Buddhism is not other
-
Comment -
the point I was using the vid for was slavery in egypt since that is the thrust of the bible storyVideo starts "Like all animals, people want to dominate..."
Didn't you have a problem with Hitchens referring to people as animals?
Only watched about a min, too many faulty premises gwiz.
People act in their own self-interest. We are born free. The only sin is infringing on someone else's freedom.
There can be no slavery to sin since sin is just a word made up by slave masters.
my point with hitchens was to see the bible in terms of people referring to themselves as animals so when they see the word beast in the bible they should understand that word can also be referring to humans who are not enlightened enough to see themselves as a child of god
you can be a slave to sin and it should be obvious,pedophiles come to mind.
Sin is a synonym to error,the old thinking was that it was possible to sin against a "God"
the christian message is that sin is something that you do to yourself or other people; which in turn is against godLast edited by gwiz; 01-11-11, 11:23 PM.Comment -
I've read most of it and keep trying to explain to you it's not as simple as you want it to be.
People for thousands of years have believed in gods right or wrong.The bible is one window into that past.
whether it's right or wrong true or false isn't an issue when millions of people believe in something.
My belief is in christ which is a legal argument for not having to worship a Tree or a mountain or a gold moose or any other freaky thing some nutcase can dream up and convince millions of other nutcases to worship and die and kill forComment -
very very funny.
Comment -
Teller is a Magician,can you see the irony in that
notice the whole argument they could make against the new testament was more than one person was claiming to be christ
the rest was old testament
the long hair is not true since all nazarites were kept from the razor then he makes a joke out of context and somehow that is suppose to demean the passage.Last edited by gwiz; 01-12-11, 12:22 AM.Comment -
I guess you could say I am an agnostic.Comment -
bill hicks thinks we are children of god,that is his claim at 7:40Last edited by SBRAdmin3; 07-21-14, 01:24 PM.Comment -
Jesus was supposed to the messiah prophesized in the Jewish bible (the old testament), unfortunately for Jesus the Jews were not at all convinced he was their prophet (kind of weird since he was God and all that he would be unable to convince any of them but then again the Jews have always worshipped money anyway so perhaps they thought Ben Franklin was the messiah already and werent paying attention to all these miracles Jesus was performing) so plan A having failed a new religion had to be created, so Jesus went from Jew wanting to be king of the Jews to being the "savior of all mankind" bc the Jews told him to go **** himself and crucified him instead). The problem is that this new spinoff religion stole the Jew bible that Jesus claimed to be the messiah of and then simply added a new testament but the old and new testament are so completely different on every conceivable level that they couldnt have possibly been authored by the same being unless God had just lost a 20-teamer on a blocked extra point before writing the old testament.Comment -
The old testament of the bible is more a collection of stories about people than it is jewish religion,these are the types of books that jewish religion relies on
The Talmud is the written record of an oral tradition. It became the basis for many rabbinic legal codes and customs, of which the most important are the Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch. Orthodox and, to a lesser extent, Conservative Judaism accept the Talmud as authoritative, while Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism do not. This section briefly outlines past and current movements and their view of the Talmud's role
The Mishneh Torah (Hebrew: מִשְׁנֶה תּוֹרָה, "Repetition of the Torah") subtitled Sefer Yad ha-Hazaka (ספר יד החזקה "Book of the Strong Hand,") is a code of Jewish religious law (Halakha) authored by Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, also known as RaMBaM or "Rambam"), one of history's foremost rabbis. The Mishneh Torah was compiled between 1170 and 1180 (4930-4940), Maimonides intended to provide a complete statement of the Oral Law, so that a person who mastered first the Written Torah and then the Mishneh Torah would be in no need of any other book.
The Shulchan Aruch (Hebrew: שׁוּלחָן עָרוּך, literally: "Set Table") (also Shulhan Aruch or Shulhan Arukh), known in English as the Code of Jewish Law, is a codification, or written manual, of halacha (Jewish law), authored and published by Rabbi Yosef Karo in the 16th century.
Ownership and reading of the Talmud is not widespread among Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, who usually place more emphasis on the study of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.
The Torah is the first of three parts of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the founding religious document of Judaism,[4] and is divided into five books, whose names in English are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, in reference to their themes
It is also accepted by Muslims as the Divine book, although they think it is modified after the death of MosesLast edited by gwiz; 01-12-11, 06:19 PM.Comment -
But I think that worshipping, dying, and killing for a mythical person named Christ shows a person to be just as big a nutjob as the nutjobs that you describe. I don't know of any reported cases of religionists murdering millions of people because they worship a Tree. I have, however, read of many cases of zealots murdering millions of people because they worship Christ.
So, I'm wondering which is better?Comment -
I think you make good points which is why I try and stay balanced,I cannot be responsible for how others use information
If I learn to play a guitar by learning the notes does that mean the notes are just jibberish because others can't make sense of them
on the same line of thought I can play my guitar and make music while someone else might pick it up and use it as a weapon,so let me ask the question is a guitar a musical instrument or a weapon?
you say you've read the bible,well there are plenty of cases of people giving their children over to the gods as sacrificesLast edited by gwiz; 01-12-11, 06:26 PM.Comment -
it's all a game as long as we can stay sane and peaceful it's all goodComment -
[/quote]
God can mean many things, my def of God is not the bible's.
but either the bible is the word of GOD (as defined by the bible) in which case there should be no mistakes in the text, or it is not so its just a collection of stories. which is it?
Curious lolz at those conflicts not being geopolitical and about religion.Last edited by SBRAdmin3; 07-21-14, 01:24 PM.Comment -
There is a 3rd overlooked definition. THE definition.
All that it took, past present and future, to bring us here now.
Objective reality. What is. The truth. Totality of reality(whether a 'finite' or 'infinite' or 'neither' proposition.)
Our catalyst. The catalyst. It.
Maybe even information itself? (ie. when did 2+2=4 first begin to be truth. When will it stop?)
With this simple mathematical proposition we can see that the problem of "first cause" isn't a problem with logic but a problem with our understanding and limited insight. The very nature of information deals with 'infinite regression' and 'complexity' with no problems as long as you don't superimpose our locale and attributes on "outside?" or "before?" our locale's so-called existence.(don't put space where there is none. don't assume time where there is none. don't assume matter where there is none. don't assume the laws of physics where there are none. however, the metaphysical, math for instance, now that has basis to transcend our 'here' and the 'there'.)
Anyway that was the original and the only definition. "what is" or to a caveman a synonym to 'god' was "what-the-$%^&-is going on here? What am I a part of?" WHATEVER the *OBJECTIVE* answer to that is, that is god 'in fact'.
A cave man stepped outside his cave on a night where the moon took up half the sky.
Being the first caveman with sentience, his jaw dropped and he thought "?????"
He probably even peed down his leg a little.
Well WHATEVER the !!!!! is to it's ?????, *that* is "god". And the only attribute mankind has...pardon me...and the only OBJECTIVE attribute that mankind has to describe it is a question mark. "?????".
"Whatever is".
"Objective reality in it's totality. Locally, and not-locally(whatever that might be)
But I'll tell you one thing.
I have a tough time calling god "it" LET ALONE a "he".
Even the word "it" assumes things that we can't assume about the nature of "?before?" or "?outside?" our locale.
I have a tough time distinguishing "?its?" nature, MUCH LESS, superimposing my own sentience/consciousness upon "it" and saying that "it" too, has MY attributes. I mean I can't list another human being with my attributes, so why should I first proclaim that 'objective reality is/has soul' and then proceed to superimpose my understanding upon "it"/"all of 'what is'"/"god"?
I can see how that came to be and I understand it fully. The God of the bible, "doctrinal God", or
"subjective God" has all of man's attributes. Happy, sad, vengeful, regretful, etc etc but mostly just a simple and perplexed existence. It's with the doctrinal "God" that I most certainly allow AC/DC's prosecution of
'Who Made Who'.
But as far as objective reality goes, as soon as you try to pin down an attribute, all you see is you standing in it's reflection. The objective turns to subjective. No different than Wave Theory.
Deity's are WITHIN the system, ie. SUN god WAR god. etc.
God would be more the system ITSELF; which, by the way, can't logically be looked upon as an object with borders although that may very well be our limitation, thus, condemned to sound off with stupidity and complete inward inaccuracy anytime we proclaim anything 'god' related.
What do you want to know about objective god?
Recite after me: 2+2=4.
There, I suspect that's as close as you've ever *objectively* gotten to knowing something about god.
I think we're all looking for a 'form' when 'information-itself' is the only sensible topic of investigation if we're to seek so-called god. (Any 'form' of anything, ever, is consisted of In-form(ation)).
The only form that doesn't have form then would be information itself. Formless. The bumbling writers of the good book did apparently get a few things right time to time.Comment -
And for future reference to expedite discussion of god...
...leave the bible and religion out of it.
God is nowhere near the doctrinal books, so they have zero focus.
If I want to know what someone's favorite color is and argue about it, I'll open a bible.
If I want to know about 'what is' aka 'god' I'll predict and test.
It's in this sense that I'd suppose we could say, "science is the only boni fied form of authentic and objective searching, and one could even say worship and praise."
If you don't believe me, ask about the first dude that mapped out the DNA so it could be seen. Ask about his reaction to it.
PS- The atom bomb, more specifically all the theory leading up to it, were metaphysical ideas within the minds of mad men. Everything starts within information itself. We could call nuclear devices 'gifts of god'. We could call a mile long line of frigid Gatorade coolers, in the middle of a desert full of thirsty peoples, *the exact same thing*.
Welcome to the difference between practical metaphysics and "?undefined?" metaphysics.Comment -
my people perish for lack of knowledge ie Information
god is life or the system.
They made it simpler to write out.
good thoughts though,very analyticalComment -
Thanks man. I took concern with it.
"Knowledge is not information." -Einstein
'They made it simpler to write out.'
ie.
'They replaced the objective knowledge with their subjective knowledge.'
At any rate, if you took the time to read that and write out it was decent, then good on you man.
Thanks for that.Comment -
beautifully written - however i do not want to know *objectively* GOD. makes a great dissertation, but what is the point?
the OBSERVER. the I which looks at me, not the chatter in my head but that which can look at my thoughts *objectively*.
u can not have GOD without the BIG I.
if i want to commune/experience GOD then i need to be BIG I.
DUC the BIG I is part of GOD.Comment -
Joe Roganism!
Comment -
---------
"...however i do not want to know *objectively* GOD..."
No big deal. The god is not for everyone.
By the way, for you, from now on, 2+2=5 or anything BUT *4*.
---------
"...u can not have GOD without the BIG I..."
God is unconditional my friend. You can't do anything to get rid of it as that would implode everything you know. You can't do anything to earn or gain god because god is *it* independent of you. Although, I could argue that *ANY* reality without *you* where *you* *are* *now*......would implode god as well. Your great great great great great great great great great great grandparents HAD to meet regardless of how "coincidental" their meeting each other was. This is where a deterministic reality is proven. At the same time, I can apparently clap my hand instead of not clap my hand in 3 seconds. Thus, free will is about equally convincing as an empirically proven state of reality. Compatibilism is the obvious conclusion but it's not the common theorem that Danny D. and Sammy H., and the others tend to bolster. It's not that it's 1 and the other and therefore BOTH as the case. No. It's the matter that NEITHER is accurate. I can prove that freewill and determinism are non-sequiturs and even possibly non-starters. Something else is at foot. Something more all inclusive. I suspect it lies within our understand/lackthereof of time itself. But now we're getting into chapters and books, not posts. Far better discussed in a video conference.Comment -
the energy behind creation seems to be dependant on the observer. if u look, matter is observed, if u do not it seems to be just energy. even in space...
this energy is everything... therefore if I look then I create. but then who am I to create if I am also not GOD?Comment -
The energy behind creation.....
dependent on the observer.....
energy is everything.....
if I look then I create.....
if god is the creator than I am god.....
The energy behind creation?
#1. Energy is a strange word on it's own much less when we appreciate that it's the only local item that transcended this universe. We know nothing of it's nature "?outside?" or "?before?" our locale/universe; therefore, "?energy?" is an odd word to use with conviction. If energy is awkward, then 'creation' is double. "Creation" implies the presence of time as we know it. I'll allow the idea of so-called "you" as a creator, sure, but I'd like to first thoroughly prosecute what EXACTLY you think you mean when you say "you". What's a "you"?
Dependent on the observer?
#2. Energy (if we can even call it that) is permitted only by information itself. Like energy, information can never be destroyed. I don't know about energy, but information is not independent on the observer. Information is information in all ways regardless of anything, even itself.
Energy is everything.
#3. I'm not sure about this one iota. Perhaps energy and information are transcended from ???, but it's information that would "fill every nook" on the "other side" and not necessarily energy.
Put metaphysically, 'water is ice, but ice is not steam'.
Information is everything. Nothing, including energy, is void of information.
If *I* look then *I* create.
#4. What's a you? Also, creation is a local idea that begs from an environment conducive with time/change as we know them. Perhaps you might create ant farm, but that's not to say that therefore we too must have been 'created'. But yes, you are a creator in all fairness of the word. I only need watch you draw a triangle and ponder it to deduce that you are a creator.
I am god.
#5. You know? That's the point isn't it? I mean regardless of the finer details, there is no real alternative but to consider that "it" or "god" or "everything from all time" is using you and I do 'experience' or 'live' or what have you. This would explain the cocoon of evolution that Dick D. likes to look UP TO, but not BEYOND. Indeed all we're speaking of is "what's happened". Lest someone argue that, then they confess god.
I am concerned, however, with your use of a capital "G" when describing "god". It's as though you've got it confused with an observer. A segregated entity. Some*thing* that could, and has, the attributes necessary to have a name be applicable to it. I'm not certain god has that even if, and ESPECIALLY if we're making claims of us being god. For instance, I would not be deeveeoss and you would not be you if "god itself" were capable of taking on a name.
I think you're on to something with the 'you are god" thing...but I think that you need to make that statement the conclusion of a far greater and basic and simpler and *absolute* chain of ideation focused on the OBVIOUS, instead of having it as the starting point and then setting out to prove that.
I ask again. What's a "you"?
Is it your understanding that "you" can have a secret?
What taste that you considers yours, that conflicts mine, would help illuminate the nature of god?
For instance, if we're both god, then god's nature is NOT one of identity, person, or possession.
What's interesting is that I can't really rule out "spirit" however...in fact...if we entertain "spirit" and define it simply as 'the cause for the laws of physics;, that 'spirit' would serve as a metaphysical body for god and ironically it literally forced the creation of sentience and a physical body to hold it.
This is completely in keep with an 'information' that transcends.
Notice carefully:
Everyone walks around thinking that it's a coincidence that they had the luck to be aware and sentient.
But they do not consider themselves AT LEAST 13.4 billion years old.
And they do not consider themselves as "within existence" until the point of.......(semantics)
People think they began with sperm and egg. But if that's true, then they more realistically started with their grandparents sperm and egg. To be MORE ACCURATE STILL? They started with their GREAT grandparents etc etc etc until we all of a sudden understand that there is no separation between one person and the next and that the "observer" that we sense is an impressive blend of...
"god only knows what"
I'm late for a tea party.Comment -
i feel like i'm getting an education in something but i'm not smart enough to know exactly what it is even called, thanks
the layman speaks - hope u r not cringing...
great sentence - energy is the only thing that transcends the universe. people much wiser than me say consciousness experiencing itself subjectively is everything that is. the vibration of particles, the dance of shiva, the dream of pure spirt.
matter/time/space exists when observed otherwise it seems to be pure energy/consciousness/information call it what u will. is information devoid of consciousness? if there were no consciousness anywhere what would be information?
on this deep level the definition of "you" or anything is the definition of consciousness. tell me when/if there is an answer beyond just being able to observe experience. maybe being at 1 with experience/god, whatever that means. this is the famous "why are we here and what is it all about" which is central to the whole human experience. even if we struggle, kicking and screaming, to ignore it. anything to be shallow, but the pain of not being pure consciousness, the apparent separation from god, is always burning inside, no?
u r right god should be small g. i guess it is a habit from talking to people and respecting my traditions.
everything is supposed to be god/pure consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. unfortunately we reside mostly in a subconscious state, reacting to thoughts rather than observing them. when we do shift to the observer we experience ourselves consciously and therefore we r god.
being subconscious we can not create out of consciousness but when we become god we are able to create matter that is why in the parables god creates the world.
ok my head hurts from this thinking - writing this down in my own words is new to me. hope i'm not butting my head against some immovable solid philosophical foundations.Last edited by subs; 01-15-11, 01:05 AM.Comment -
I read this blathering nonsense and now I cannot decide if I am going to have a nervous breakdown or kill myself.i feel like i'm getting an education in something but i'm not smart enough to know exactly what it is even called, thanks
the layman speaks - hope u r not cringing...
great sentence - energy is the only thing that transcends the universe. people much wiser than me say consciousness experiencing itself subjectively is everything that is. the vibration of particles, the dance of shiva, the dream of pure spirt.
matter/time/space exists when observed otherwise it seems to be pure energy/consciousness/information call it what u will. is information devoid of consciousness? if there were no consciousness anywhere what would be information?
on this deep level the definition of "you" or anything is the definition of consciousness. tell me when/if there is an answer beyond just being able to observe experience. maybe being at 1 with experience/god, whatever that means. this is the famous "why are we here and what is it all about" which is central to the whole human experience. even if we struggle, kicking and screaming, to ignore it. anything to be shallow, but the pain of not being pure consciousness, the apparent separation from god, is always burning inside, no?
u r right god should be small g. i guess it is a habit from talking to people and respecting my traditions.
everything is supposed to be god/pure consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. unfortunately we reside mostly in a subconscious state, reacting to thoughts rather than observing them. when we do shift to the observer we experience ourselves consciously and therefore we r god.
being subconscious we can not create out of consciousness but when we become god we are able to create matter that is why in the parables god creates the world.
ok my head hurts from this thinking - writing this down in my own words is new to me. hope i'm not butting my head against some immovable solid philosophical foundations.
Please dude, get a life of some kind and get off of the damn internet.Comment -
Yea its probably nonsense - but i do believe that when we become able to observe our thoughts instead of just reacting to them we do shift ourselves to a higher plane of consciousness.
curious, i'm sick today and so i am chilling out doing some internet. y u so abrasive. do u feel u have to dominate every situation? or is feeling superior really a good way to feel happy?
i got a great life bro... wish u the same
Comment -
Hey ya Curious, I don't stand at the end of your bed and condemn homosexual-prostitution while you're doing what you enjoy most in life...so don't come here and bust Subs chops either eh?
-
Subs,
Now we're getting into the nature of the mind.
First, however, I think it's so very critical that you define what you think a "you" is though.
If you ask me what a "me" is?
I'll tell you that it's a vague idea that society has sold me over the years.
I will tell you that when I open up the paper bag they said a "me" was supposed to reside within, I find that bag empty.
I would tell you that the idea of a "me" is so extremely dicey and that it's an issue of (mis)definition of terms that have caused this assumptive tangent we call "ourselves as individuals".
"What is a 'me'", and "'who' am 'I'" are both non sequiturs.
Both of those questions assumes a first person, individual observer, free-mover, etc etc etc the list of assumptions is extensive. It's like that mold of a face that everyone claims is OBVIOUSLY sticking outwards and protruding, until you tilt-it to a different angle and and then you see that everything you assumed about the "obvious" was completely inverted.
"Opposite the truth" if you will.
A better question, simply, would be "what is happening?" "What is?" "What is the matter of fact about everything?"
"What's true?"
Notice how these questions are all 'god's name' as well? (I say seek, I say seek...)
*** ***
Mind.
Hmmm. I will tell you that I've been privy to some of the coolest experiments in 'mind' that I've ever heard of.
When it comes to "consciousness" the word can't be thrown around willy-nilly. Same with sub-consciousness.
You said, "hope i'm not butting my head against some immovable solid philosophical foundations."
Yes, but only to an extent.
Just about everything you're covering here is bathed and lathered and triple-coated and dunked and topped-off in a romantic light, likely, from a romantic view-point. Romantic ideas with romantic definitions described from the view-point of a romantic reality.
If someone is teaching you QM and tells you about vibrations and entanglement and wave theory etc etc....
It's ******* well imperative that you leave those ideas alone until you're ready to plug them into your own journey.
What I'm saying here:
If you're taught something and you have to conform yourself to fit into the solid object presented, then there is an incompatibility. Now if it's "you" or 'your understanding' that is incompatible with the mold, then you need to ponder the mold and remember the mold and keep the mold in your mind's eye, but you're not to contort yourself/your understanding to fit inside. Not until such a time as to where you no longer have to contort yourself and it's finally a smooth fit.
The reason this makes sense is because the second you climb into a flask that doesn't fit you, you are now submissive to whoever taught you whatever they taught you. You would at this point be *incapable* of thinking for yourself and you'd *have* to be taught everything that you know from then or in. Pardon me, everything that OTHERS know from then on in. A "Spoonfed understanding".
See the difference?
The reason I bring it up is because I've come across what you're saying about the nature of nature so many times and yet I've got no practical or tangible focus on what it is you think you're saying *UNTIL* I take the romantic away and the faith away and the mysticism away and seek the PRACTICAL anchors that you might be referring to. It's only at THAT point that I might find commonalities and it's only on this level where I can actually share.
Consciousness creating matter?
Jeepers guy.
I heard that first, somewhere else.
That means that you've made a choice in the things you believe.
That means that you've made a choice in the things you believe.
Rid yourself of that capability.
Rid yourself of that capability.
Adopt and accept the "?" that you have installed on your forehead ANYWAY, and embrace the curiosity.
I understand that the lust for "answer and conviction" is driving. I get that. But appeasing those 2 things, often but not always, will sacrifice the 'truth of the matter'. 'The facts'. 'What is'.
It's exactly like a teeter-totter. You can't elevate yourself without the other side descending.
So instead? What you're gonna do, is get up onto the teeter-totter, walk to the middle, and observe.
The only trick is keeping your balance. That is "your" place on the teeter-totter. Not riding it.
You are an observer. Not a participant.
The more participant that's involved the less of the facts you'll have at your disposal to ponder.
The more you observe, the more facts that you're be privy to and have at your disposal to ponder.
One way makes you start the puzzle with 1/2 the pieces.
The other way makes you start with all the pieces available.
(note: "available" is NOT synonymous with "ready assembled")
I hope I wasn't patronizing, sorry if I was.
There are certain people that just can't help it and I might be one of those I'm afraid.
It was good rapping.
Remind me to tell you about the a relationship between so-called sub-conscious and conscious.
It's got to do with moving boxes up a flight of stairs.Comment -
Write a book guy.Comment -
Extremely articulate and knowledgeable post you have here. How old are you, 12?
I would like it if you broke into my house, then I could ghost you and since I live in rural Mississippi the police would give me some sort of award for ghosting a fa\*\*ot. So, please, by all means, come to my house, break in and stand at the foot of my bed. I'm not that hard to find.Comment -
Yes.
I think they need ask themselves why it is two 2 separate observers can't manifest separate realities.
A farm is not a farm without a cow.
But this does not mean the cow runs the farm.
I like it that they're making observations for which their wildest dreams cannot sort the implications thereof.
"Create" is a pathetic word to use in that context. I think they should be saying "uncover" and even then it would take some examination.
Of course, another perfectly acceptable answer would be to simply speculate if perhaps there is no such thing as 'separate observers'. If maybe we're all the one and the same observer. That would conquer the observation of 'the observer' uncovering, and it would conquer the issue of 'opposite personas having opposite tastes and likes etc etc.
If you go to a fine buffet, would you try one plate, then fill yourself and not try anything else?
No, you'd try all types of stuff. Salty and sweet. Fat and lean. Crispy and soft.
This model would easily explain how we are 'one observer' yet still seemingly having different tastes.
You can't prove to me that you're a "separate and independent" observer from me, any more than I can describe the color blue to you.
We're being used by life as a fact. We might be life itself as a possibility.
We're the puppets on strings but maybe even the puppet master too.
Just like water is gaseous and yet also a solid.(depending on the *environment*)Last edited by DeeVeeOSs; 01-15-11, 10:02 PM.Comment -
Does anyone know why "God" created that talking snake? That damn snake ruined everything!Comment
Good one. I recommend you read the Bible yourself. Nothing can bring a person to Atheism faster than reading the Bible. If you HAVE actually read the bible and you're not an Atheist then you need some serious help.