Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
题目: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Iamon lyme: Not sure...That's kinda getting into high end ideas of singularities and pure energy.. not even the scientists are sure at this level, as it is the realm of quantum events.
"unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion"."
There... time. At the starting point.. what was time? Did it exist as we know it??
"As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present."
No. Wild Victorian rumours of Men in the Moon, Mutants on Venus, etc.. were just wild rumours. I'm talking now. In the last 20-30 years, and so much definite proof in the last 0-5 thanks to the likes of Kepler and new techniques in allowing for atmospheric disruption for ground based telescopes.
"The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones."
I know... it was that variation that created the first stars. The recent analysis shows that galaxies themselves seem to clump in ribbons and clusters through out the universe.
"And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures"
And carbon is produced alot by stars as they start dying.... .... 13 billion years.....
"And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will.."
No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones.
Dude... you need to take a look at some current youtube vids on physics and particularly stellar physics. The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!
题目: Re:Horse meat! I would not like that. Horses are pets (well sort of - maybe more like family).
Artful Dodger: We eat other farm yard animals, and they are more that than pets. Dog though is a step too far.... alot of work butchering for such a small return!! ;P
题目: Re:I'm sorry to hear your god is disinterested in this problem. Or too wimpy to do anything about it.
Iamon lyme: Did I say that... No.
Do I presume there is no means for us to survive.... No.
Eggs in nests have a natural ability to be able to leave as they grow.
" because there are few if any other systems in our gallaxy cabable of supporting life... in fact, the chance of finding any within our gallaxy is probably next to zero,"
That is incorrect. The evidence now through the likes of the Kepler telescope is that there are many places we could live in this Galaxy. The evidence is that Mars once did have life, Just it lost it's magnetic field... well, most of it.
Dude... dem boffins are blowing most previously held theories about how rare planets such as ours are.. they are not so rare. The Universe is geared to create the necessary elements we need for physical existence.
题目: Re: But even without the idea of a God, there is still controversy over this because of what a first cause would have to be in order for a universe to arise from nothing.
Iamon lyme: As far as I remember the initial discussion were nothing like the Kalam stuff you are quoting. Rather...
"From his considerations of the nature of motion in Physics, in Book 8, Aristotle concludes that there must be a logically first unmoved mover in order to explain all other motion. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal. Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing. In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence. Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum. Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-8). Aristotle also objects to the idea that motion may have begun self-caused; he points out that, in those things in which motion is said to be "self-caused," in fact, there is a part of the thing that is already in motion and imparts motion to the whole. Self-caused means that motion is not imparted from without but from some part of the whole that is already in motion. In such cases, the motion of the part that moves the other parts of a things requires a mover.
Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31). Thus, if there were no unmoved mover, there could be no motion, because a moved mover requires a cause of its own motion and no infinite regress is possible. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle argues that, since motion is both eternal and necessary, the first mover must be equally eternal and necessary. Because those things involved in the eternal and continuous process of motion are not eternal and necessary, since they come into being and perish, there must be one or many eternal and necessary thing or things outside the process of motion that imparts or impart motion to the things in motion. This is the only way that there could be any motion, for non-eternal and contingent movers cannot explain all motion, because their own coming into existence needs a cause. He explains, "There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this it is that is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not and of the continuous process of change" (Physics 259a 3-5). It is not possible to explain eternal motion by postulating a plurality of unmoved movers capable of imparting motion but that do not exist eternally, for "There must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another time not to be" (Physics 258b 21). Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary, but because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects. Moreover, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2)."
>>>>Warning in depth research into this carries a standard headache alert, and advises a pint of beer to relax the brain cells. <<<<
I've also proposed a new recipe for them.... Soylent Green. It's much more palatable then the previous Red and Yellow versions I've experimented with, better nutrition also :))
... In recent UK news it has emerged that several supermarkets have been selling beef burgers that contain horse meat.... upto 30% in some cases. There is no food safety concerns, just that of mislabelling. All the supermarkets involved were using the same supplier based in Ireland, which has resulted in several million burgers being removed from UK stores.
.. I have asked one of the supermarkets (Tesco's) to answer when they would be getting more burgers soon, and how much horse meat would they contain... The last lot just wasn't lean enough, too much beef!! :))
Btw... the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed. Granted the death of our sun is a few billion years later, but if we are still around, we have to have flown the nest.
题目: Re: Why? If I'm right or wrong, either way it doesn't matter. I've been asking you questions because I didn't understand your position.
Iamon lyme: Quid pro quo I thought being a reason enough.
"Was I not supposed to understand?"
No.. But in explaining your "typing" you explain yourself. Like you've just stated you like to divide ... ie create "legion" according to some interpretations.
"It mattered a thousand years ago, when there was no empirical evidence to prove the universe began to exist. Up until the last century the second statement was hotly debated and the focus of controversy."
I think you ought to realise that this argument about cause and effect dates back to earlier times. The early Christian fathers were certainly 'learned' in such thinking since the likes of Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) postulated such in the FOUR causes, answers to one question.... "why?".
题目: Re: If you predict the outcome of a horse race, is the prediction a 'fake' if the outcome is not as you predicted?
Iamon lyme: Different matter.
"that little tidbit about the sun is all I needed (on top of what you've already said) for me to understand what or who you believe God is."
Then explain what you understand, or think you do.
"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."
But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??
Rather now, it's more of a process... including parts that break the normal rules of physics (re lightspeed.. the universe can expand faster than it) ...anti matter/matter annihilation, clumping of hydrogen causing the first stars to form... and then die giving birth to the heavier elements we all are made of.
It's a beautifully simple process on the large scale :))
题目: Re: in other words, as long as I'm able to divorce anything from reality I don't want linked with reality, I'm free to interpret anything to mean what I want it to mean.
Iamon lyme: All sorts.. From Christian preachers making a mint on predicting the second coming to people believing we are about to be hit by a rogue planet.... ... That months/years before it'd been easy to see unaided such a rogue planet is of no matter to their belief.
.. I worked for one company years back who were hired to check that computers their contractors used not going to have a logic hiccup through not enough date storage bits... One guy working at the company believed that even toasters were going to be affected by this ""Y2K"" problem.
..... Still some people believe the world is flat..... Mind is a powerful device that can get hard wired as well as software errors that create false reality.
This is an old known problem.
As to the world ending.... About 6 billion years or more when the sun goes into it's red giant stage as the star starts to die.
题目: Re: in other words, as long as I'm able to divorce anything from reality I don't want linked with reality, I'm free to interpret anything to mean what I want it to mean.
Iamon lyme: ............... You understand now why there have been so many fake end of the worlds predicted.
题目: Re: I'm talking specifically about what it says in the book of Genesis.
Iamon lyme: The symbol of a serpent or snake played important roles in religious and cultural life of ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, and Greece. The serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life, and healing.[2] Nahash, Hebrew for "snake", is also associated with divination, including the verb-form meaning to practice divination or fortune-telling. In the Hebrew Bible, Nahash occurs in the Torah to identify the serpent in Eden.....
....The Hebrew word nahash is used to identify the creature that appears in Genesis 3, in the Garden of Eden. God placed Adam in the Garden to tend it (Genesis 2:15), but he has warned both Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, "or you will die". (Genesis 3:3, NIV) The serpent tells Eve that this is untrue, and that if she and the man eat the fruit they will have knowledge and will not die. So Adam and Eve eat the fruit, but the knowledge they gain is loss of childlike innocence, and they are banished from the Garden. The Snake is punished for its role in their fall by being made to crawl on its belly in the dust, from where it continues to bite the heel of man. According to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent represents sexual desire.[1][3]
The serpent of Genesis plays the role of trickster, a speaking animal which even shares knowledge with God which is hidden from man. As with other trickster-figures, the gift it brings is double-edged: Adam and Eve gain knowledge, but lose Eden. The choice of a venomous snake for this role seems to arise from Near Eastern traditions associating snakes with danger and death, magic and secret knowledge, rejuvenation, immortality, and sexuality. It is also possible that the association of the snake with the nude goddess in Canaanite iconography lies behind the scene in the Garden between the reptile and naked Eve, "Mother of all life",[4] the "Great Mother Goddess of the Canaanites"[5] Qetesh.
Debate about the Serpent in Eden is whether it should be viewed figuratively or as a literal animal. Voltaire, drawing on Socinian influences, wrote: "It was so decidedly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentateuch."[6]
"So yeah, there's all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies and impossibilities... if that's what you WANT to see."
Maybe not if you allow for the heritage of our ancestors that was oral history. It's still used by the aborigines to teach how to survive in the bush.
btw.... I was as well talking about Genesis, but remembering certain proverbs passages stating this a wise creation.
题目: Re: It's not blind following of orders either way, because whether or not free will was present before the choice is irrelevant.
Iamon lyme: I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference rather than just reacting unconsciously.
"The effects of evil aren't limited to us, even though we are responsible for letting it in."
To a certain point depending on age.
" Natural selection didn't sin, we did. But if you open a door and let smoke from a pulp mill in, you won't be the only one (or only thing) affected by it... the smoke will get on and into anything it comes in contact with."
The ripple effect... yes. But as the smoke getting into everything.... that is where free will really comes alive. The ability to step back and be as it were an unmoved mover (it's an old Greek term for the essence of being.. ie God)
"If you assume evil bugs were here before the problem began, it's the same as assuming nature cannot change. Nature can (and does) change."
Our genetic structure proves bugs were around, some helped to form of immune system and helped us to evolve... and yes nature does change. Dinosaurs are alive no as birds are they not!! ;P
题目: Re: The prohibition was specific to a knowledge of good and evil. In other words, the prohibition against gaining this knowledge wasn't a prohibition against all other forms of knowledge.
Iamon lyme: I understand the difference, I cut "of good and evil" just to save me fingers. :P
"You can't know it's wrong until you know it's wrong. All we had to go on before we "knew" it was wrong was God telling us not to do it, and what would happen if we do."
But then free will is excluded. Blind following orders is not as it were 'being' a reflection of the image of God. Do you see the LORD taking orders (and I mean that in the old Jewish way of two contexts intertwined, Noble and God) .... ....
"But even so, it begs the question why did God put us in the position of having to choose between what he said and what someone else was saying? Maybe it's because he created us for a specific purpose."
To enjoy a good life?
"Blaming God for creating evil doesn't make sense, because when he created everything there was no evil. Blaming God for the existence of evil is the same as blaming him for the problems it causes for us, but we can't blame Him because we had a choice."
Now, that depends on what you call evil. If all life is generated from God, then even the nasty parasites, bugs and diseases all come from him. The story of Moses seems to confirm this point, as God is blamed for the ten plagues.
"but I don't think Gods purpose for us was to forever remain ignorant, and live forever running naked through a garden."
Clothes are handy as an environmental factor. Yet was that the first judgement by man, the division of what came from one?
Übergeek 바둑이: Not sure if it is the first. I've heard of Zoroastrianism some years back, and also of the Corpus Hermeticum. The Latter I've read and dates back to the same sorta period (or so they say now, it might change again!) ... There is a good probability Moses would have been exposed to the teachings if the dates are now right... I fso they date back to 2000BC - 1500BC.
... which is the rough period Zoroastrianism dates back to.
Iamon lyme: Of your previous experience. Now I know I'm into aspects of Christianity and Judaism that you might think... funny. Yet I've studied them for good reason. Much of what we have today as modern Christianity has no bearing on the original. Philosophy seems to be the intent as such of old Judaism and the teachings of Christ.
"Ahhhh, crap, now I'm confused!!"
Aye.. I was, so I learnt how to stop thinking when it comes to matters of spirituality and further into trying to have a comprehension of what God is and his (to quote Good Omens) "his ineffable plan"
The story of Genesis confirms this from a philosophical point of view... "tree of knowledge" why? Why is there good and evil, why do we perceive those items as such, what causes them... I don't see it in context of some outside demon or DeViL... but as manifestations of problems that humans have that causes them to be ... '''evil'''. Bad genes, bad people, bad nutrition, or just a loose wire in the brain. But we can change the way we think because of free will.
.... The likes of some TV pastor saying the DeViL made him sleep with prostitutes for me is total denial of personal responsibility.
"The only one what? Are you trying to confuse me?"
No. Just that at some extent it is a good idea to accept what you can't understand or comprehend while comprehending it's ok, which takes practice.
"Does this mean you do NOT accept what I've been saying, because you DO comprehend it?"
No.
"This leads us into examining another philosophical question: Does the Animal kingdom only exist to serve as food processors for the Plant kingdom?"
题目: Re: One time I talked to someone who started off claiming to have an IQ of 170. That should have been my first clue that something wasn't right with him.
Iamon lyme: The High IQ'ers .... run. Old saying.... being good at particle physics doesn't make you a good picker of horses at the races.
.... I think there is where you have me confused.
For a start I don't think... seriously, my missus can confirm that!!
.. as for the comprehension... you think your the only one?
... haven't I said thinking is a bad habit.
Me I learnt how to stop and accept what I couldn't comprehend. Some good phrases like .... happens, grow roses.
题目: Re: Are you asking where did I learn this (like from a book) or are you asking me how did I come to think of this?
Iamon lyme: Both!!
"It was an analogy. Or a metaphor, or whatever it's called."
I know, I was asking if you got it through the interpretation of passages. I've had a similar discussion with some Joe Witnesses recently... Till I pointed out they had forgotten a whole Corinthians!! ;P
"I'll only be conscious for another hour or two... It's late, and so I'll be scooting off to bed before too long."
Wrong type lol.
..Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[3] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[4] As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."
题目: Re: Mysticism overcomes this problem by saying they both are, or neither are, or everything is, or it doesn't matter because I'm too tired to think about it so I'll make the problem (of understanding this) go away in a mystical puff of smoke.
Iamon lyme: where did you learn to think this?? Joe????
"So if he stands at the door knocking, and will only come into your life if you invite him, why would you bother to get up to let him in? You wouldn't, because he is already there with you."
题目: Re: So, using the same criteria, who is in a better position to explain who God is... you or God?
Iamon lyme: ... The God within a flower, certainly.
I'm sorry that you've gotten confused over the God within and the God without. N' the philosophy behind it.
Isn't it Godly to help someone, isn't it Godly to enjoy the splendour of creation, and to be content and at peace with what we don't understand because we can just accept that.
... A child sees the splendour easily.... it's this metaphorical aspect that I've been using since we started talking philosophy. Christ describes what he is, how he sees things.. in order to be like Christ we have to give up (surrender) to God (the God without) to allow the God within (a reflection) shine.
There is no pride or ego in this, it is just something that is.
"" Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Rambam points out that the Hebrew words translated as "image" and "likeness" in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form of a thing. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, "you will despise their image (tzel'mam)." You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance. The word for physical form, Rambam explains, is "to'ar," as in Gen. 39:6, "and Joseph was beautiful of form (to'ar) and fair to look upon." Similarly, the word used for "likeness" is "damut," which is used to indicate a simile, not identity of form. For example, "He is like (damuno) a lion" in Ps. 17:12 refers not to similar appearance, but to similar nature.
What is it in our nature that is G-d-like? Rashi explains that we are like G-d in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Rambam elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like G-d, who perceives without having physical senses. ""
Your point was pointless. Now can we get back to philosophy?
题目: Re: Do you think you might agree this was possible, and wonder why I'm even bothering to bring it up... or would you think I'm some starry eyed religonist who mindless believes everything the Bible says?
Iamon lyme: No.. I asked a question if you are.
Seriously, do you think two hundred years ago you wouldn't be tempted to scoff at an impossible scenario "invented" two thousand years ago?
That would depend on my education at that time. And again.... my philosophical understanding... a point I keep trying to get across. Not believing something does not mean you have to "scoff" at it also.
"It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it."
No.. lots of hate for what you 'see' when you 'look' at life.
"Who would predict something happening if they didn't believe it can happen? And how could the ravings of a lunatic turn out to be true, if he (or anyone else) did not have the information needed to begin with?"
Context... who was occupying 'Palestine' back then.. evil ones will not prevail, have faith, stop worrying, it'll be ok.
"There would be zero evidence of anything existing at that time to even base that kind of prediction on."
... yes there would be.. some of it would be known through the story of Noah, which is based on an event that did happen... a flood. Wars... long ones, where whole cities are pillaged, Volcanic eruptions.. such as recorded in the Moses story, earthquakes such as recorded in the Sodom story.
Even Eden seems to record that a certain desert is not a desert.. Something that in recent years has been confirmed through the finding of huge reservoirs of water under the desert. :)
题目: Re: Most politicians seem to suffer from that malady.
Artful Dodger: The main malady seems to be to ignore questions on live talks with news reporters.
eg... In a recent report on the possible cutting over a winter fuel allowance for OAP's The minister on camera would not reply to questions regarding the matter.
some background.... The winter fuel allowance has been an active topic at the moment regarding who gets it. Every OAP gets it now and there has been much talk on raising it because of the well above rates of inflation (3-4 times in some years) rises in gas, electric and other heating fuels..... because every year we have OAP's dying of hypothermia in the UK.. that figure because of rises in costs in energy has risen.
A few of the rich OAP's got together and started a system that they can give their fuel allowance to be redistributed to those living on state pensions. It took off and now there are various charities that have expanded the system.
It works... not perfectly, but it works.
Now someone has jumped on the band wagon in politics. Hope he fails. ;)
The Col: Yes. Same reason caffeine works amongst many stimulants. We have receptors that nicotine stimulate our adrenal glands.... with THC, Morphine, LSD and many other drugs... legal or illegal we rely on systems that have been used for millions of years by us and other creatures.
There's been alot of discussion on this thanks to a govern'ment boffin openly disagreeing with govern'ment policy.
...especially with the latest outbreak of legal highs.
题目: Re: because the rest of your message is essentially just one long "No".
Iamon lyme: Is it?
"Where do you get this stuff?"
From certain churches and preachers proclaiming they know that the world will end in a big holy war between heaven and hell... no I don't believe that version, but there is other interpretations based on metaphorical statements that were part of story telling back in dem old days.
"No, of course you wouldn't. Because you are not stupid. You would recognise the question is flawed, and that it is only an attempt to distract you from a discussion about what you really believe."
Wrong. The question is not flawed, it is not a distraction.. it's just a question. There are still valid interpretations without that literal bs of ReLeVaTiOnS.
"we literally have, or soon will have, the capacity to end all life on earth. If not all, then certainly most of it. It was a crazy idea for hundreds of years, and probably something for athiests to laugh about, because how could it be possible for mere mean to destroy all life on earth?"
We have since the 50's had the ability to wipe out 'all' life. Well..... most. Some species are hardy little buggers just like we were when the dino's got killed off. So?
..... Choices were made back then that proved we are not that suicidal as a race.
题目: Re: to what extent do we have free will and in what cases do we not ( if any)?
The Col: I'd go for a replacement like the electronic cigs then if I were you. It's what I want to try this year... not quite giving up, but just to cut down.
题目: Re: I roll my own, so it's hard to compared that to packs of smokes. I don't inhale added chemicals, but I think the tobacco itself is a bit stronger than most packaged cigarettes.
Iamon lyme: I still do roll my own. The Duty (tax) on cigs is bad in the UK. I'm use to roll ups from having worked in an office before the smoking laws all came in. If I smoked a normal fag, It would be gone by the time I return to it.. burnt away.
Roll ups don't have that problem. :) Sometimes it's an hour before I get to relighting a roll up again.
题目: Re: Switching over for another system that doesn't even pretend to adhere to those tenets is a waste of time and effort... it accomplishes less than nothing
Iamon lyme: No.
"None of us can afford to waste our time indefinitely, because someday the testing and searching will stop and all of this will come to a conclusion."
Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so. This is stated clearly in the Bible... First and Last.. all else means nothing. You are and are not. But hey.. Me like everyone being unique.. positioning is everything.
Do you believe in a literal end of the world. Holy war.. all non believers will die... If you do, you've failed.
"same simple (childlike, if you will) tenets."
Now you are mocking what Jesus said... Shame on you!!
btw.. Genesis 3:21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
题目: Re: Maybe I'm being too much of a purist, but I was only commenting on branches that deviate
Iamon lyme: No, you are not a purist... far from it.
"but finding both God and man in one vessel (a man) would be unique. According to the Bible it only happened once."
No, that's a distortion thanks to some rather old semi pagan conceptualisations that have existed ever since the Nicene creed was made. The RCC used the same speech in order to define who was a heretic or not.
The Bible actually says we, the people, aka the children of God.... ... ALL have God in us, and we are part of the 'Christ'... there is also OT passages that talk of the LORD being visible to the likes of the discoverers that Elohim was ONE. Even Jesus says we can activate that God'ness in us and enjoy the 'kingdom of heaven' while we are still not dead.
God himself at the end of the Eden incident says we can become like God himself, and only after we started to ask one simple question..... """"why?""".
. If you are a purist.. you'd have to recognise God himself has no religion, Jesus was born as a Jew, the Christ in him was a pure virgin soul born with God alive when we guys have to 'purify' ourselves. .... .... even Jesus had to face a period of testing and purification, as denoted by the 40 days and nights he spent in the desert.
40 being a known figure referring to the purification of an object/soul/souls described in the OT.
... If you are a purist then you'll know that all OT text was written told from a knowledge that included PaRDeS, which Christ was of course aware of.
.... back to.....
"I'm not sure what your point is."
I can see that, I can also see that the fight/flight automatic response that interpretates much of the sense information that enters our brain is active in your reply.
ie..... "I don't know, so I'll fear and hate it".. There is no God in this and never can be. Everyone that holds onto such denies his/her God given spirit, just to be 'right' rather than face the inner storm and heal the 'world'.
why?? It's easy to do... blame the world rather than the way you see it.
Which brings us back to philosophy, and relativity. That one can be everything and unique in it's own right.One can understand without knowing no-thing.
If you were a purist, you'd not be looking for people to agree with you on every spiritual question.... But then again, you are here. Part of you wants to be as a child again in the pure form Christ talks of... It's a point we all face and many back down on.
题目: Re: Like most things I'm exploring, it answers one question and raises three more.
Artful Dodger: Tell me about it, that was a major issue for me for years, until I found a few ways of accepting "I don't know" as a choice that can exist regarding working out questions. I thank Robert Heinlein and Judge Judy for that... The LORD appears in mysterious ways!! ;P
题目: Re: I was aware that if I did not breath I would die.... yet the ability to decide was all that existed
The Col: Not that heavy Dude.... well... compared to other instances. I'm just glad I had good teachers who prepared me somewhat for what can lay behind the clouds of thinking.
I remember nearly 20 years ago I entered a deep state of meditation while watching my breath. At one point... I stopped breathing, at least relatively. I have no idea of how much time passed, but I was fully aware that the decision to breath or not was my choice in that state/moment.
Life/death were immaterial, I was aware that if I did not breath I would die.... yet the ability to decide was all that existed.
I've heard of others who've been through this state/in this state of conciousness/meditation.
题目: Re: to what extent do we have free will and in what cases do we not ( if any)?
Artful Dodger: That I can only truthfully answer by stating... it depends on how aware you are. Classic Judaism talks about Yetzer Hara(ra) and the Yetzer Hatoz(toz). The two impulses that drive us through life. Yetzer Hara being a force that exists from birth, it gives us the drive to have children, to build, to engage in business. Unchecked, it can lead to rape, murder and other sinful activities. In itself it is not evil, but without conciousness it can be. lamon's example of the salmon would be of this force, not concious, just doing what is best for the survival of the species.
Yetzer Hatoz is the good inclination, the awareness that only begins to develop when a person reaches their teens. it is supposed to allow us to be able to rise above the physical and give us a choice to be able to control ourselves and practice free will.
...this guy explains it well. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, wrote in Derech Hashem ("The Way of God") that "Man is the creature created for the purpose of being drawn close to God. He is placed between perfection and deficiency, with the power to earn perfection. Man must earn this perfection, however, through his own free will...Man's inclinations are therefore balanced between good (Yetzer HaTov) and evil (Yetzer HaRa), and he is not compelled toward either of them. He has the power of choice and is able to choose either side knowingly and willingly..."
...... You'll find similar in the Chakra system that comes from Buddhism regarding this, or again going back to Judaism the 10 Sefirot. Such as the Desert Fathers practised something called Hesychasm to bring themselves into 'stillness and silence', to go beyond the realm of physical ruling ones actions.
"The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project,[1] which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.[2] The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050."
"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money."
"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion.
Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually.
"“The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces.
Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July.Although that only represents about 1% of nation’s gross domestic product, it’s more than half of the national budget deficit. It’s also roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency combined each year.
Artful Dodger: A case of I think therefore I am, or I am therefore I think.
Yes man has freewill, just... it's not many a person that can free themselves to exercise such. Many people are taught they do not.
Certain religious groups, governments, the press, the police and political parties all rely on illusions of no free will to intimidate. Yet here... the common law revolution is teaching people they have more free will than they have been taught we do.
题目: Re:They don't want taxes raised on anyone. And taxing the wealthiest only runs the government for 8 days. Better to cut spending.
Artful Dodger: Or do both. Shame the USA does not have a universal VAT system. Then, non essentials such as a $200,000 car can have a little extra added on that.
Things like food get no VAT added... just luxury items that no-one has to buy unless they want to.
rod03801: They were voted in to mess your country up. Well, in that case they are doing a fine job. Is your government really growing.. or the costs the likes of DoD got out of control.
...How long is it going to be until the cost of the bogus war in Iraq gonna be paid off?
I don't expect you to like this... that ain't unusual either. But it is a fact.
rod03801: You've not got the point that if they don't work out a compromise that tax rises and spending cuts will happen that could push the USA back into recession.
You don't understand the difference between a controlled change that won't hurt the majority of Americans and also effect global markets, and an uncontrolled change that will! The whole idea it seems was to cut spending and to have a small increase in taxes that will only affect the top 2-3% of earners.
Are YOU WILLING to pay the extra tax that will come if no deal can be reached? An extra $2,000 - $3,500 per year.. you are happy to pay that?
Such incompetence even is recognised by retiring Republicans....."send a message worldwide that we don't have the capacity to work across political aisles on critical issues"....
If no compromise is reached, it just shows your whole political system is just one big joke. It would be an absolute laughable matter, is were not for the harm that Joe Public will suffer because of some pouting republican members tied to the Tea Party.. and paid by the party's masters to be complete idiots.