which really sets any given religious or spiritual belief system apart from any other is when, as in the Catholic Church, the sheer number of physical connections they need to their object of worship grows to ridiculous proportions. It seems to be a running theme throughout history, too. Ancient Egyptians were buried with their magic spells. Simply "casting" the spell wasn't enough. They needed a physical copy for it to be "real". It makes me wonder exactly what's going on in the mind to cause this strange effect, to fuel the need to have some physical thing to connect people to the spiritual world. They accept the pure spiritual nature of their particular object of worship only in concept, not as an actual reality. They need some physical thing that they can see and touch to feel connected to it.
Most of the things you mentioned and the way they are supposed to be used is for remembrance and not exactly idol worship. For instance; I have at times revered nearly everything as being of GOD, and being thankful for such. This isn't idol worship. One can praise the sun or the rain as long as they understand that this praise is ultimately thanks to the One Creator GOD.
I must too say that the only thing dividing religions is the particular names used for the same GOD. That and greed, pride, and fear.
Just my opinion though.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 23, 2016, 10:20:25 PM
Most of the things you mentioned and the way they are supposed to be used is for remembrance and not exactly idol worship. For instance; I have at times revered nearly everything as being of GOD, and being thankful for such. This isn't idol worship. One can praise the sun or the rain as long as they understand that this praise is ultimately thanks to the One Creator GOD.
I must too say that the only thing dividing religions is the particular names used for the same GOD. That and greed, pride, and fear.
Just my opinion though.
Peace
Well, one of the commandments of God was not to make statues of him. So the Old Testament God doesn't seem to care for imagery, and probably would smite the person who decided to paint him as a naked old white man.
Michelangelo got in trouble for his Sistine Chapel, because he made few concessions to modesty (God creating Adam). But then he was homosexual and had a particular fondness for the male physiognomy. His depiction of Last Judgement however, has the damned in the nude, but ashamed. The Adam on the Sistine Chapel is innocent (a condition of deity).
It was a Roman standard however, to portray deities in the nude. When you see a statue of an emperor "in heroic nude" that is an object of Emperor worship. In contrast, statues of saints are depicting them clothed, and even a crucifix shows Jesus with a loin cloth. So it is still Roman in that way, implying that Jesus alone is divine. Only a god can flout social convention.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 23, 2016, 10:20:25 PM
Most of the things you mentioned and the way they are supposed to be used is for remembrance and not exactly idol worship. For instance; I have at times revered nearly everything as being of GOD, and being thankful for such. This isn't idol worship. One can praise the sun or the rain as long as they understand that this praise is ultimately thanks to the One Creator GOD.
I must too say that the only thing dividing religions is the particular names used for the same GOD. That and greed, pride, and fear.
Just my opinion though.
Peace
That's not a bad point. But I tend to agree with widdershins. Important to note is what constitutes idolatry depends on the person and the definition used.
The concept of idolatry being something inherently bad or sinfull Always struck me as a bit odd. Even back when I was still religious. It was wrong to pray to a statue of christ, but not to a cross or a rosary or even the bible? It's what you prayed to to strengthen your connection to God. You embued that object with the significance of a Deity, but did not necessarily used it to replace the deity. And whether it had a face or not seemed a strange line to decide what is right or not.
And your line on "
One can praise the sun or the rain as long as they understand that this praise is ultimately thanks to the One Creator GOD." made me remember a discussion I had back then. I'd met someone who believed in a 'vague something' and defined himself as, I believe, an animist. Told me God or the life-force or whatever didn't need depictions of it to be praised. We could just praise nature and worship the universe and it's inherent soul. Or something.
I remember thinking; wherein lies the difference between worshipping a tree and taking the same wood and taking the time, effort and devotion to carve it into a totem and worship that instead? Is it the act of transforming nature that devalues and perhaps even insults this 'life-force' or whatever it was? Was the totem less worthy? Was "creating, building and doing" rather than "letting be and accepting" what made this worship a problem? Culture vs nature, perhaps? (A division I've Always found ridiculous.)
Maybe I'm not making much sense. But I remember it and regret not asking those questions and going deeper into the conversation, rather than saying "that's nice".
Mr. Obvious,
You said it is important to note that the definition of idolatry is variable depending on who you ask so I will give my definition; idolatry is placing anything whatsoever before or above the Will of GOD.
I find it somewhat wrong to pray to or worship any thing created by the hands of man. This includes castings or crucifixes, rosaries, statues, and depictions. If you want to get technical; given the definition I have provided, I myself am an idol worshipper. Every morning, though I am painfully aware of the detrimental effects that smoking has on the life span of one with severe COPD, I smoke. What I'm trying to say is that daily, all day, I place my want of nicotine, at the cost of the literal knowing destruction of the temple of GOD, before the actual Will of GOD, which is of course for me to rob the temple of its potential.
Again; one revering a thing in recognition of GOD isn't idol worship. Calling any man or any object of man a thing worthy of worship as opposed to simply being an item or symbol used to reflect, or remember GOD, is too idol worship.
I don't know if I helped or not, but it is an interesting topic and I look forward to your reply.
Peace
Humans are heavy into animism and superstition....probably genetic to point. We need to hold or see things to attach an emotion to it, especially something as mysterious as mythology and spirituality. I don't of course, I have risen above that lower level of humanity. Now excuse me while I go wash my truck, she is dirty and wants to be clean and shiny....
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 24, 2016, 09:12:57 AM
Mr. Obvious,
You said it is important to note that the definition of idolatry is variable depending on who you ask so I will give my definition; idolatry is placing anything whatsoever before or above the Will of GOD.
I find it somewhat wrong to pray to or worship any thing created by the hands of man. This includes castings or crucifixes, rosaries, statues, and depictions. If you want to get technical; given the definition I have provided, I myself am an idol worshipper. Every morning, though I am painfully aware of the detrimental effects that smoking has on the life span of one with severe COPD, I smoke. What I'm trying to say is that daily, all day, I place my want of nicotine, at the cost of the literal knowing destruction of the temple of GOD, before the actual Will of GOD, which is of course for me to rob the temple of its potential.
Again; one revering a thing in recognition of GOD isn't idol worship. Calling any man or any object of man a thing worthy of worship as opposed to simply being an item or symbol used to reflect, or remember GOD, is too idol worship.
I don't know if I helped or not, but it is an interesting topic and I look forward to your reply.
Peace
I find it an interesting topic too. I spend some time pondering it a small decade ago.
Your reply helpful in clarifying what your interpretation of idolatry is. But I'm still a bit confused as to why praying to crucifixes, rosaries and the likes would then fall under that definition. I never saw praying to a statue as putting it before the will of God. They were more like beacons to channel your focus to and strengthen your communication with God. Aids for meditation of which I did not think they held any power of their own, but for the power I placed in them deriving from the creator God and my longing to feel His presence.
Is it because they are, as you say, created by the hands of man? And if so, is that sufficient reason?
When I was a believer, I believed we were created with many gifts. And to not use them was a waste. And one of the most wonderful gifts I thought there was, was that by creating us in his image, we were creators like him. Even now that I don't believe, I think it's humanity's greatest beauty. We craft, build and innovate. Culture is in our nature. And back then, to create in the name of God, but not in replacement, seemed a way to honor him as good as prayer. I figured it showed great devotion to him to create beauty in his name. To help build to his glory. To sculpt and paint his presence as a reminder. To help ourselves and others be reminded that he is with us and that he is there for us.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 24, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
I find it an interesting topic too. I spend some time pondering it a small decade ago.
Your reply helpful in clarifying what your interpretation of idolatry is. But I'm still a bit confused as to why praying to crucifixes, rosaries and the likes would then fall under that definition. I never saw praying to a statue as putting it before the will of God. They were more like beacons to channel your focus to and strengthen your communication with God. Aids for meditation of which I did not think they held any power of their own, but for the power I placed in them deriving from the creator God and my longing to feel His presence.
Is it because they are, as you say, created by the hands of man? And if so, is that sufficient reason?
When I was a believer, I believed we were created with many gifts. And to not use them was a waste. And one of the most wonderful gifts I thought there was, was that by creating us in his image, we were creators like him. Even now that I don't believe, I think it's humanity's greatest beauty. We craft, build and innovate. Culture is in our nature. And back then, to create in the name of God, but not in replacement, seemed a way to honor him as good as prayer. I figured it showed great devotion to him to create beauty in his name. To help build to his glory. To sculpt and paint his presence as a reminder. To help ourselves and others be reminded that he is with us and that he is there for us.
I agree wholly with what you say here.
And indeed as initially stated, using these things as remembrance for GOD or the will there of in ones own life is good and fine as long as it isn't a replacement for or revered as GOD in fullness. And you are right; based on my definition of idolatry, being of the hands of man doesn't instantly mean idol worship.
For me personally, I do not worship material things really, but again, praising or using said things as a sort of reflection of the will of GOD or for remembrance of that will in ones life is okay.
Real idol worship as I defined it is the issue.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 24, 2016, 01:45:31 PM
I agree wholly with what you say here.
And indeed as initially stated, using these things as remembrance for GOD or the will there of in ones own life is good and fine as long as it isn't a replacement for or revered as GOD in fullness. And you are right; based on my definition of idolatry, being of the hands of man doesn't instantly mean idol worship.
For me personally, I do not worship material things really, but again, praising or using said things as a sort of reflection of the will of GOD or for remembrance of that will in ones life is okay.
Teal idol worship as I defined it is the issue.
Peace
Can I ask your thoughts on eucharist in regards to all this?
The Eucharist is a symbol of the longsuffering and giving nature of GOD towards all creation, and even more so towards man. It too seems to symbolize many other things such as the giving of the spirit of life. That is the very same spirit that subsists or maintains all existence. It symbolizes the indwelling of the Spirit ,the sustenance that fills the empty vessel, that it should over flow unto others.
Though one must eat to live, the taking in of the spirit of life fulfills some void or absence from purpose or significance. It too is symbolic of the longsuffering and selflessness of the Christ, as though one takes of the symbolic substance of the Crist, it is in vain as it is not effectual and moreso a show for the eyes and appeasement for the wicked souls of the hypocrite.
I have not personally participated in such thankfully, though I wallow in my own detestable hypocricy. I equate such to an oath. And having made one in times past and not in any way held up my vow, really am grateful that I am not a practicing member at a church building that practices the Eucharist. I believe there to be a time for those things (baptism comes to mind), but that to do such in vain is wholly wrong. And like I said, I'm wrong enough and wish not to add any insult to my knowing sin by proclaiming purity via baptism or the Eucharist. Ultimately I cannot speak for others though as their understandings of these things very well may vary from my own, and due to my lack of surety in my faith and negligence in my duty, some understandings have been kept from my grasps.
Anyway, hope it doesn't sound too nuts.
humbly
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 24, 2016, 04:20:52 PM
The Eucharist is a symbol of the longsuffering and giving nature of GOD towards all creation, and even more so towards man. It too seems to symbolize many other things such as the giving of the spirit of life. That is the very same spirit that subsists or maintains all existence. It symbolizes the indwelling of the Spirit ,the sustenance that fills the empty vessel, that it should over flow unto others.
Though one must eat to live, the taking in of the spirit of life fulfills some void or absence from purpose or significance. It too is symbolic of the longsuffering and selflessness of the Christ, as though one takes of the symbolic substance of the Crist, it is in vain as it is not effectual and moreso a show for the eyes and appeasement for the wicked souls of the hypocrite.
I have not personally participated in such thankfully, though I wallow in my own detestable hypocricy. I equate such to an oath. And having made one in times past and not in any way held up my vow, really am grateful that I am not a practicing member at a church building that practices the Eucharist. I believe there to be a time for those things (baptism comes to mind), but that to do such in vain is wholly wrong. And like I said, I'm wrong enough and wish not to add any insult to my knowing sin by proclaiming purity via baptism or the Eucharist. Ultimately I cannot speak for others though as their understandings of these things very well may vary from my own, and due to my lack of surety in my faith and negligence in my duty, some understandings have been kept from my grasps.
Anyway, hope it doesn't sound too nuts.
humbly
peace
No actually I don't think it's nuts. I mean it's not a secret we have opposite thoughts on the whole god-question. But in your stance, I think the least I can say is that you are consistent.
I find the Eucharist a strange concept in a religion that bans idolatry. As I find it to be the very same thing.
I find this an interesting conversation pops. One more hypothetical question comes to mind.
Can worshipping Jesus Christ be concidered idolatry? According to legend he was definitely not man-made. But if one believes he existed, is he to that person then not a physical representation and replacement of his/her god, in the material realm?
Some substitute the Son for the Father. Others substitute the Father for the Holy Spirit. But only sin against the Holy Spirit (so it is written) is unforgivable.
I rather like the Native American view of our eating plants and animals. It is a necessary violence ... that has to be justified (and that includes recompense).
Another view I like is the idea of incarnation. I don't think that the Eucharist is limited to Jesus, but includes all living things. From GoTh ...
77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them
all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and
unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am
there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
Mr.Obvious,
To set a basis for where I am with these things; I was atheist and not indoctrinated and most definitely not gullible. A thing happened to me independent of my own doing that gave me my faith in GOD.
With that being said; the concept of the Eucharist in a traditional sense such as can be seen in more orthodox church buildings was initially appalling, and still now unsettling. I've had faith really since 2011 and only in the last maybe 2 years have delved into what the Christ is and or was. So again, my understandings are relatively limited and somewhat changing as in a process.
Your question is very sensitive and I have have pondered just that for quite some time....as in since 2011. There are many levels to ones beliefs or Faith. For instance; my most recent studies and life experiences have lead me to begin to grasp, yet again, ones own potential and responsibility. There is a standing theme in all scriptures I have read and that is the negation of self and obedience to the selfless conscience for the sake of existence as a whole is actually a means to connect to the very Spirit or essence of existence, that is to say, GOD. Jesus the Christ of GOD also taught these things. The Christ of GOD plainly stated that he was sent from the Father.
I'm going to stop. I could go in for days about that.
The answer is at least two sided and I am not certain as to what ultimately is the truth regarding it. I will say that I nearly take issue with those who say that the man Jesus was the utter fullness of GOD. It seems quite evident that people focusing on the possibility of the deity of the Christ contrary to his teachings, end up missing the point completely, which is the teachings. It is hard to catch for some, but the Christ is within and without. It is the manifestation of the spirit of GOD through GOD's creation. Christian scripture even alludes to the fact that the second coming will be of many yet will come from within.
Okay, so back to the simple answer; GOD is spirit as is Christ. To worship the man that was crucified is to worship the flesh and not the Spirit and can lead to exponential misdirection as can be seen by orthodoxy of the past. This however, is not to say that worshiping the Christ is idol worship as the Christ and GOD are one and the same as far as i can tell. Neither of them are a man. Man is creation and as such can reciprocate the lovingkindness and longsuffering of GOD or reflect other attributes of GOD, but that's just it....of GOD, not the fullness there of. Though the average Christian might demand that the man Jesus the Christ(blessed be his name)was the utter fullness of GOD, you will find from his actual teachings and example that all men are equal. And that he was humble and exclaimed himself that the least would be the greatest and him who wishes to be the greatest will be the servant of the least.
Ok I'm really done. I can't conclude this at this time. Feel free to go into a more specific direction with the conversation. There are just too many variables and potentials in this current topic. I do take my faith seriously and really wish to not speak wrongly of things I have yet to realize for sure.
Thank you for your understanding in advance.
peace
Pops ... ever study the Hymn of the Pearl? This is the allegorical pearl of great price (I think)
http://gnosis.org/library/hymnpearl.htm
I don't think I have. I have gone through a good bit of the writings associated to the Gnostics or gnosis but found an the majority to be forgeries. Some were definitely not though.
I'll have to give it a read sometime.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 24, 2016, 10:48:08 PM
I don't think I have. I have gone through a good bit of the writings associated to the Gnostics or gnosis but found an the majority to be forgeries. Some were definitely not though.
I'll have to give it a read sometime.
Peace
All writings are forgeries, even when done by the original author ;-)
Well, aside from the understanding that all theists are superstitious in nature (believing in things that have no basis in fact), they all have a tendency to deny scientific information and logic. I won't bother to compare religious, as they are all equally based on unreality.
Early Christological battles were between the divinity of Jesus and the humanity of Jesus. The Gospel of John emphasizing the divinity, it being from Alexandria. The Synoptics emphasizing the humanity, they being from Antioch. This was never resolved, hence four Gospels included. But Paul is Johannine, that is why the death and resurrection is everything to him, and the teachings are nothing.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 23, 2016, 10:20:25 PM
Most of the things you mentioned and the way they are supposed to be used is for remembrance and not exactly idol worship. For instance; I have at times revered nearly everything as being of GOD, and being thankful for such. This isn't idol worship. One can praise the sun or the rain as long as they understand that this praise is ultimately thanks to the One Creator GOD.
I must too say that the only thing dividing religions is the particular names used for the same GOD. That and greed, pride, and fear.
Just my opinion though.
Peace
There is a huge difference between revering the Sun (that which God created) and being thankful for it and revering an object somehow imbued with holiness (a cross or the Bible). I'm sure if we went camping together and I went to the bushes to do my business and then yelled out to you, "Hey, I forgot the TP. There's a Bible in my pack. Toss it to me." you would likely take exception to it. I doubt your mind would be put at much ease if I told you I was only going to use the blank pages in the beginning and end, nothing with God's word on it. THAT is what I'm talking about. You revere trees as God's creation, but you don't mind if I use them for toilet paper. TOTALLY different thing.
What would be the harm in ripping the blank pages of a Bible out to wipe with? What would be the harm in ripping out Genesis to wipe with? You can always get another Bible. It's not like it's special or unique. If you're not reading Genesis at the time and you can get it replaced before you come around to it again, what is the harm? None, UNLESS the object is revered as a physical connection to a deity; somehow made special by that connection. In your example anything and everything in nature is equally special and, thus, not at all "special". I'm talking about specific object of worship.
But even in your example giving praise "to" the Sun is actually idolatry, if loosely defined, even if with the understanding that it was created by God. The First Commandment has most often been interpreted, at least by every Christian I've ever spoken to about it, to mean that you cannot worship, pray to or "praise" ANY god but THE God. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is generally read as "Thou shalt have no other gods." Usually the quote, "A man cannot serve two masters" comes into play. You may not "think of it" as a god, but praising it is worshiping it as a god, and I think that's more than just a mere technicality.
Quote from: widdershins on November 28, 2016, 01:47:07 PM
There is a huge difference between revering the Sun (that which God created) and being thankful for it and revering an object somehow imbued with holiness (a cross or the Bible). I'm sure if we went camping together and I went to the bushes to do my business and then yelled out to you, "Hey, I forgot the TP. There's a Bible in my pack. Toss it to me." you would likely take exception to it. I doubt your mind would be put at much ease if I told you I was only going to use the blank pages in the beginning and end, nothing with God's word on it. THAT is what I'm talking about. You revere trees as God's creation, but you don't mind if I use them for toilet paper. TOTALLY different thing.
What would be the harm in ripping the blank pages of a Bible out to wipe with? What would be the harm in ripping out Genesis to wipe with? You can always get another Bible. It's not like it's special or unique. If you're not reading Genesis at the time and you can get it replaced before you come around to it again, what is the harm? None, UNLESS the object is revered as a physical connection to a deity; somehow made special by that connection. In your example anything and everything in nature is equally special and, thus, not at all "special". I'm talking about specific object of worship.
But even in your example giving praise "to" the Sun is actually idolatry, if loosely defined, even if with the understanding that it was created by God. The First Commandment has most often been interpreted, at least by every Christian I've ever spoken to about it, to mean that you cannot worship, pray to or "praise" ANY god but THE God. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is generally read as "Thou shalt have no other gods." Usually the quote, "A man cannot serve two masters" comes into play. You may not "think of it" as a god, but praising it is worshiping it as a god, and I think that's more than just a mere technicality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If not was your own book you used to wipe your butt then that would be your choice. I personally would find some other thing to use other than my own book, regardless of what that book was about.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 24, 2016, 07:00:47 PM
Mr.Obvious,
To set a basis for where I am with these things; I was atheist and not indoctrinated and most definitely not gullible. A thing happened to me independent of my own doing that gave me my faith in GOD.
With that being said; the concept of the Eucharist in a traditional sense such as can be seen in more orthodox church buildings was initially appalling, and still now unsettling. I've had faith really since 2011 and only in the last maybe 2 years have delved into what the Christ is and or was. So again, my understandings are relatively limited and somewhat changing as in a process.
Your question is very sensitive and I have have pondered just that for quite some time....as in since 2011. There are many levels to ones beliefs or Faith. For instance; my most recent studies and life experiences have lead me to begin to grasp, yet again, ones own potential and responsibility. There is a standing theme in all scriptures I have read and that is the negation of self and obedience to the selfless conscience for the sake of existence as a whole is actually a means to connect to the very Spirit or essence of existence, that is to say, GOD. Jesus the Christ of GOD also taught these things. The Christ of GOD plainly stated that he was sent from the Father.
I'm going to stop. I could go in for days about that.
The answer is at least two sided and I am not certain as to what ultimately is the truth regarding it. I will say that I nearly take issue with those who say that the man Jesus was the utter fullness of GOD. It seems quite evident that people focusing on the possibility of the deity of the Christ contrary to his teachings, end up missing the point completely, which is the teachings. It is hard to catch for some, but the Christ is within and without. It is the manifestation of the spirit of GOD through GOD's creation. Christian scripture even alludes to the fact that the second coming will be of many yet will come from within.
Okay, so back to the simple answer; GOD is spirit as is Christ. To worship the man that was crucified is to worship the flesh and not the Spirit and can lead to exponential misdirection as can be seen by orthodoxy of the past. This however, is not to say that worshiping the Christ is idol worship as the Christ and GOD are one and the same as far as i can tell. Neither of them are a man. Man is creation and as such can reciprocate the lovingkindness and longsuffering of GOD or reflect other attributes of GOD, but that's just it....of GOD, not the fullness there of. Though the average Christian might demand that the man Jesus the Christ(blessed be his name)was the utter fullness of GOD, you will find from his actual teachings and example that all men are equal. And that he was humble and exclaimed himself that the least would be the greatest and him who wishes to be the greatest will be the servant of the least.
Ok I'm really done. I can't conclude this at this time. Feel free to go into a more specific direction with the conversation. There are just too many variables and potentials in this current topic. I do take my faith seriously and really wish to not speak wrongly of things I have yet to realize for sure.
Thank you for your understanding in advance.
peace
That's okay. You don't have to continue.
All I'll conclude on is that from my point of view, by your own definition of idol-worship, worshipping christ as god because you believe him to be god is idol-worship. No different from taking a golden bull and believing that to be a god.
The only way it isn't, is if it's te exception to the rule and you happen to be right. But then again, The same can be said about anyone worshipping a random totem or golden statue.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 29, 2016, 07:15:44 AM
That's okay. You don't have to continue.
All I'll conclude on is that from my point of view, by your own definition of idol-worship, worshipping christ as god because you believe him to be god is idol-worship. No different from taking a golden bull and believing that to be a god.
The only way it isn't, is if it's te exception to the rule and you happen to be right. But then again, The same can be said about anyone worshipping a random totem or golden statue.
The man. My emphasis is on the worship of any man. It can be seen as idol worship, but much more so is idol worship anything you place are strive for over the known will of GOD.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 28, 2016, 02:21:54 PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If not was your own book you used to wipe your butt then that would be your choice. I personally would find some other thing to use other than my own book, regardless of what that book was about.
I'm talking about the difference between "things" and "holy objects". To revere the Sun as a wondrous thing created by God is a TOTALLY different thing than to grip a crucifix with the belief it will help you keep the devil away.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 07:25:44 AM
the known will of GOD.
Peace
Pops, there you go again. There is no 'known' will of god. It is different for every single person who claims there is a will of god. I find that evidence there is no god.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 29, 2016, 12:22:27 PM
Pops, there you go again. There is no 'known' will of god. It is different for every single person who claims there is a will of god. I find that evidence there is no god.
I am not sure that G-d has a will, and without a will, it gets dicey if G-d is personal or impersonal. However the non-scriptural "will of G-d" could be seen as pro-life ... but since I see life and death inseparable, then that becomes a bit of a problem itself. Do you think that a god would be pro-life?
Quote from: Baruch on November 29, 2016, 12:32:08 PM
I am not sure that G-d has a will, and without a will, it gets dicey if G-d is personal or impersonal. However the non-scriptural "will of G-d" could be seen as pro-life ... but since I see life and death inseparable, then that becomes a bit of a problem itself. Do you think that a god would be pro-life?
Every person would have a different answer. God or g-d or whatever fiction you want to deal with, is different for every person. That's like asking me what do you think Bugs Bunny would do? Or the Tasmanian Devil--or any other fiction. Clearly, the christian god is not pro-life. He simply does not give a shit--all he wants is that the people alive stoke and stroke his fragile ego.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 07:25:44 AM
The man. My emphasis is on the worship of any man. It can be seen as idol worship, but much more so is idol worship anything you place are strive for over the known will of GOD.
Peace
Yeah I get that. But from my point of view, unless Jesus is God, which I don't think he was; it seems to me you are taking yet another (hypothetical) material representation and embueing with the personality of a God and making him out ot be him (albeit in part) no different from any other idolatry.
Now, I understand you don't see it that way. Neither does the man worshipping the golden calf. To him the calf is a holy representation of the will of his God. Worshipping that totem or statue is worshipping the spirit or very being of his God. It's not idolatry to him, because to him that statue is as Christ is to you; a (partly) manifestation of God in the physical realm. He may see a Christian's worship of christ the same way as a christian might see the canibalistic pelegostos worshipping captain Jack Sparrow in Dead man's chest; falsely claiming a non-god object or person is god made material in this physical world.
From my point of view the worshipper of the calf, the pirate or the carpenter are all committing idolatry by what we agree constitutes idolatry.. I'm just saying; that's how it is from my point of view. I know it's not yours. It's mine.
Quote from: Baruch on November 29, 2016, 12:32:08 PM
Do you think that a god would be pro-life?
I doubt it...
Quote from: Jeremiah 25:32-33Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth.
And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.
Quote from: Baruch on November 29, 2016, 12:32:08 PM
I am not sure that G-d has a will, and without a will, it gets dicey if G-d is personal or impersonal. However the non-scriptural "will of G-d" could be seen as pro-life ... but since I see life and death inseparable, then that becomes a bit of a problem itself. Do you think that a god would be pro-life?
Good question. I once read a book titled "God is a Verb", written by a Rabbi. It was about mystical Judaism, Kabbalah, and while I don't remember most of it, the suggestion of the title stuck. If what this Rabbi suggests is true, then God wouldn't have a will, but would be will itself, the will to goodness I presume. I suppose you then have to determine if there is objective good, which I think there is, and work from there. So yes, I think God is pro-life.
I know you weren't asking me, but what an interesting line of thought.
I have that book on my shelf ... and that Rabbi is more correct than an army of other theologians. Those who can, do. Those who can't do, manage. Those who can't manage, theologize ;-)
A book, the right one, can displace you out of your present POV ... this is a good thing. But you have to dig into the spirit of the thing, like watering a plant, if you expect fruit.
QuoteThose who can't manage, theologize ;-)
And yet, as Ghandi said, "Out of all the lies, theology has been the most effective."
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 30, 2016, 08:13:23 PM
And yet, as Ghandi said, "Out of all the lies, theology has been the most effective."
The Buddha would approve. Lies are medicine, you have to apply the right ones at the right time, for enlightenment. A materialist needs more spirituality, a spiritualist needs more materiality. It is Ayurvedic.
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2016, 07:22:54 AM
The Buddha would approve. Lies are medicine, you have to apply the right ones at the right time, for enlightenment. A materialist needs more spirituality, a spiritualist needs more materiality. It is Ayurvedic.
Yes, of course, moderation in all things.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 01, 2016, 10:25:53 AM
Yes, of course, moderation in all things.
There is much sickness here ;-) I don't know if I should tickle with a feather or smack with a 2x4 ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2016, 07:22:54 AM
Lies are medicine,
So maybe we should start referring to "Doctor Trump"?
(https://broadblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/trump-lying.jpg?w=604)
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2016, 12:56:15 PM
There is much sickness here ;-) I don't know if I should tickle with a feather or smack with a 2x4 ;-))
Use a 2 x 4 feather.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 01, 2016, 03:54:01 PM
So maybe we should start referring to "Doctor Trump"?
(https://broadblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/trump-lying.jpg?w=604)
Definitely looks like he has a future in proctology ... for Democrats ;-) But that can't be, he isn't a brown nose ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2016, 08:06:17 PM
Definitely looks like he has a future in proctology ... for Democrats ;-) But that can't be, he isn't a brown nose ;-))
He isn't a brown-nose? Tell that to Carrier/United Technologies who just got $7M for shifting a few jobs around. Trump and Pence PAID them to SEEM to stay in the US to make them look good. So much for "There will be CONSEQUENCES if you leave the US...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 02:31:10 AM
He isn't a brown-nose? Tell that to Carrier/United Technologies who just got $7M for shifting a few jobs around. Trump and Pence PAID them to SEEM to stay in the US to make them look good. So much for "There will be CONSEQUENCES if you leave the US...
So you would prefer the Carrier management to go to Guantanamo? The government is constantly bribing people ... only problem is, the government doesn't work hard enough at bribing me ;-) I would much prefer bribes over actual threats.
Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2016, 07:34:19 AM
So you would prefer the Carrier management to go to Guantanamo? The government is constantly bribing people ... only problem is, the government doesn't work hard enough at bribing me ;-) I would much prefer bribes over actual threats.
Where did you get Guantonomo from? It was Mexico. But I would LOVE it if the Carrier MANAGEMENT went there and left the workers behind working.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 07:37:55 AM
Where did you get Guantonomo from? It was Mexico. But I would LOVE it if the Carrier MANAGEMENT went there and left the workers behind working.
Have you been asleep since the first Clinton administration, and just woke up? That is where the bi-partisans send enemies of the State. Like Osama's car driver. Oooo ... be afraid, very afraid!
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2016, 08:06:17 PM
Definitely looks like he has a future in proctology ... for Democrats ;-) But that can't be, he isn't a brown nose ;-))
Yeah, but orange is the new brown...
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 29, 2016, 12:22:27 PM
Pops, there you go again. There is no 'known' will of god. It is different for every single person who claims there is a will of god. I find that evidence there is no god.
I don't know what people you have spoken to.
Besides that; I based my comment on the personal reading of core texts of different religions.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 02, 2016, 08:52:27 PM
I don't know what people you have spoken to.
Besides that; I based my comment on the personal reading of core texts of different religions.
peace
I would imagine, Pops, that I have spoken to as many people as you. I realize that for you there is a known will of god. That's what I said--each believer knows what that is for them. "Core texts"--just what is that? What is core for you may be an add-on for somebody else. You keep wanting to make a universal law about many of your beliefs. You don't want to understand that in the world of beliefs there are no universal laws; just beliefs that differ, one person to another.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 29, 2016, 01:31:51 PM
Every person would have a different answer. God or g-d or whatever fiction you want to deal with, is different for every person. That's like asking me what do you think Bugs Bunny would do? Or the Tasmanian Devil--or any other fiction. Clearly, the christian god is not pro-life. He simply does not give a shit--all he wants is that the people alive stoke and stroke his fragile ego.
That is a wholly false statement.
GOD is indeed pro-life as, as all existence or rather, creation is.
All existence strives to live. If GOD didn't want life to exist then it would not, nor would it have been formed with the capacity for life.
The bible, that book that Christianity is pretty much based off of commands it's followers to love one another indiscriminately.
That's rather benevolent and seemingly pro-life to me.
peace
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 29, 2016, 03:47:51 PM
Yeah I get that. But from my point of view, unless Jesus is God, which I don't think he was; it seems to me you are taking yet another (hypothetical) material representation and embueing with the personality of a God and making him out ot be him (albeit in part) no different from any other idolatry.
Now, I understand you don't see it that way. Neither does the man worshipping the golden calf. To him the calf is a holy representation of the will of his God. Worshipping that totem or statue is worshipping the spirit or very being of his God. It's not idolatry to him, because to him that statue is as Christ is to you; a (partly) manifestation of God in the physical realm. He may see a Christian's worship of christ the same way as a christian might see the canibalistic pelegostos worshipping captain Jack Sparrow in Dead man's chest; falsely claiming a non-god object or person is god made material in this physical world.
From my point of view the worshipper of the calf, the pirate or the carpenter are all committing idolatry by what we agree constitutes idolatry.. I'm just saying; that's how it is from my point of view. I know it's not yours. It's mine.
You don't quite understand what Christ is to me.
Again slippery ground, but I do not only see it as not worshipping a man, but I do not worship Jesus the Christ of GOD. Praise and thanks for Jesus the Christ of GOD is not worship of Jesus the Christ of GOD as if the utter fullness there of.
I get what you are saying, but for me personally, that is not the case.
peace
Quote from: Jack89 on November 30, 2016, 12:01:48 AM
Good question. I once read a book titled "God is a Verb", written by a Rabbi. It was about mystical Judaism, Kabbalah, and while I don't remember most of it, the suggestion of the title stuck. If what this Rabbi suggests is true, then God wouldn't have a will, but would be will itself, the will to goodness I presume. I suppose you then have to determine if there is objective good, which I think there is, and work from there. So yes, I think God is pro-life.
I know you weren't asking me, but what an interesting line of thought.
ðŸ'
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 02, 2016, 08:58:40 PM
That is a wholly false statement.
GOD is indeed pro-life as, as all existence or rather, creation is.
All existence strives to live. If GOD didn't want life to exist then it would not, nor would it have been formed with the capacity for life.
The bible, that book that Christianity is pretty much based off of commands it's followers to love one another indiscriminately.
That's rather benevolent and seemingly pro-life to me.
peace
If everybody agrees on what god is and wants, then why are there literally hundreds of different bibles in existence???? Why does the Baptist church have at least 10,000 different sects? I have never found two people who believed in god in exactly the same ways. I doubt you have either.
So, god created all those diseases of the new born? All those pests that can and do cause birth defects? If so, then you god is worse than any devil man can make up.
And your blinders are firmly in place when you pick out one statement god is supposed to have made in the entire bible and pronounce god pro-life. What of the stonings and deaths called for in the commandments of the OT???? Not even Jesus can be said to be all loving and peaceful. You pick and chose what you think supports you personal belief and shove it out to the world as proof of this or that. Blinders. You are just too willfully ignorant to read anything that causes you to reason about anything. Your empty beliefs are enough for you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2016, 08:58:17 PM
I would imagine, Pops, that I have spoken to as many people as you. I realize that for you there is a known will of god. That's what I said--each believer knows what that is for them. "Core texts"--just what is that? What is core for you may be an add-on for somebody else. You keep wanting to make a universal law about many of your beliefs. You don't want to understand that in the world of beliefs there are no universal laws; just beliefs that differ, one person to another.
No universal laws friend. Just universal truth.
Core texts is rather vague and not very accurate perhaps. It would include nearly all I have read, but I haven't completed all of them to be certain, so I'll list the ones I am certain of.
Zend Avesta, Torah, Qur'an, Bible, much if not all of the writings of the Bab and Baha'i faith, book of Enoch, particular writings of the Christian father's that are not in the bible, Bhagavad-Gita, upinashads (sorry for spelling), even Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism.
To be honest a haven't read the complete fullness of some of these but the vast majority of all of them.
That is a start
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 02, 2016, 09:15:34 PM
No universal laws friend. Just universal truth.
Core texts is rather vague and not very accurate perhaps. It would include nearly all I have read, but I haven't completed all of them to be certain, so I'll list the ones I am certain of.
Zend Avesta, Torah, Qur'an, Bible, much if not all of the writings of the Bab and Baha'i faith, book of Enoch, particular writings of the Christian father's that are not in the bible, Bhagavad-Gita, upinashads (sorry for spelling), even Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism.
To be honest a haven't read the complete fullness of some of these but the vast majority of all of them.
That is a start
peace
If that is how you want to spend your time, go for it. Universal truth???! :)))))) What silliness!! You read all that crap and you come up with universal truth?! Just one--or are there many? Would you like to share it? Or them? And I'm sure all who have read the material you have will come up with the same universal truth? Of course! I find more truth reading my statistical baseball reference than you do in all of your airy-fairy books. But to each his own, I guess.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2016, 09:05:56 PM
If everybody agrees on what god is and wants, then why are there literally hundreds of different bibles in existence???? Why does the Baptist church have at least 10,000 different sects? I have never found two people who believed in god in exactly the same ways. I doubt you have either.
So, god created all those diseases of the new born? All those pests that can and do cause birth defects? If so, then you god is worse than any devil man can make up.
And your blinders are firmly in place when you pick out one statement god is supposed to have made in the entire bible and pronounce god pro-life. What of the stonings and deaths called for in the commandments of the OT???? Not even Jesus can be said to be all loving and peaceful. You pick and chose what you think supports you personal belief and shove it out to the world as proof of this or that. Blinders. You are just too willfully ignorant to read anything that causes you to reason about anything. Your empty beliefs are enough for you.
Ok...I didn't say everyone agreed. I said the books or writings do in multiple ways.
As far as diseases are concerned; I'm pretty sure they are to the extent we have e today due to man. Many were probably created by man in some way. This is die to mans general misdirection which is inturn partly due to their freedom.
Past that; if all mankind was unify under under one common will....the will of life to advance as a whole peaceably, then these diseases would have most likely been taken care of in one way or another.
As far as the teachings of the ot; though it is full of right guidance, it too has some misdirection. This was again from man, and was corrupted. it is literally spoken against within the ot and in the nt.
It isnt using blinders when it is clearly stated that the Jew was misdirected, and that the law is now written om the hearts through the conscience or holy spirit.
Using blinders is repeatedly referring to individual parts of an individual book when the actual discussion is based on many books in their wholeness.
All I'm saying is that if you want to say that the will of GOD is negative then you should attempt to support it with more than such a miniscule percentage of the actual writings of the faithful unto GOD.
I'm sure you get this. Playing the fool at this point would be dishonest as you seem quite bright.
peace
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2016, 10:10:40 PM
If that is how you want to spend your time, go for it. Universal truth???! :)))))) What silliness!! You read all that crap and you come up with universal truth?! Just one--or are there many? Would you like to share it? Or them? And I'm sure all who have read the material you have will come up with the same universal truth? Of course! I find more truth reading my statistical baseball reference than you do in all of your airy-fairy books. But to each his own, I guess.
Yes, any who read, without preconceived bias, the books I listed, with the capacity to comprehend them even in part will conclude the same things I have. I'm sorry the word truth offended you somehow. I could almost see how it could to someone of a wholly materialistic mindset.
As far as stating that truth or truths here; I will not attempt such at this time as I still wallow in hypocricy and the fullness of the truth is far from me.
peace
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2016, 10:10:40 PM
If that is how you want to spend your time, go for it. Universal truth???! :)))))) What silliness!! You read all that crap and you come up with universal truth?! Just one--or are there many? Would you like to share it? Or them? And I'm sure all who have read the material you have will come up with the same universal truth? Of course! I find more truth reading my statistical baseball reference than you do in all of your airy-fairy books. But to each his own, I guess.
You don't have to read anything.
But you can't justifiably state that I am wrong based simply on the opinions of others who may or may not have read them without bias if read them at all.
Pops ... you will have to get used to impurity ... by the time you finish with your bath water, it is no longer clean, it is dirty. This is why the Church invented penance, to deal with minor lapses. Otherwise nobody could take communion. But you only get that if you go to a High Church ... Low Church is ok with sinners (unless it is Calvinist). The question remains, are you predestined clean, clean once and forever, or clean/lapsed/clean/ ... and then there is that pesky Donatist question of the efficacy of the sacrament of lapsed priests. Or you could just become Jewish or Buddhist etc.
With all sincerity, I think you need to drop some more Christian theology, and take up a personal relationship with G-d, who is neither Christian nor judicial. A doctor goes to the sick, not to the well ... unless it is the well of Jacob ;-) Religion and theology makes the simple, complicated.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 02, 2016, 10:30:45 PM
You don't have to read anything.
But you can't justifiably state that I am wrong based simply on the opinions of others who may or may not have read them without bias if read them at all.
Yeah, Pops, I can and will say you are wrong. You are not able to give any evidence that you are right. You can have your own personal opinion all you want. But you cannot prove anything. And why is that Pops? Because your god and every other god is simply fiction; and you are powerless to prove otherwise.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 03, 2016, 12:28:09 AM
Yeah, Pops, I can and will say you are wrong. You are not able to give any evidence that you are right. You can have your own personal opinion all you want. But you cannot prove anything. And why is that Pops? Because your god and every other god is simply fiction; and you are powerless to prove otherwise.
What? No. I have evidence for the will of God being of many notes making up the harmonious accord of GOD. I have evidence that even those who refute my findings can be shown to wrong with whatever book they are relying on.
You can guess there isn't a GOD, but there is no evidence for that of any sort. In fact scientific endeavor seams to be slowly leading more and more to a creative force.
At least I have had a personal experience that instantly changed me, giving me my initial faith. And I also have the fact that all the core texts of the faithful unto GOD only further verify what I had been shown, and agree, each one, on the will of God as it pertains to man, and what is percievable of the nature of GOD through the resources of the pious and the negation of greed.
You can continue to pretend that I am making baseless claims, but we both know it just pretend.
peace
Pops - I accept your testimony, if not your full analysis. You had a cathartic experience, which many religious never have, let alone the non-religious. You interpreted this as something revelatory ... and this I accept as a real psychological phenomenon. Unlike Mike, I accept people's psychological experience as a form of reality, a POV like more than one person looking at a statue from all sides. Two people who have similar experiences can understand each other. People who have fallen out of their former view, if the former view was religious ... are just as "changed" by it as you are.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 03, 2016, 02:34:48 AM
What? No. I have evidence for the will of God being of many notes making up the harmonious accord of GOD. I have evidence that even those who refute my findings can be shown to wrong with whatever book they are relying on.
You can guess there isn't a GOD, but there is no evidence for that of any sort. In fact scientific endeavor seams to be slowly leading more and more to a creative force.
At least I have had a personal experience that instantly changed me, giving me my initial faith. And I also have the fact that all the core texts of the faithful unto GOD only further verify what I had been shown, and agree, each one, on the will of God as it pertains to man, and what is percievable of the nature of GOD through the resources of the pious and the negation of greed.
You can continue to pretend that I am making baseless claims, but we both know it just pretend.
peace
You are the only one pretending anything here. You claim mountains of evidence; but you fail to show any at all. You had a personal catharsis of some sort and you want to make it universal--that's all this is. Your ego is so huge that you figure if it happens to you, it must be universal and planned. Once again, a theist puts the cart before the horse. I don't make any claims at all. Then you show up and tell me to prove that god does not exist. That is like asking me to provide proof that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. What should happen, is you provide me with evidence that your god exists. If you can do that, then I'll accept that your god exists. Until then, you are just blowing smoke and calling it clear thinking. You only have belief; you have no evidence. Why keep pretending that you do? I don't care if a billion people believe the world to be flat; and I don't care about their sincerity in that belief; the world is still not flat. And you are simply just another pretender claiming that your god is the Truth! That is called self deception, my friend.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 03, 2016, 08:39:25 AM
You are the only one pretending anything here. You claim mountains of evidence; but you fail to show any at all. You had a personal catharsis of some sort and you want to make it universal--that's all this is. Your ego is so huge that you figure if it happens to you, it must be universal and planned. Once again, a theist puts the cart before the horse. I don't make any claims at all. Then you show up and tell me to prove that god does not exist. That is like asking me to provide proof that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. What should happen, is you provide me with evidence that your god exists. If you can do that, then I'll accept that your god exists. Until then, you are just blowing smoke and calling it clear thinking. You only have belief; you have no evidence. Why keep pretending that you do? I don't care if a billion people believe the world to be flat; and I don't care about their sincerity in that belief; the world is still not flat. And you are simply just another pretender claiming that your god is the Truth! That is called self deception, my friend.
I'm not pretending anything whatsoever.
Call it what you want
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 03, 2016, 12:46:26 PM
I'm not pretending anything whatsoever.
Call it what you want
peace
I am calling it like it is. You are calling it as you want.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 03, 2016, 05:40:26 PM
I am calling it like it is. You are calling it as you want.
How can you justifiably claim that I am making something up as if you are me or you were even there?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 03, 2016, 07:31:47 PM
How can you justifiably claim that I am making something up as if you are me or you were even there?
Why? Simple. You have not provided any sort of evidence. Your psychotic moment does not stand in for evidence.
Speaking to the conversation between pops and mike, there is no "universal truth". The Bible gives conflicting stories and demands conflicting things of us to the point where Christians have to have a slew of answers for why we ignore certain parts of it. A few examples, the Bible tells you to kill witches, but Christians don't do that. The Bible tells you not to eat pork, but most Christians don't obey that, even though Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, but most Christians find slavery appalling. Man and women were created in God's image in book one, chapter one, but in book one, chapter two only man was "created", woman was made from a piece of man. And man was made on day one and day six of creation.
The point is the Bible must be "interpreted". This is accepted among all Christian denominations I am aware of. You can't get any "universal truth" from an interpreted work, especially one where any two people on the planet can't agree 100% on the interpretation. God is pro-life? Except when he isn't. He has ordered the deaths of specifically babies. And how many unborn children were killed in the flood? Does the Bible anywhere say you aren't supposed to kill babies? Yes, it says "Thou shalt not kill", but that is ONE LINE buried in at least dozens where it tells you to kill. Kill witches, kill gay people, kill adulterous wives, kill unruly children, kill your enemy, kill false prophets, an eye for an eye... Any "universal truth" you get from that is wholly in your head.
Quote from: widdershins on December 05, 2016, 09:51:05 AM
Speaking to the conversation between pops and mike, there is no "universal truth". The Bible gives conflicting stories and demands conflicting things of us to the point where Christians have to have a slew of answers for why we ignore certain parts of it. A few examples, the Bible tells you to kill witches, but Christians don't do that. The Bible tells you not to eat pork, but most Christians don't obey that, even though Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, but most Christians find slavery appalling. Man and women were created in God's image in book one, chapter one, but in book one, chapter two only man was "created", woman was made from a piece of man. And man was made on day one and day six of creation.
The point is the Bible must be "interpreted". This is accepted among all Christian denominations I am aware of. You can't get any "universal truth" from an interpreted work, especially one where any two people on the planet can't agree 100% on the interpretation. God is pro-life? Except when he isn't. He has ordered the deaths of specifically babies. And how many unborn children were killed in the flood? Does the Bible anywhere say you aren't supposed to kill babies? Yes, it says "Thou shalt not kill", but that is ONE LINE buried in at least dozens where it tells you to kill. Kill witches, kill gay people, kill adulterous wives, kill unruly children, kill your enemy, kill false prophets, an eye for an eye... Any "universal truth" you get from that is wholly in your head.
!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 03, 2016, 09:45:50 PM
Why? Simple. You have not provided any sort of evidence. Your psychotic moment does not stand in for evidence.
I have a dated invoice book that I found when I got home that day. I had intended to write what had happened, but was determined to write whatever came out. What came out was similar to a moral code or ethics guidance. It reminds me of the writings I read today. Thing is I had NEVER read or really even heard the bible recited or any other religious texts for that matter. Unlike many here, I didn't delve into things I didn't think were true. I didn't believe in anything spiritual.
That's as close to evidence of the event or happening that I have. That and my honest testimony.
My word must hold some weight.
Why would I lie. I'm not selling anything.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 04:51:24 PM
I have a dated invoice book that I found when I got home that day. I had intended to write what had happened, but was determined to write whatever came out. What came out was similar to a moral code or ethics guidance. It reminds me of the writings I read today. Thing is I had NEVER read or really even heard the bible recited or any other religious texts for that matter. Unlike many here, I didn't delve into things I didn't think were true. I didn't believe in anything spiritual.
That's as close to evidence of the event or happening that I have. That and my honest testimony.
My word must hold some weight.
Why would I lie. I'm not selling anything.
peace
I don't know why you would lie. But, Pops, being mistaken is not telling a lie. Self deception can be powerful and can lead to mistaken thoughts and ideas. I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs. But, not to be harsh, Hitler was sincere in his as well. Look, Pops, I am convinced that if you were a neighbor or coworker or friend you would be a joy to be around. That does not mean I have to think your beliefs are real. They may be sincere, but false. Your beliefs are false; and I say that because you don't have any evidence to show me that I am wrong. That doesn't make you bad or evil, just wrong.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 28, 2016, 02:21:54 PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If not was your own book you used to wipe your butt then that would be your choice. I personally would find some other thing to use other than my own book, regardless of what that book was about.
He's talking about treating an object as if were sacrosanct. If I were freezing in the wilderness, I would burn Winds of Winter. How about you?
If only what people agree on is right ... that is majoritarianism with a big dash of group think. I would rather be right, and alone, that in a huge crowd agreeing on something ... that is wrong. Objectivity isn't what you portray.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 05, 2016, 06:37:24 PM
I don't know why you would lie. But, Pops, being mistaken is not telling a lie. Self deception can be powerful and can lead to mistaken thoughts and ideas. I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs. But, not to be harsh, Hitler was sincere in his as well. Look, Pops, I am convinced that if you were a neighbor or coworker or friend you would be a joy to be around. That does not mean I have to think your beliefs are real. They may be sincere, but false. Your beliefs are false; and I say that because you don't have any evidence to show me that I am wrong. That doesn't make you bad or evil, just wrong.
No sir, it is you that are wrong. What we have here is an issue with discernment. It is true that not all things should be taken without some form of evidence, most even. But what isn't true is that anything whatsoever should be thrown out as if nonsense or crazed ramblings just because there is no supporting evidence to the liking of those being critical. What scientific advancement would we witness is all things were rigid in there ideology or theories? No hypotheses would ever even be made. No advancement would be had if we all limited evidence to the realm of what is already known. I am not wrong because you fail to believe me. Your insinuating a misrepresentation of the facts of my personal experience, or the soundness of my mind at the time of those experiences is simply confirmation bias.
I wouldn't expect you to believe what I say. But if you think I am sincere then you mist think I'm nuts. Both are quite insulting but I guess nuts is better than deceitful.
Back to that self deception thing;
I wallowed in the very pit of self deception for years. I can spot it easily at nearly every interval now, and in fact, consciously do so. This isn't to say that I always act against that self deception, but it is plain as day at all times.
Tell me; what would you assume the motive would be for an atheist (one doing markedly better prior to said experience) to deceive himself into thinking that he experienced GOD in some way? And what benefit would it be for him to come out about it years later among atheists to ridicule and all sorts of negativity as if they were some inferior breed or race?
Hitler indeed...speaking of; I know it must be fun to reference Hitler when speaking of the faithful, but he was an extreme activist for the genocide of a whole people.
I am a pacifist for the peaceable advancement of all people and life as a whole.
peace
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 05, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
He's talking about treating an object as if were sacrosanct. If I were freezing in the wilderness, I would burn Winds of Winter. How about you?
I don't know what that book is, but let's get to it; if I were in solitude in deathly freezing conditions with only a bible or Qur'an or some such book, I would indeed burn it to stay alive if I felt I needed to live.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 06:57:46 PM
I don't know what that book is, but let's get to it; if I were in solitude in deathly freezing conditions with only a bible or Qur'an or some such book, I would indeed burn it to stay alive if I felt I needed to live.
peace
One of the Zen masters in China, did that to a Buddha statue ;-)
People stuck in their own POV, always think they are being objective .. if they praise objectivity. Those who praise subjectivity, also put themselves in the best light, by thinking they are being subjective. These are both false categories.
Quote from: widdershins on December 05, 2016, 09:51:05 AM
Speaking to the conversation between pops and mike, there is no "universal truth". The Bible gives conflicting stories and demands conflicting things of us to the point where Christians have to have a slew of answers for why we ignore certain parts of it. A few examples, the Bible tells you to kill witches, but Christians don't do that. The Bible tells you not to eat pork, but most Christians don't obey that, even though Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, but most Christians find slavery appalling. Man and women were created in God's image in book one, chapter one, but in book one, chapter two only man was "created", woman was made from a piece of man. And man was made on day one and day six of creation.
The point is the Bible must be "interpreted". This is accepted among all Christian denominations I am aware of. You can't get any "universal truth" from an interpreted work, especially one where any two people on the planet can't agree 100% on the interpretation. God is pro-life? Except when he isn't. He has ordered the deaths of specifically babies. And how many unborn children were killed in the flood? Does the Bible anywhere say you aren't supposed to kill babies? Yes, it says "Thou shalt not kill", but that is ONE LINE buried in at least dozens where it tells you to kill. Kill witches, kill gay people, kill adulterous wives, kill unruly children, kill your enemy, kill false prophets, an eye for an eye... Any "universal truth" you get from that is wholly in your head.
The law wasn't done away with. It is in the heart through the conscience of those who wish to reciprocate the lovingkindness and giving mercy of GOD towards creation.
Parts of the ot are obviously not interpreted correctly possibly as far back as oral tradition. The Jew was chastised within the ot and by the Christ. The nt doest say to kill anyone.
peace
Quote from: Baruch on December 05, 2016, 07:00:52 PM
People stuck in their own POV, always think they are being objective .. if they praise objectivity. Those who praise subjectivity, also put themselves in the best light, by thinking they are being subjective. These are both false categories.
You're loosing me; how is it that subjective and objective are incorrect, and in what context are we talking about?
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 06:54:43 PM
No sir, it is you that are wrong. What we have here is an issue with discernment. It is true that not all things should be taken without some form of evidence, most even. But what isn't true is that anything whatsoever should be thrown out as if nonsense or crazed ramblings just because there is no supporting evidence to the liking of those being critical. What scientific advancement would we witness is all things were rigid in there ideology or theories? No hypotheses would ever even be made. No advancement would be had if we all limited evidence to the realm of what is already known. I am not wrong because you fail to believe me. Your insinuating a misrepresentation of the facts of my personal experience, or the soundness of my mind at the time of those experiences is simply confirmation bias.
I wouldn't expect you to believe what I say. But if you think I am sincere then you mist think I'm nuts. Both are quite insulting but I guess nuts is better than deceitful.
Back to that self deception thing;
I wallowed in the very pit of self deception for years. I can spot it easily at nearly every interval now, and in fact, consciously do so. This isn't to say that I always act against that self deception, but it is plain as day at all times.
Tell me; what would you assume the motive would be for an atheist (one doing markedly better prior to said experience) to deceive himself into thinking that he experienced GOD in some way? And what benefit would it be for him to come out about it years later among atheists to ridicule and all sorts of negativity as if they were some inferior breed or race?
Hitler indeed...speaking of; I know it must be fun to reference Hitler when speaking of the faithful, but he was an extreme activist for the genocide of a whole people.
I am a pacifist for the peaceable advancement of all people and life as a whole.
peace
Well, Pops, you are sincere and means one thing--you believe a fiction to be true. I guess you can be nuts if you want to be. I don't give a good goddamned for your belief. What I do care about is when theists tell me I have to think as they do and live as they do. You can live and think as you like as far as I'm concerned. Religion always tells everybody how they need to live; that causes destruction. And religion has been the single most destructive force in human history. Still is. I have evidence for that and not just a belief.
In my way of defining belief, not a since scientist had a belief and then set out to prove it. They had a thought; did not know if it was correct or not. So, began testing it. If the tests kept showing that that thought was correct, then he/she could advance it as a theory. And all other scientists could then test it, as well. If at any time, if it was shown the hypothesis or theory were wrong, then his thought would have been wrong. A theist cannot do that; they cannot test for a belief. A belief is personal. A thought proven to be a theory is a fact (at the very least as best we know it at this time). Theists don't deal in facts, only beliefs. You have a belief; it cannot be tested. I really do not understand how you arrived at your belief. I still say that in this area, you are laboring under a self deception to be so totally wrong and not willing to even look at it. And it appears I have hit a nerve with my self deception thing. I would suggest there is a good possibility you do think yourself a little nuts.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 07:03:25 PM
The law wasn't done away with. It is in the heart through the conscience of those who wish to reciprocate the lovingkindness and giving mercy of GOD towards creation.
Parts of the ot are obviously not interpreted correctly possibly as far back as oral tradition. The Jew was chastised within the ot and by the Christ. The nt doest say to kill anyone.
peace
If that isn't self deception, then I don't know what is.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 05, 2016, 07:09:47 PM
Well, Pops, you are sincere and means one thing--you believe a fiction to be true. I guess you can be nuts if you want to be. I don't give a good goddamned for your belief. What I do care about is when theists tell me I have to think as they do and live as they do. You can live and think as you like as far as I'm concerned. Religion always tells everybody how they need to live; that causes destruction. And religion has been the single most destructive force in human history. Still is. I have evidence for that and not just a belief.
In my way of defining belief, not a since scientist had a belief and then set out to prove it. They had a thought; did not know if it was correct or not. So, began testing it. If the tests kept showing that that thought was correct, then he/she could advance it as a theory. And all other scientists could then test it, as well. If at any time, if it was shown the hypothesis or theory were wrong, then his thought would have been wrong. A theist cannot do that; they cannot test for a belief. A belief is personal. A thought proven to be a theory is a fact (at the very least as best we know it at this time). Theists don't deal in facts, only beliefs. You have a belief; it cannot be tested. I really do not understand how you arrived at your belief. I still say that in this area, you are laboring under a self deception to be so totally wrong and not willing to even look at it. And it appears I have hit a nerve with my self deception thing. I would suggest there is a good possibility you do think yourself a little nuts.
Honestly, I've always considered myself a little nuts. Way before any of this happened. Could you answer my questions regarding my motives?
Just because you deem a book a work of fiction doesn't mean that my faith in GOD is wrong or even the product of said book. By faith is verified by all religious books not just part of one. And as ive already stated I was atheist, not indoctrinated at childhood, not a believer in the bible or any other writing to do with the will of GOD for Creation.
The very least you could do is stop misrepresenting my stances
1) my initial faith is the product of something that happened to me that I cannot fully explain. It is not the product of a book I read only years later.
2)I do not expect anyone to believe my words, even if they can percieve that I am genuine. I would, and do only hope that any who really is seeking some significance to fill that void inside that is only covered by ones societal and material distractions look into the things I say.
3)I agree that organized religion has, in times past been a hinder on advancement and equity and this isn't what I promote. I don't even insist any act a certain way. I try to explain things to people in hopes that they might navigate towards some inner truths on there own.
I am no judge and do not judge generally, though when I do I expect that similar judgement will be weighed against me and accept it wholly, be it from man or that thing you insist doesn't exist because you can't test for it.
Lastly; are the laws that bind the universe comprised of material parts?
peace
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 05, 2016, 07:11:25 PM
If that isn't self deception, then I don't know what is.
Perhaps you could show where it says to kill in the new testament.
And before you start in about the sword know that it is about spiritual division and death of self as in wants of self.
This too corelate with all other teachings I have read....weird coincidence again, whoops that's right; still no evidence for coincidences. What are the chances of that?
In a silly mood. Don't mind me.
peace
With playfulness and sincerity (that doesn't happen too often for me)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 07:31:54 PM
Honestly, I've always considered myself a little nuts. Way before any of this happened. Could you answer my questions regarding my motives?
Just because you deem a book a work of fiction doesn't mean that my faith in GOD is wrong or even the product of said book. By faith is verified by all religious books not just part of one. And as ive already stated I was atheist, not indoctrinated at childhood, not a believer in the bible or any other writing to do with the will of GOD for Creation.
The very least you could do is stop misrepresenting my stances
1) my initial faith is the product of something that happened to me that I cannot fully explain. It is not the product of a book I read only years later.
2)I do not expect anyone to believe my words, even if they can percieve that I am genuine. I would, and do only hope that any who really is seeking some significance to fill that void inside that is only covered by ones societal and material distractions look into the things I say.
3)I agree that organized religion has, in times past been a hinder on advancement and equity and this isn't what I promote. I don't even insist any act a certain way. I try to explain things to people in hopes that they might navigate towards some inner truths on there own.
I am no judge and do not judge generally, though when I do I expect that similar judgement will be weighed against me and accept it wholly, be it from man or that thing you insist doesn't exist because you can't test for it.
Lastly; are the laws that bind the universe comprised of material parts?
peace
I'll answer as best I can.
1--The very word 'faith' shows that this is a theistic concept and deals not in thoughts and reason but emotion. And you admit that it is something that happened to you and cannot be verified or demonstrated other than with your word. That is not proof to anybody by you.
2--Yes, it is your word and your word only. I am not calling you dishonest or a liar. But self deception or misconception, maybe. And I don't feel any great 'void' in my life. I don't think there is any universal or god given purpose to life. Life is as I make it and it contains the meaning I give it. This does not cause me any grief. I am not unhappy with the universe in this respect. I have all the purpose and meaning I want. I'm satisfied with my life.
3--Here we go again. There are no inner or outer 'truths'; the only truth there is are the truths any of us decide are truths. There are no objective truths. All truths are totally subjective.
As for organized religion, it has been, on the whole, destructive and still is today. It will always be. There is no benefits an organized religion gives us that cannot be done and done probably better, by secular organizations.
4--Not sure what you mean by the laws of the universe consisting of material parts. All of the 'laws' of the universe are natural to this universe. They are the same everywhere--as far as we can tell. Gravity works by physical principles. Not some pronouncement of some god. It can be tested and therefore demonstrated that it works. There is nothing outside of this universe nor anything that is unnatural or supernatural.
So, do you believe in Thor, or Zeus or Frigga or any other god? Why not? How are they different than your god?????
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 07:07:04 PM
You're loosing me; how is it that subjective and objective are incorrect, and in what context are we talking about?
peace
People are devious, not self-deceptive. Self-deception is neutral, deviousness isn't. Those who love old books, will find wisdom there, but those who hate old books, will find foolishness there. Beauty and truth are in the eye of the beholder. Mike despises any book that claims to be scripture ... so quoting scripture only offends him, it doesn't enlighten him. Suppose on the other hand, you had made love to the world's most beautiful woman ... would any other man want to hear what you had to say about that? You found beauty in something he finds ugly ;-) What he finds beautiful, is when he finds 4 stones, and everyone else agrees with him that there are 4 stones there. The interior life, violates that from the start ... only exterior life (which is beautiful too) is for him.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 07:42:53 PM
Perhaps you could show where it says to kill in the new testament.
And before you start in about the sword know that it is about spiritual division and death of self as in wants of self.
This too corelate with all other teachings I have read....weird coincidence again, whoops that's right; still no evidence for coincidences. What are the chances of that?
In a silly mood. Don't mind me.
peace
Here you go again. The writing on the page of this book of fiction you call the bible is not really what it means. But you do know what it means. I guess that comes from your pipeline to god, eh??? Your bible can be made to say whatever it is you want it to say. Onward Christian Soldiers....................!!! The christian religion, the catholic church or any protestant church leads mankind from killing one another???? Yeah, right..................it leads to death and destruction because of teaching taken from your bible. Your bible is the biggest collection of filth I have ever read.
And just because other writings reinforce what you think you find in the bible means nothing. It is not proof of any kind. Just because I can read 200 or more texts that tell us Ptlomey was correct in that the universe revolves around the earth (or sun, I forget at the moment) does not make it so. I don't care how many people you can get to tell me that the earth is flat or that the Tooth Fairy is real, will not make it so. Another realm of self deception.
Quote from: Baruch on December 05, 2016, 08:58:03 PM
People are devious, not self-deceptive. Self-deception is neutral, deviousness isn't. Those who love old books, will find wisdom there, but those who hate old books, will find foolishness there. Beauty and truth are in the eye of the beholder. Mike despises any book that claims to be scripture ... so quoting scripture only offends him, it doesn't enlighten him. Suppose on the other hand, you had made love to the world's most beautiful woman ... would any other man want to hear what you had to say about that? You found beauty in something he finds ugly ;-) What he finds beautiful, is when he finds 4 stones, and everyone else agrees with him that there are 4 stones there. The interior life, violates that from the start ... only exterior life (which is beautiful too) is for him.
Some of that is so. I don't hate the bible. Some of it is quite beautiful prose and poetry. What I do hate is that one takes the bible, creates a religion around it and uses that religion to tell me how to think, feel, and live my life; tells me what I can an cannot do according to what they say the bible says. And I grow to hate that more and more. It is the biggest instrument of judgement that has ever existed--it is simply evil what people do with the words in that collection of writings.
As for an internal life, I have one; and one I am satisfied with. I find meaning and purpose from all areas that speak to me. Gibran is one such source and the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary is another. But I also get grist for my internal life from not only writings, but movies, my furry children, my own children and grandchildren, wife, and just about everything else. For me nothing is sacred--and all is sacred--I use it all; or ignore it all, as I see fit. My internal life is mine; and it can and does change as I learn.
Do I find the bible ugly? No. But I usually find those that 'believe' in the bible to be so. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and for me that is not a static thing. I can hate the way a picture is, for example, but love it later. What Pops does or does not do; what he believes or does not believe is on him and only him. I don't hate Pops; but I hate some of what he believes for I think it destructive. But that is my opinion; and he can have his--as long as he does not tell me what to do or how to do it.
Mike CI,
What other word would you have me use to convey my personal belief in a higher power? Emotion works with reason and has been proven to lead to chemical changes in the brain and more critical thought capacities. The mind works best as it was designed or evolved (whichever word you prefer). That is to say that thought and emotion work best together. Negating a perfectly useful aspect of ones mind can lead to many problems, none of which may even be percievable due to lack of the capacities of the mind, either by intent or inadvertently. Other than that we are in agreement on 1).
2) what faulty thinking are you blindly guessing I fell victim to? I wasn't saying, nor meant to insinuate that there was a hole in your life. But I know for sure that there are some that are aware of something missing from their life and they can't quite completley fill it with their distractions. You may very well be quite content. I didn't mean to insinuate a completley objective purpose of life for all either. Everyone, being an individual, of course, has there own purpose. Assuming these individual purposes are absolutely meant to work against one another or compete, is flawed thinking in my humble opinion.
3)what in the...
You cannot admit there is self deception and in the next sentence say there is no inner truth. Your seeming aim to dismantle places that help people only to replace them with places that help people seems a little inefficient. Can't we agree that neither can define GOD but that the chances of a creative force are pretty sound? Can't we agree that if a creative force put in effort(most obvious by amount of time taken to form said existence) to form life that chances are it was for a reason? Getting a little side tracked. You want to convey negativity to some while helping others. Doesn't sound right does it? You insist that others must be broken that your righteousness may prevail. Sounds kinda like organized religion.
Get your head out of your ass and then come talk to me.
4)why wouldn't the laws that bind and form this universe be natural?
I've got news for you; everything whatsoever is natural. Just because you cannot explain a thing doesn't make it "supernatural"? k?
By pronouncement of GOD I Asse you mean he creation event, which I'm sure you're aware; is mans attempt to explain things they felt with limited means to communicate it. But now that you mention it; the big bang sounds a heck of a lot like let there be light. The void and motionless waters sure sounds like what 98â,,... of existence is, making that other 2â,,...; you guessed it; the light and or breath of GOD....that's metaphorical, as in a huge flying dude didn't breathe onto nothing to create what we have here today.
So to be clear; you are saying that the universe is all encompassing, correct?
peace
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 05, 2016, 09:01:52 PM
Here you go again. The writing on the page of this book of fiction you call the bible is not really what it means. But you do know what it means. I guess that comes from your pipeline to god, eh??? Your bible can be made to say whatever it is you want it to say. Onward Christian Soldiers....................!!! The christian religion, the catholic church or any protestant church leads mankind from killing one another???? Yeah, right..................it leads to death and destruction because of teaching taken from your bible. Your bible is the biggest collection of filth I have ever read.
And just because other writings reinforce what you think you find in the bible means nothing. It is not proof of any kind. Just because I can read 200 or more texts that tell us Ptlomey was correct in that the universe revolves around the earth (or sun, I forget at the moment) does not make it so. I don't care how many people you can get to tell me that the earth is flat or that the Tooth Fairy is real, will not make it so. Another realm of self deception.
Wow.
You are a good gymnast.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 09:35:00 PM
Mike CI,
What other word would you have me use to convey my personal belief in a higher power? Emotion works with reason and has been proven to lead to chemical changes in the brain and more critical thought capacities. The mind works best as it was designed or evolved (whichever word you prefer). That is to say that thought and emotion work best together. Negating a perfectly useful aspect of ones mind can lead to many problems, none of which may even be percievable due to lack of the capacities of the mind, either by intent or inadvertently. Other than that we are in agreement on 1).
2) what faulty thinking are you blindly guessing I fell victim to? I wasn't saying, nor meant to insinuate that there was a whole in your life. But I know for sure that there are some that are aware of something missing from there life and they can't quite completley fill it with their distractions. You may very well be quite content. I didn't mean to insinuate a completley objective purpose of life for all either. Everyone, being an individual, of course, has there own purpose. Assuming these individual purposes are absolutely meant to work against one another or compete, is flawed thinking in my humble opinion.
3)what in the...
You cannot admit there is self deception and in the next sentence say there is no inner truth. Your seeming aim to dismantle places that help people only to replace them with places that help people seems a little inefficient. Can't we agree that neither can define GOD but that the chances of a creative force are pretty sound? Can't we agree that if a creative force put in effort(most obvious by amount of time taken to form said existence) to form life that chances are it was for a reason? Getting a little side tracked. You want to convey negativity to some while helping others. Doesn't sound right does it? You insist that others must be broken that your righteousness may prevail. Sounds kinda like organized religion.
Get your head out of your ass and then come talk to me.
4)why wouldn't the laws that bind and form this universe be natural?
I've got news for you; everything whatsoever is natural. Just because you cannot explain a thing doesn't make it "supernatural"? k?
By pronouncement of GOD I Asse you mean he creation event, which I'm sure you're aware; is mans attempt to explain things they felt with limited means to communicate it. But now that you mention it; the big bang sounds a heck of a lot like let there be light. The void and motionless waters sure sounds like what 98â,,... of existence is, making that other 2â,,...; you guessed it; the light and or breath of GOD....that's metaphorical, as in a huge flying dude didn't breathe onto nothing to create what we have here today.
So to be clear; you are saying that the universe is all encompassing, correct?
peace
You want me to get my head out of my ass? What the hell did you just type above??? I really looks like you were drunk when you typed this stuff. In any case, what are you trying to say????
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 05, 2016, 10:11:17 PM
You want me to get my head out of my ass? What the hell did you just type above??? I really looks like you were drunk when you typed this stuff. In any case, what are you trying to say????
Don't worry about it buddy.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 05, 2016, 09:35:00 PM
Mike CI,
What other word would you have me use to convey my personal belief in a higher power? Emotion works with reason and has been proven to lead to chemical changes in the brain and more critical thought capacities.
I'm going to stop you right there. Studies have shown (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god/) a negative correlation between belief in God and critical thought. So your claim that emotions and reason work together to increase one's ability for critical thought, insinuation that your personal ability would be increased, does not play true. Also, what you just said was bullshit.
Critical thinking - the
objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.
Objective -
not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the very definitions of the words in play disagree with your statement.
Quote from: widdershins on December 06, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
I'm going to stop you right there. Studies have shown (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god/) a negative correlation between belief in God and critical thought. So your claim that emotions and reason work together to increase one's ability for critical thought, insinuation that your personal ability would be increased, does not play true. Also, what you just said was bullshit.
Critical thinking - the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.
Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the very definitions of the words in play disagree with your statement.
It seems to me that Pops, like every other theist, wants to substitute belief for objective thinking. They will say anything, do almost anything to keep their self deception going. Truth is all that matters--'truth' (facts) have no bearing on their belief. (Truth, with a capitol T does not exist, yet the theist will tell you that that is all there is.)
Quote from: widdershins on December 06, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
I'm going to stop you right there. Studies have shown (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god/) a negative correlation between belief in God and critical thought. So your claim that emotions and reason work together to increase one's ability for critical thought, insinuation that your personal ability would be increased, does not play true. Also, what you just said was bullshit.
Critical thinking - the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.
Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the very definitions of the words in play disagree with your statement.
That isn't true. Research if emotion causes chemical changes in the brain. Namely the chemical changes that corelate with more critical or in-depth thought processes.
How do people not understand that emotion is the basis for which all determine the significance or a thing?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 06, 2016, 11:34:35 AM
How do people not understand that emotion is the basis for which all determine the significance or a thing?
How do you not understand that in a human, emotion and critical thinking co-exist. If one element gains total control, then that leads to unbalanced thoughts and unbalanced decisions. A purely emotional decision will almost always be wrong. On the other hand, a purely emotionless thought may not exist in humans--why would a person even think of something if some emotion were not driving us to do so? After all, the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The thought of my ex is not hate, or like, or anything; I just don't care--she is dead to me; no emotional attachment whatsoever.
But, in your case Pops, you give your emotion free rein thinking that is a way to get closer to god. Yet one cannot get close to a fiction--not in reality. So, you need to use some objective, critical thinking. You emotion leads you to the subject; it should not overpower the subject; not if you want a clear view of it. And so, you need to tone down your emotional attachment or the clouds of you emotion will always leave you blinded. But theists love that--willful blindness.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 06, 2016, 11:33:20 AM
That isn't true. Research if emotion causes chemical changes in the brain. Namely the chemical changes that corelate with more critical or in-depth thought processes.
Done. I came up with a few sources I am not familiar with and, in a brief search, found only one article which a psychologist contributed to, but did not write, suggesting what you say. Perhaps you could quote the research to which you are referring and then explain how that research negates the definitions of "critical thinking" and "objective". My first impression is that the reason you wrote "...more critical or in-depth thought processes" is because you are pulling a switcheroo where you are replacing the "in-depth" mentioned somewhere with "critical" to create a false correlation.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 06, 2016, 11:34:35 AM
How do people not understand that emotion is the basis for which all determine the significance or a thing?
First of all, who says I don't understand that? I haven't discussed anything with you about "determining the significance of a thing".
Second, whether that statement is true or not is HIGHLY dependent on what "significance" means, which is kind of context-specific. A computer can determine the "significance" of data from a telescope. Computers do that without any emotion whatsoever. So you certainly aren't referring to the significance of particular data in a set. Give me an example of something which I would use emotion to determine the significance of. If I had to guess I would say this is probably another switcheroo where you are trying to equate belief systems and science as equivalents.
You two aren't using "significance" in the same way. But I can give an example on how emotion impacts science ... there was once a grad student who had a great idea, that would significantly change things. But the idea that he would have to justify this, agains existing authorities in his field, made him wet his pants, so he kept it to himself. Later, a Nobel Prize winner pointed out to him, that he had the right idea, and had he stubbornly developed the idea, against inevitable opposition, he would have gotten good credit for it. So desire of popularity, and fear of unpopularity, does twist what is presented. It in't all Vulcan logic.
Quote from: Baruch on December 06, 2016, 01:20:45 PM
You two aren't using "significance" in the same way. But I can give an example on how emotion impacts science ... there was once a grad student who had a great idea, that would significantly change things. But the idea that he would have to justify this, agains existing authorities in his field, made him wet his pants, so he kept it to himself. Later, a Nobel Prize winner pointed out to him, that he had the right idea, and had he stubbornly developed the idea, against inevitable opposition, he would have gotten good credit for it. So desire of popularity, and fear of unpopularity, does twist what is presented. It in't all Vulcan logic.
I was actually fishing for a meaning of "significance" as used.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 02, 2016, 08:58:40 PM
GOD is indeed pro-life as, as all existence or rather, creation is.
All existence strives to live. If GOD didn't want life to exist then it would not, nor would it have been formed with the capacity for life.
The bible, that book that Christianity is pretty much based off of commands it's followers to love one another indiscriminately.
That's rather benevolent and seemingly pro-life to me.
God sure killed a lot of people for something that's "pro-life":
How many Has God Killed? (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html)
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total) (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html)
God's uncounted killings revisited (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/gods-uncounted-killings-revisited-with.html)
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 06, 2016, 04:54:32 PM
God sure killed a lot of people for something that's "pro-life":
How many Has God Killed? (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html)
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total) (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html)
God's uncounted killings revisited (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/gods-uncounted-killings-revisited-with.html)
Life and death aren't opposites. Giving life and taking life aren't opposites. Don't be a Binar (aliens from one episode of Star Trek NG).
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 06, 2016, 12:13:24 PM
How do you not understand that in a human, emotion and critical thinking co-exist. If one element gains total control, then that leads to unbalanced thoughts and unbalanced decisions. A purely emotional decision will almost always be wrong. On the other hand, a purely emotionless thought may not exist in humans--why would a person even think of something if some emotion were not driving us to do so? After all, the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The thought of my ex is not hate, or like, or anything; I just don't care--she is dead to me; no emotional attachment whatsoever.
But, in your case Pops, you give your emotion free rein thinking that is a way to get closer to god. Yet one cannot get close to a fiction--not in reality. So, you need to use some objective, critical thinking. You emotion leads you to the subject; it should not overpower the subject; not if you want a clear view of it. And so, you need to tone down your emotional attachment or the clouds of you emotion will always leave you blinded. But theists love that--willful blindness.
Well...you pretty much repeated what I said, though acted as if I didn't say the same thing in regards to your first paragraph. Then you go on that same line of deception in acting like you have any clue as to what level of emotion and rationale I use. Keep assuming things if you like I suppose. Keep acting like I'm something I'm not too if you want.
peace
Quote from: widdershins on December 06, 2016, 12:45:06 PM
Done. I came up with a few sources I am not familiar with and, in a brief search, found only one article which a psychologist contributed to, but did not write, suggesting what you say. Perhaps you could quote the research to which you are referring and then explain how that research negates the definitions of "critical thinking" and "objective". My first impression is that the reason you wrote "...more critical or in-depth thought processes" is because you are pulling a switcheroo where you are replacing the "in-depth" mentioned somewhere with "critical" to create a false correlation.
First of all, who says I don't understand that? I haven't discussed anything with you about "determining the significance of a thing".
Second, whether that statement is true or not is HIGHLY dependent on what "significance" means, which is kind of context-specific. A computer can determine the "significance" of data from a telescope. Computers do that without any emotion whatsoever. So you certainly aren't referring to the significance of particular data in a set. Give me an example of something which I would use emotion to determine the significance of. If I had to guess I would say this is probably another switcheroo where you are trying to equate belief systems and science as equivalents.
No switcheroo in either case friend.
Critical I was using interchangeably with in-depth or thorough or meaningful thought rather than though with no direction, no course I guess.
As far as significance is concerned, we should try and establish some simple basic truths before delving into such lofty things as purpose of life or existence as a whole. So I will try and explain a little and give an example.
What I am referring to is super simple...ok; you watched someone drunkenly stumble into an ant bed, and clumsily in the process of getting up and cleaning off they incurred a few bites. This person goes on to kick the ant bed destroying a few hundred lives perhaps. Due to his moronic move, minutes later he is riveted with a few more bites in the shoe. He flips out tearing at both shoes I'm desperation in the sight of "friends". That's it....retribution will be his.... He gets a gas can and strikes a lighter to the fumes which linger ominously over the freezing/drowning/suffocating ants/larvae.
Now I could go into exponential detail on any part, but for the sake of attempted clarity, I will not.
The point is the if you had witnessed this you might have e gotten a few laughs but that's about it. Those types of emotions are not exactly causal, but more of effects. The thousands of lives that where destroyed in an atrocious manner never even triggered a negative emotion because they wouldn't have been significant to you.
Now to conclude my point; please excuse the nature of what is below. It is to explain only.
You have a 3 year old child. An adorable little thing. And unlike many children of such an age, your little baby is just as sweet as can be. Genuinely kind, affectionate even. And smart....soaks shit up like a sponge. There's an eight year old little boy who lives across the street. He is the talky inquisitive type who enjoys you and your child's company at convenient, brief occasions. The kid has kind of invited himself over as his mother doesn't get home for some time. Not really minding you bust out some pizza rolls for the boy and he and your little baby are setting in the floor munching down and watching whatever the hell that is on the kids channel. Your baby ain't too much interested in the pizza rolls bit she is glued to that weird educational show. Good thing cuz you gotta shit. The boy knows the drill...close the door all the way if you happen to leave and I'm not in the room. You tell him again anyway as you shimmy to the toilet room in desperation. The boy gets a text from his mom wanting to know where the hell he is and why he isn't at home like he was told to be. He poops a little himself as he scurries out the door. He pulls the door to with confidence, remembering your words, but in his haste he doesn't notice it gently sway back opened. Well the little angel that was so content with the show snapped out of it when she heard the door, and is now in what she considers to be hot pursuit of the little boy whom she too is quite fond of. You sorta thought you heard the door but aren't too sure. (No time to contemplate it move your ass.) You grab a wad of paper and attempt a hurried haphazard wipe. (Fuck it, that'll have to do.) "CHRISSY!!!??" you hollar thinking idly that she's there...any second...!!! As you buckle up you're fumbling for the door. You collect yourself enough to find your way out of the single roomed labyrinth and (FUUUCK!!!) The door is opened and no Chriss. You're running full gate. Out the door, you turn towards the drive in time to hear what sounds like a screeching cat in pain followed by the screeching of brakes. The tow truck driver didn't even see her pop out from the other side of that damned can. The brakes were more of a signal of a horrid thing rather than the negation there of. (RUN! Is that...her shoe?!) You're there. You have her. Nothing is there but you and her. Not the truck driver hurling, haunched over the wheel well of the truck. Not the screeching cat which is the little boys mother. Just your sweet little baby, you, and the smell of heated rubber with a twinge of copper smell/taste. She isn't crying. She's making eye contact and her expression is slowly going from excited fear to some strange calm. You pull her into you a little, cradling her head when you notice it. Your fingers feel as if they fell into her skull, appalled, startled and afraid that you hurt her you jerk your hands away leaving her near lifeless head to fall to the concrete rather violently. It didn't bounce as one might expect from a low velocity impact. It settled. Realizing what you inadvertently had done you die a little inside. She is lifeless now, but you won't accept this for a good half hour when the paramedics finally coax you into getting out of the street with the corpse of your daughter.
Weeks pass and you hate that fat little shit of a boy. And you got something for that junkie ass tow truck driver....you just wait. But most of all you hate yourself. A month passes by and you end your life.
Now in this later example there is no real wrong doing. But there is an exceedingly high level of pain or torment acosiated with the loss of a single life.
Why is that? It is because of the emotional tie that you had to the initial life lost.
So significance in the most basic sense within the subjective individual life is determined by what causes strong emotions. If you had no emotional ties to anything then you would be absolutely indifferent about everything.
I'm sorry I can't explain better right now. I'm tired. But I can try more tomorrow if you would like.
peace
According to materialists ... no life lost, because semi-permanent clots of atoms are never alive, they just move in interesting ways, that delude the living into thinking that it is alive (oh, a contradiction, damn!). Materialism is reductio ad absurdum ... useful if you are building a house, but not if you are raising a child. The immaterialism of Buddhism doesn't get you a free lunch either ... it is also reductionist.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 06, 2016, 11:39:19 PM
Well...you pretty much repeated what I said, though acted as if I didn't say the same thing in regards to your first paragraph. Then you go on that same line of deception in acting like you have any clue as to what level of emotion and rationale I use. Keep assuming things if you like I suppose. Keep acting like I'm something I'm not too if you want.
peace
I really don't have a clue as to what level of emotion and rationale you use--you won't tell us. You give us your airy-fairy ideas but will not give any sort of rational reasons for them. Do you have any rational thoughts rolling around in your little brain???????
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 07, 2016, 12:59:51 AM
No switcheroo in either case friend.
Critical I was using interchangeably with in-depth or thorough or meaningful thought rather than though with no direction, no course I guess.
As far as significance is concerned, we should try and establish some simple basic truths before delving into such lofty things as purpose of life or existence as a whole. So I will try and explain a little and give an example.
What I am referring to is super simple...ok; you watched someone drunkenly stumble into an ant bed, and clumsily in the process of getting up and cleaning off they incurred a few bites. This person goes on to kick the ant bed destroying a few hundred lives perhaps. Due to his moronic move, minutes later he is riveted with a few more bites in the shoe. He flips out tearing at both shoes I'm desperation in the sight of "friends". That's it....retribution will be his.... He gets a gas can and strikes a lighter to the fumes which linger ominously over the freezing/drowning/suffocating ants/larvae.
Now I could go into exponential detail on any part, but for the sake of attempted clarity, I will not.
The point is the if you had witnessed this you might have e gotten a few laughs but that's about it. Those types of emotions are not exactly causal, but more of effects. The thousands of lives that where destroyed in an atrocious manner never even triggered a negative emotion because they wouldn't have been significant to you.
Now to conclude my point; please excuse the nature of what is below. It is to explain only.
You have a 3 year old child. An adorable little thing. And unlike many children of such an age, your little baby is just as sweet as can be. Genuinely kind, affectionate even. And smart....soaks shit up like a sponge. There's an eight year old little boy who lives across the street. He is the talky inquisitive type who enjoys you and your child's company at convenient, brief occasions. The kid has kind of invited himself over as his mother doesn't get home for some time. Not really minding you bust out some pizza rolls for the boy and he and your little baby are setting in the floor munching down and watching whatever the hell that is on the kids channel. Your baby ain't too much interested in the pizza rolls bit she is glued to that weird educational show. Good thing cuz you gotta shit. The boy knows the drill...close the door all the way if you happen to leave and I'm not in the room. You tell him again anyway as you shimmy to the toilet room in desperation. The boy gets a text from his mom wanting to know where the hell he is and why he isn't at home like he was told to be. He poops a little himself as he scurries out the door. He pulls the door to with confidence, remembering your words, but in his haste he doesn't notice it gently sway back opened. Well the little angel that was so content with the show snapped out of it when she heard the door, and is now in what she considers to be hot pursuit of the little boy whom she too is quite fond of. You sorta thought you heard the door but aren't too sure. (No time to contemplate it move your ass.) You grab a wad of paper and attempt a hurried haphazard wipe. (Fuck it, that'll have to do.) "CHRISSY!!!??" you hollar thinking idly that she's there...any second...!!! As you buckle up you're fumbling for the door. You collect yourself enough to find your way out of the single roomed labyrinth and (FUUUCK!!!) The door is opened and no Chriss. You're running full gate. Out the door, you turn towards the drive in time to hear what sounds like a screeching cat in pain followed by the screeching of brakes. The tow truck driver didn't even see her pop out from the other side of that damned can. The brakes were more of a signal of a horrid thing rather than the negation there of. (RUN! Is that...her shoe?!) You're there. You have her. Nothing is there but you and her. Not the truck driver hurling, haunched over the wheel well of the truck. Not the screeching cat which is the little boys mother. Just your sweet little baby, you, and the smell of heated rubber with a twinge of copper smell/taste. She isn't crying. She's making eye contact and her expression is slowly going from excited fear to some strange calm. You pull her into you a little, cradling her head when you notice it. Your fingers feel as if they fell into her skull, appalled, startled and afraid that you hurt her you jerk your hands away leaving her near lifeless head to fall to the concrete rather violently. It didn't bounce as one might expect from a low velocity impact. It settled. Realizing what you inadvertently had done you die a little inside. She is lifeless now, but you won't accept this for a good half hour when the paramedics finally coax you into getting out of the street with the corpse of your daughter.
Weeks pass and you hate that fat little shit of a boy. And you got something for that junkie ass tow truck driver....you just wait. But most of all you hate yourself. A month passes by and you end your life.
Now in this later example there is no real wrong doing. But there is an exceedingly high level of pain or torment acosiated with the loss of a single life.
Why is that? It is because of the emotional tie that you had to the initial life lost.
So significance in the most basic sense within the subjective individual life is determined by what causes strong emotions. If you had no emotional ties to anything then you would be absolutely indifferent about everything.
I'm sorry I can't explain better right now. I'm tired. But I can try more tomorrow if you would like.
peace
Many will laugh at me being the one to say it, but you need to work on brevity. I got about 3/4 of the way through that story before I "had the gist of it" and called it good.
I couldn't help but notice that Chrissy had nothing to do with the scientific process. I still don't know your point.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 07, 2016, 12:59:51 AM
No switcheroo in either case friend.
Critical I was using interchangeably with in-depth or thorough or meaningful thought rather than though with no direction, no course I guess.
As far as significance is concerned, we should try and establish some simple basic truths before delving into such lofty things as purpose of life or existence as a whole. So I will try and explain a little and give an example.
What I am referring to is super simple...ok; you watched someone drunkenly stumble into an ant bed, and clumsily in the process of getting up and cleaning off they incurred a few bites. This person goes on to kick the ant bed destroying a few hundred lives perhaps. Due to his moronic move, minutes later he is riveted with a few more bites in the shoe. He flips out tearing at both shoes I'm desperation in the sight of "friends". That's it....retribution will be his.... He gets a gas can and strikes a lighter to the fumes which linger ominously over the freezing/drowning/suffocating ants/larvae.
Now I could go into exponential detail on any part, but for the sake of attempted clarity, I will not.
The point is the if you had witnessed this you might have e gotten a few laughs but that's about it. Those types of emotions are not exactly causal, but more of effects. The thousands of lives that where destroyed in an atrocious manner never even triggered a negative emotion because they wouldn't have been significant to you.
Now to conclude my point; please excuse the nature of what is below. It is to explain only.
You have a 3 year old child. An adorable little thing. And unlike many children of such an age, your little baby is just as sweet as can be. Genuinely kind, affectionate even. And smart....soaks shit up like a sponge. There's an eight year old little boy who lives across the street. He is the talky inquisitive type who enjoys you and your child's company at convenient, brief occasions. The kid has kind of invited himself over as his mother doesn't get home for some time. Not really minding you bust out some pizza rolls for the boy and he and your little baby are setting in the floor munching down and watching whatever the hell that is on the kids channel. Your baby ain't too much interested in the pizza rolls bit she is glued to that weird educational show. Good thing cuz you gotta shit. The boy knows the drill...close the door all the way if you happen to leave and I'm not in the room. You tell him again anyway as you shimmy to the toilet room in desperation. The boy gets a text from his mom wanting to know where the hell he is and why he isn't at home like he was told to be. He poops a little himself as he scurries out the door. He pulls the door to with confidence, remembering your words, but in his haste he doesn't notice it gently sway back opened. Well the little angel that was so content with the show snapped out of it when she heard the door, and is now in what she considers to be hot pursuit of the little boy whom she too is quite fond of. You sorta thought you heard the door but aren't too sure. (No time to contemplate it move your ass.) You grab a wad of paper and attempt a hurried haphazard wipe. (Fuck it, that'll have to do.) "CHRISSY!!!??" you hollar thinking idly that she's there...any second...!!! As you buckle up you're fumbling for the door. You collect yourself enough to find your way out of the single roomed labyrinth and (FUUUCK!!!) The door is opened and no Chriss. You're running full gate. Out the door, you turn towards the drive in time to hear what sounds like a screeching cat in pain followed by the screeching of brakes. The tow truck driver didn't even see her pop out from the other side of that damned can. The brakes were more of a signal of a horrid thing rather than the negation there of. (RUN! Is that...her shoe?!) You're there. You have her. Nothing is there but you and her. Not the truck driver hurling, haunched over the wheel well of the truck. Not the screeching cat which is the little boys mother. Just your sweet little baby, you, and the smell of heated rubber with a twinge of copper smell/taste. She isn't crying. She's making eye contact and her expression is slowly going from excited fear to some strange calm. You pull her into you a little, cradling her head when you notice it. Your fingers feel as if they fell into her skull, appalled, startled and afraid that you hurt her you jerk your hands away leaving her near lifeless head to fall to the concrete rather violently. It didn't bounce as one might expect from a low velocity impact. It settled. Realizing what you inadvertently had done you die a little inside. She is lifeless now, but you won't accept this for a good half hour when the paramedics finally coax you into getting out of the street with the corpse of your daughter.
Weeks pass and you hate that fat little shit of a boy. And you got something for that junkie ass tow truck driver....you just wait. But most of all you hate yourself. A month passes by and you end your life.
Now in this later example there is no real wrong doing. But there is an exceedingly high level of pain or torment acosiated with the loss of a single life.
Why is that? It is because of the emotional tie that you had to the initial life lost.
So significance in the most basic sense within the subjective individual life is determined by what causes strong emotions. If you had no emotional ties to anything then you would be absolutely indifferent about everything.
I'm sorry I can't explain better right now. I'm tired. But I can try more tomorrow if you would like.
peace
A great example of something, I suppose. But what? You tend to rattle on and on, yet say nothing. Did you have a point in all of this drivel????
Quote from: widdershins on December 07, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Many will laugh at me being the one to say it, but you need to work on brevity. I got about 3/4 of the way through that story before I "had the gist of it" and called it good.
I couldn't help but notice that Chrissy had nothing to do with the scientific process. I still don't know your point.
It wasn't to show a scientific process friend. It was to attempt to explain through example what I mean when I say emotion dictates significance in a person's individual life.
Peace
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 07, 2016, 11:18:29 AM
A great example of something, I suppose. But what? You tend to rattle on and on, yet say nothing. Did you have a point in all of this drivel????
Just that the things that are significant to us are known as such via emotion. If one didn't use emotion on some level then they would be totally indifferent to literally everything.
peace
Most posters here are men ... and most men do everything they can to avoid being emo.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 08, 2016, 07:01:54 AM
Just that the things that are significant to us are known as such via emotion. If one didn't use emotion on some level then they would be totally indifferent to literally everything.
peace
I have never disputed that emotion is significant: without a doubt. So what? Emotion proves there is a god? Jesus was real because in the fictional account of his life he was emotional??? You really are sifting through the dregs here, aren't you?!
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 08, 2016, 09:23:54 AM
I have never disputed that emotion is significant: without a doubt. So what? Emotion proves there is a god? Jesus was real because in the fictional account of his life he was emotional??? You really are sifting through the dregs here, aren't you?!
Not at all. Was just making sure that people understand that emotion is important, and actually causal to chemical reactions in the brain in cases. Making it an actual cause that isn't physical but is effectual in ones life. You just can't limit what can or can't be, based on limited or physically percievable things. There are slight correlations between the conscience, emotionally percievable significance in ones own life, and the will of existence to exist or rather life to live. Survival of the fittest had been misconstrued into vain competition as opposed to the capacity for all to live peaceably in an exponentially more harmonious state within creation or existence as a whole.
I'm sorry you think I'm long winded. It do attempt to be concise. Not that it works.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 08, 2016, 09:54:06 AM
Not at all. Was just making sure that people understand that emotion is important, and actually causal to chemical reactions in the brain in cases. Making it an actual cause that isn't physical but is effectual in ones life. You just can't limit what can or can't be, based on limited or physically percievable things. There are slight correlations between the conscience, emotionally percievable significance in ones own life, and the will of existence to exist or rather life to live. Survival of the fittest had been misconstrued into vain competition as opposed to the capacity for all to live peaceably in an exponentially more harmonious state within creation or existence as a whole.
I'm sorry you think I'm long winded. It do attempt to be concise. Not that it works.
peace
You are correct--concise (or even talking to a particular point) and you don't go along well.
Of course emotion is an elemental and basic fact of human existence. We are not human without them. But a strong emotional feeling is not evidence of fact; only that something is significant to you, if to nobody else. That is the same for being sincere; one can be sincere about something and not have that something be a fact. A person can be sincerely wrong. And a person can be so full of emotion that clear thinking goes out the window.
And yes, survival of the fittest is largely misunderstood. All it means is that the creature/species that adapts to it's environment best is the most likely to survive. It has little, if anything, to do with strength, but adaptability. It does not help us live more peacefully, but it does help us live.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 08, 2016, 10:10:24 AM
You are correct--concise (or even talking to a particular point) and you don't go along well.
Of course emotion is an elemental and basic fact of human existence. We are not human without them. But a strong emotional feeling is not evidence of fact; only that something is significant to you, if to nobody else. That is the same for being sincere; one can be sincere about something and not have that something be a fact. A person can be sincerely wrong. And a person can be so full of emotion that clear thinking goes out the window.
And yes, survival of the fittest is largely misunderstood. All it means is that the creature/species that adapts to it's environment best is the most likely to survive. It has little, if anything, to do with strength, but adaptability. It does not help us live more peacefully, but it does help us live.
Again we seem to be on the same page.
Mike, since you accept what your eyes can see ... do you accept the unconscious mind? And if you do, how do you do that, since you can't possibly see it?
Quote from: Baruch on December 08, 2016, 12:34:30 PM
Mike, since you accept what your eyes can see ... do you accept the unconscious mind? And if you do, how do you do that, since you can't possibly see it?
What do you mean 'unconscious mind'? We cannot see 'thoughts'; but we can see the results of thoughts. We can see the electrical activity of the brain. I cannot see an atom or and electron, but I don't doubt that they are real for they can be measured. And I don't always believe what my eyes tell me; or disbelieve the false info my eyes send to my brain. Optical illusions are real and actual. But not according to my eyes. So, everything needs to be questioned and analysed.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 08, 2016, 11:01:27 AM
Again we seem to be on the same page.
Well, good. But where does that leave us with your assertion that god exists????
Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2016, 01:13:03 PM
Have you been asleep since the first Clinton administration, and just woke up? That is where the bi-partisans send enemies of the State. Like Osama's car driver. Oooo ... be afraid, very afraid!
The question was about Carrier moving jobs to Mexico and you interpret that as something about Guantanamo?
One sign of intelligence is keeping on topic. Another is making basic sense. Please try either or both for our mutual good on the Board.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 08, 2016, 03:38:34 PM
Well, good. But where does that leave us with your assertion that god exists????
I would like to think that we might never conclude such between us but that conversation, however slow in movement has made an iota of progress. You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material. You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests. You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. See any problem with that logic yet? What about self deception?
Hope it was blunt enough for you
And no; this isn't proof or evidence of anything but your own inner deceit to conform your reality to what you want it to be.
peace friend.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 09, 2016, 12:06:14 AM
I would like to think that we might never conclude such between us but that conversation, however slow in movement has made an iota of progress. You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material. You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests. You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. See any problem with that logic yet? What about self deception?
Hope it was blunt enough for you
And no; this isn't proof or evidence of anything but your own inner deceit to conform your reality to what you want it to be.
peace friend.
You seem to be seeing things in Mike CL's post that I don't see. Is it possible that you are extending his thoughts to your own?
Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 01:34:16 AM
You seem to be seeing things in Mike CL's post that I don't see. Is it possible that you are extending his thoughts to your own?
Not sure what you mean.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 09, 2016, 12:06:14 AM
I would like to think that we might never conclude such between us but that conversation, however slow in movement has made an iota of progress. You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material. You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests. You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. See any problem with that logic yet? What about self deception?
Hope it was blunt enough for you
And no; this isn't proof or evidence of anything but your own inner deceit to conform your reality to what you want it to be.
peace friend.
Hmmmm...............you and I are reading a different Mike Cl.
1. You say--'You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material.' Let me be clear. Everything is physical or a product of the material world. Everything.
2. You say--'You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests.' Everything that exists can be verifiable with tests; even the creation of emotions, to some extent, can be shown to be of a physical source. To the extent that we don't know the source of emotions is simply an 'unknown' and at some point will be known as our knowledge grows. The word 'seen' is a bit slippery. There are millions of things the human eye cannot see, that our ears cannot hear, that our taste buds cannot taste, or our noses cannot smell. That does not mean those things are not in existence or real. Just ask a dog.
3. You say............'You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. ' I really don't know what it is you are saying here.
4. You say................'So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. ' That is an awkwardly worded statement. This is what I think---everything that exists is material or comes from a material source. Love is not material; but it comes from a material source. Fear is not material, but it comes from a material source. These sources can be tested; we do not know all these is to know about how emotions are created, but we do know that they are from sources within each of us. The things we cannot accurately test for is because we don't have the knowledge to do so yet. It does not mean we will not be able to test for it in the future. Nothing is supernatural.
Pops, you really do want me to agree with you and that desire causes you to misread what I write. I have clearly said that all is material, all is natural, that there is no supernatural; and that we do not have all the answers, but the gaps in our knowledge does not prove any unnatural occurrences or things in this universe. God in all forms is a construct of humans. Try to take your blinders off when you read what I say.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 09, 2016, 08:52:12 AM
Hmmmm...............you and I are reading a different Mike Cl.
1. You say--'You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material.' Let me be clear. Everything is physical or a product of the material world. Everything.
2. You say--'You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests.' Everything that exists can be verifiable with tests; even the creation of emotions, to some extent, can be shown to be of a physical source. To the extent that we don't know the source of emotions is simply an 'unknown' and at some point will be known as our knowledge grows. The word 'seen' is a bit slippery. There are millions of things the human eye cannot see, that our ears cannot hear, that our taste buds cannot taste, or our noses cannot smell. That does not mean those things are not in existence or real. Just ask a dog.
3. You say............'You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. ' I really don't know what it is you are saying here.
4. You say................'So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. ' That is an awkwardly worded statement. This is what I think---everything that exists is material or comes from a material source. Love is not material; but it comes from a material source. Fear is not material, but it comes from a material source. These sources can be tested; we do not know all these is to know about how emotions are created, but we do know that they are from sources within each of us. The things we cannot accurately test for is because we don't have the knowledge to do so yet. It does not mean we will not be able to test for it in the future. Nothing is supernatural.
Pops, you really do want me to agree with you and that desire causes you to misread what I write. I have clearly said that all is material, all is natural, that there is no supernatural; and that we do not have all the answers, but the gaps in our knowledge does not prove any unnatural occurrences or things in this universe. God in all forms is a construct of humans. Try to take your blinders off when you read what I say.
Never said anything about unnatural causes.
Whatever.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 09, 2016, 09:18:09 AM
Never said anything about unnatural causes.
Whatever.
Whatever seems to be your logo! You seem to be trying to make a statement, but then you seem to confuse yourself while you are doing it. Your thinking is quite muddled and your reasoning almost nonexistent.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 08, 2016, 07:00:04 AM
It wasn't to show a scientific process friend. It was to attempt to explain through example what I mean when I say emotion dictates significance in a person's individual life.
Peace
So were you purposely attempting to confuse the issue or are you just that uninformed of your own beliefs? This entire conversation started with you claiming that emotion works with reason and "has been proven to lead to chemical changes in the brain and more critical thought capacities" (still waiting on some supportive evidence for that claim. I certainly couldn't find anything but the claim). And then you said something about using emotion to determine what is "significant". And then you go into this pointlessly long story to explain "significance" and, in the end, your explanation has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with critical thought. So you'll forgive me for being a little confused as to what it is you are getting at when I'm talking about emotion as it relates to critical thought (the claim you brought up) and you're talking about emotion which has nothing whatsoever to do with critical thought in a method so obvious it could have easily been explained with a single short sentence.
So why don't we back up and you post some (reputable) links to support this claim that emotion somehow helps in the critical thought process in blatant disregard for the definitions of "critical thought" and "objective".