Iamon lyme: "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference..."


Obviously (or not) we wouldn't have a made a choice because we couldn't have made a choice before there was a choice.

And if after creating everything, when God looked at it and said it was good, why assume that to mean evil was already there? There is no clear timeline to place exactly when satan became corrupt, except that it must have happened before his encounter with man. So according to the story, evil came into existence between the time God created everything and the serpents first ecounter with man.

So, there ARE some things we can know about the creation story, but if you ignore the internal consistency of the story, then you should have no problem finding contradictions and inconsistencies.

For instance, how could Cain have married someone before there were women? I guess I would have to assume everyone lived for a very long time, enough time for there to be enough people (a large enough population) to choose from. But I don't have to assume, because according to the story everyone did have very long lifespans. Okay then, so if he did get married, they must have been closely related, and that's just wrong! Well, you could expand on that by realising everyone today comes from the same root family, so if you hook up with anyone it's just plain wrong!

Or how about getting all those animals into Noahs boat? How could all the different animals in the world (today) have fit into that boat? That's impossible, because it would mean nature had some mechanism, like natural selection, that could take a small sampling containing enough DNA to account for all of the animals living in the world today.

So yeah, there's all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies and impossibilities... if that's what you WANT to see.

(V): "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference rather than just reacting unconsciously."

I'm talking specifically about what it says in the book of Genesis. What happened wasn't because of an unconscious reaction, it was because of rationalisation. Eve told the serpent it was forbidden fruit, and what would happen if they took and ate of it. So they knew what God had told them and what it meant, and it never occurred to them God might be lying about it until someone came along with rationalisations. That's how liers justify what they do. They "rationalise"... they find reasons to believe what they want to believe. Or what they want you to believe, same difference.

Übergeek 바둑이: Hard to prove either way unless we get a major find(s) showing link/no links.

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

(V):

> 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.

The Hermetica were written in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD. While some have argued that they date back to the Pharaonic period in Egypt. However, they are more likely to have arisen shortly before Plato's time in the 6th century BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Hermeticum

It is interesting because scholars believed that the same ideas in the Hermtica influenced Greek philosophers in antiquity. The first book of the Hermetica introduces Poemandres, the shepherd of men who introduces the disciple to the divine. This is an idea that Christianity borrowed 6 centuries later. This comes as no surprise since St. Paul had so much contact with Greeks in the 1st century AD.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/hermet.htm

Although dated to the 6th century BC, the Hermetica is probably based on older ideas. Zarathustra is believed to have lived in northeastern Iran or Southwestern Afghanistan between 200 and 1500 BC. However, it is likely that his ideas descent from something much older.

Before there was Europe or Asia and all the modern divisions of its peoples, there were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the Bronze-age predecessor culture that shaped the language and religion of our modern world. The Proto-Indo-Europeans lived during the late Neolithic era (4000 BC), but some archaelogists believe that they may have lived in the early Neolithic (7500 BC). Their languages certainly gave rise to many modern language families such as Indo-Iranian, Turkic, Semitic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Latin, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

The Indo-European religion can be partially reconstructed using comparative mythology and linguistics, and many Gods that might seem unrelated in different cultures suddenly appear to be the same Gods, although their mythologies and names are mutated over the centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

Looking at the Indo-European religion makes me wonder if a small group of people within it had developed a more abstract concept of God and a concept of the duality of good and evil. This god would be descended from Deiwos, the main deity of the Indo-European pantheon. If that happened, it was probably very late in the development of the Indo-European culture. I suspect that it happened separately in at least two places.

One would be among the Semitic people who founded Chaldea. According to the Old Testament, Abraham was Chaldean, and the Old Testament never claims that Abraham invented monotheism. There are a couple of passages where Abraham is addressed by others who are clearly monotheists like him, they are Semitic like him, but they belong to entirely different clans. So it would seem that Monotheism was there, but it was with Abraham that Judaism finds its first, earliest expression.

The other place would be among the Indo-Iranians who lived further east and were geographically separated from the Semitic people's of Anatolia. The Zoroastrians also developed a monotheist view of the universe, but with a more clearly defined abstract duality of good and evil.

There were others too, such as the partial monotheism of the cult of Aten during the reign of Akenaten (Amenhotep IV) between 1353 and 1336 BC. Atenism was considered a great heresy in Egypt because Akenaten sought to get rid of polytheism and replace it with a single supreme deity. The religion died with Akenathen and the old Egyptian polytheism was restored by his successor Tutankhamun. It is likely that this cult of Aten was the predecessor of the Hermetica that came 7 centuries later. Belief in Aten is truly old, going back to the 18th century BC as evident in the Tale of Sinuhe, a text written some 500 years before the reign of Akenaten. This text is older than the Old Testament. It must be pointed that Atenism was really a politically motivated religion that identified Akenaten with the supreme god Aten. By making himself the supreme god, Akenaten ensured that he had absolute control over all of Egypt, including the powerful priestly class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism

A good question would be whether these forms of monotheism arose separately or whether they had a common predecessor. Scholars cannot agree on this because there is weak archaelogical evidence and because some scholars would probably not want to take the risk of claiming that the Abrahamic religions have a predecessor much older than the Old Testament.

(V): "Clothes are handy as an environmental factor."

They are now. This is no longer a "clothes optional" world, and for reasons other than modesty. But that hasn't always been the case, so I'm assuming the question that follows is which came first... the clothes, or the environmental changes.

"Yet was that the first judgement by man, the division of what came from one?"

Whether you agree with evolution or creation, no one is saying that people always wore clothes. But even with the evironment changing, people could have settled only into regions where wearing clothes wouldn't have been necessary. Somewhere along the line, wearing clothes seemed to be the right thing to do... but if not for strictly environmental reasons, then why?

(V): "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."


Nope. You are making the same assumption, that before everything changed evil was already here. The effects of evil aren't limited to us, even though we are responsible for letting it in.

Natural selection is sensitive to changes in environment. It's a blind process. 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.

We are not only responsible for what happened to us, we are also responsible for the effect it's had on all of nature. 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.

Iamon lyme: I need to correct myself again. God did not present us with this choice. He didn't say choose between this and that. The choice (doing something else) was presented by someone else.

So, who was this someone else.

Everything was fine and dandy with creation until 'something' (something that did have, or had the potential to have, free will) in it thought of elevating himself into a higher position. Evil did not begin with God, it began with something in his creation that could exercise free will.

God COULD have created everything with nothing in it having free will, but then we wouldn't be here talking about it. There would be no discussion about this. Everything, including us, would be blindly following Gods orders.

So what do you think? Did God make a mistake? Is free will the culprit... is it the fly in His ointment?

(V): "But then free will is excluded. Blind following orders is not as it were 'being' a reflection of the image of God."

Why would He tell us not to do something, and what would happen if we did, if there was no free will? If free will was excluded, if we had no free will or potential for exercising free will, then there would have been no reason for Him to present us with a choice.

So no, free will is not excluded because it can't be excluded... it's conditional to making decisions and choosing one thing over another.

It's not blind following of orders either way, because whether or not free will was present before the choice is irrelevant. It either started to exist at the moment we made a choice, or it was always there but didn't manifest itself until the choice was made. So either way, we can't say choosing did not involve free will.

(Actually, you CAN say that, because free will allows you to say anything you want to say.)

Free will is conditional to choosing... if we didn't have free will, we would have no choice but to obey Gods rules for us. Nobody talks about inanimate matter blindly following Gods orders... because inanimate matter does not have a choice.

(V): ....If so they date back to 2000BC - 1500BC....

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: Also, a tree of knowledge of good and evil infers evil already existed, otherwise there wouldn't have been a choice to be made... and there would have been no tempter to confuse us.

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. We can't choose if we don't have free will... so if it's the fault of anything, it would have to be our own free will. We didn't have to sign up for this problem, I know I didn't, but I'm stuck with the decision Adam and Eve made. And blaming them doesn't make sense, because I don't think I could have passed that test either.... because for me to know that I shouldn't be messing around with evil presupposes a knowledge of evil.

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. So why give us a test we are doomed to fail, because a tempter is there who knows how to confuse us?

I can't say I know why, but I don't think Gods purpose for us was to forever remain ignorant, and live forever running naked through a garden. I don't have a problem with that, because at my age it's not appropriate for me to be running through mommy and daddys garden naked like a two year old. It doesn't make sense for me to believe His plan is for us to simply go full circle, and back to all of us walking naked through a garden again. I think he has a different plan for us.

(V): "Aye.. I was [confused], 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?"


Okay, first of all the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't about whether we may or may not have access to ANY knowledge. 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.

There is nothing there to suggest we shouldn't think or wonder about things, or pursue something like technological knowledge. Obviously (there's that word again) I'm being very literal minded when I look at this, and I could be wrong... I'm assuming things like thinking and wondering and pursuing other knowledge would be okay, because no other prohibitions were stated.

So to your question, why the tree of knowledge? First of all, it wasn't "the tree of knowledge". It was the tree of knowledge OF good and evil. 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.

(V):

> 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...

I prefer the Zoroastrian version of good and evil. Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion and it predates the Abrahamic religions by at least 1000 years. It is still practiced among Persians (Farsi) in India and to some extent Iran.

According to Zoroastrianism, at the moment of creation Ormazd (Ahura Mazda) was manifested as the twins Spenta Mainyu (bounteous mind or spirit) and Angra Mainyu (destructive mind or spirit). It was in the form of Spenta Mainyu that Ahura Mazda conceived creation and life. Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) becomes its antithesis, and hence the originator of death, destruction and evil.

Zoroastrians exist in that duality of good and evil arising as manifestations of a single deity. Yet, according to their religion Ahura Mazda chanted the Ahuna Vairya, a sacred chant that puts Ahriman in a stupor. Zoroastrians recite this chant as the most sacred hymn of their religion.

The point is, Zoroastrianism sees good and evil as arising from the creator itself, with the personification of good (Ormazd) defeating the personification of evil (Ahriman) . Creation on Zoroastrianism is not limited in time (as in 7 days), but a process that has taken aeons. Time is divided into three eras: creation (where good and evil arose), mixture (our present era where good and evil coexist) and separation (Fashokereti).

Ultimately Ormazd is superior to Ahriman and Ahriman will be defeated in the Fashokereti, the time of renovation of the universe when good and evil will be separated and living beings will become one with God.

I find the duality of Zoroastrianism much better than the Christian view because Zoroastrians see good and evil as personifications emanating from the one God, rather than somehow Lucifer suddenly becoming evil out of "free will". If God created everything, then God created evil too, and Zoroaster wisely recognized that in the duality of the twins that arise at the time of creation. Those twins fight the great war of good and evil, even though they both arise from the same God. This is more true to the conflicted nature of human existence where good and evil coexist in the same person, the same society, the same world, etc.

Well, it is obviously more involved than my simple paragraph, but you can read more in Wikipedia, and there you can find links to the Avestas (scriptures):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
http://www.avesta.org/

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?"

No.. it's symbiotic from a biology perspective.

.: oops, did it again.

I wrote "The battle began when we decided to step outside of His."

It was supposed to say "...outside of His will."

(V): "Old saying.... being good at particle physics doesn't make you a good picker of horses at the races."

The secret to picking horses is you pick the horse that looks like it can run the fastest.

".... I think there is where you have me confused."

Because... ?

"For a start I don't think... seriously, my missus can confirm that!!"

So that means you only think you are confused... but if you don't think, you couldn't have arrived at your first premise of thinking you are confused because...
Ahhhh, crap, now I'm confused!!

".. as for the comprehension... you think your the only one?"

The only one what? Are you trying to confuse me?

"... haven't I said thinking is a bad habit."

At the risk of overthinking this, here are some possible answers...

1) So is smoking, but I've had no luck in giving that up either.
2) I'll have to think about that before I can answer.
3) I can't hear anything you've said, but most of time I can decipher what you write.
4) Why, did you forget you said that?

"Me I learnt how to stop and accept what I couldn't comprehend. Some good phrases like .... happens, grow roses."

Does this mean you do NOT accept what I've been saying, because you DO comprehend it?

"....happens, grow roses"

This leads us into examining another philosophical question: Does the Animal kingdom only exist to serve as food processors for the Plant kingdom?

"The High IQ'ers .... run."

That's right, just you try to run away, you little buggers... 'cause I'm a coming for ya!! You can hide, but you can't run!

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.

(V): "I was asking if you got it through the interpretation of passages."

I got it through the 'interpretation' of one passage. You know, the one where Jesus says he stands at the door, and if anyone hears his voice etc etc etc. It's kind of hard to misinterpret that one, wouldn't you say? What do you think it means? Also, you said "passages" (I interpret that to mean more than one) so what other passages do you have in mind, and how do you interpret them?


I assume you are asking me where did I learn about mysticism. My first encounter with mysticism is experience with it. When I started believing in God I went to various churches and meeting places. I wasn't aware of how many different denominations and cults there were claiming to be Christ centered, or included Christ in their philosophy. 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. He told me the Bible was one of five books (representing five major religions) he reads, because they all (collectively) represented what he believed. I told Mr IQ of 170 it didn't make sense for him to include the Bible in that group, and explained why. And all he needed to do to see if this was true or not was to read what his Bible says about it. Mr IQ of 170 didn't like that, not one bit... because I was right. My average bowling score at that time was well over 200, so take THAT Mr IQ of 170!

Anyway, I did encounter some mysticism along the way, and wasn't fooled by that either. Most of it appeals to "religious" emotions and less to rational thought. That's how I saw it. The answers to my questions weren't really answers, they were mostly word pictures that started and ended with the same 'answer'. I was expected to find the meaning of all that somewhere in the haze conjured up for me to look at.

My search was for a comprehensible God, not for a religious feeling or some hazy philosophy that can't stand up to scrutiny.

I may not have an IQ of 170, but I wasn't interested in trying to make sense of nonsense through the sheer power of me little intellect. Very smart people can devise very smart looking ideas, but I'm interested in something more than indulging in an intellectual exercise... I don't need a bigger brain so I can be kept busy with bigger ideas.

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."

(V): "It's a matter of conciousness, isn't it."

I don't know. Is it?

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.

(V): "where did you learn to think this??"

I don't understand your question. 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?

At first I thought you were asking where did I learn to think. I can't really say where I learned to think, or when... it was an ongoing process. It still is.

Joe????

It was an analogy. Or a metaphor, or whatever it's called... I'm not exactly sure what to call it. I'm not talking about just any old Joe, or about your house... the house is you. Joe is Jesus. Inviting Joe into your house means inviting Christ into your life. If you think he is already in your life, then why would you bother to open the door to let him in? Most people would be inclined to believe in the authenticity of the first Joe, and assume the second one to be fake.

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."

It's a matter of conciousness, isn't it.

Iamon lyme: "...or is it?"

( Substitute the word "God" for "Joe". )

If there is only one Joe, then how can you be sure the Joe you know is the real Joe, and the Joe who came to the door isn't? You know one of them is a fake because there is only one Joe, so how do you decide who the real one is?

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. Mysticism doesn't solve the problem by making the answer more visible, it solves the problem by making the problem less visible...



... and air freshener can make farty smells disappear behind a cloud of sweet smelling fragrance. It's like magic, only better.

(V): "What battle?"

I suppose you could call it "spiritual warfare". Before the fall we were not at odds with God. God was not our enemy. The battle began when we decided to step outside of His. I'm calling it a 'battle' and not a 'war' because the war actually started before that... and it was the leader of the opposition (satan) who got us involved in it by convincing us to oppose his enemy (God). That battle is still going on... it hasn't been resolved yet.

I don't want to bore people who don't believe any of this or are offended by "religious talk", so I'll bring this back to the point I was originally trying to make.

If you say the God in a flower, or the God in you, it suggests there is no need to invite him into your life, because he is already there. 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.


Think of it this way... Joe is sitting with you in your living room, he's a good buddy of yours and has always lived in your home. But then someone is knocking on your door and asking to come in... not demanding, just asking. He won't come in unless he's invited to come in... so it's entirely up to you, it's your choice. So you go to the door and say, "Who are you?" The voice on the other side says, "It's me, Joe."

So then you look back at Joe and tell him, "Well, I'm no fool! I know he isn't Joe because you are Joe, and you are already here." And so you go back to visiting Joe, and ignore the joker who is only claiming he is Joe so you will let him in. End of story...






...or is it?

Iamon lyme: What battle?

(V): "Your point was pointless. Now can we get back to philosophy?"

Granted, it was a very small point, but it was there... that's why I drew the arrows, so you could find the point I was pointing to. Pointing to the point would only be pointless if you could see the point without the pointer. But if you were unable to see the point without the help of a pointer, wouldn't it have been pointless for me to have made that point? I mean really, what is the point of making a point if you don't see the point? I knew it was there, I just wanted to make sure you knew it was there too.

I didn't expect you to see the point hidden within the set up, so I didn't want to disappoint you by ending it with no apparent (eminentlly visible) point. I did this for you, but apparently you don't appreciate all the effort I've put into this explicitly for your benefit...
Shame on you!!!

(V): "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."

Well, there WAS no pride or ego in that until you said "the God within". You could have just as easily said "the Magnificence within" without changing the meaning. A subtle distinction perhaps, but do you see how this elevates you into a higher position, and puts you closer to being a god?

We can get closer to God, but we will never be gods. The same temtpation that caused man to fall in the garden of eden is still tugging at our souls, and we are no less prone than Adam and Eve to be drawn towards that tempation. The battle that started there hasn't ended... not yet.

(V): "I'm sorry that you've gotten confused over the God within and the God without. N' the philosophy behind it."

I'm not confused, I'm just trying to get you to say what you believe. So far you've been talking about God as though he is nothing more than an idea, or an attribute for us to emulate. Your description of the person of God so far looks a little fuzzy and non descript.

IYO is God real? Is He an independent satient being whose existence and nature does not rely on what we think of Him? Or is he something less than that, is the idea of God something you have the power to define for yourself?

These may sound like silly questions, but IMO it's important to make this distinction. If I wasn't sure of who you are or if you were real, then I might ask: Is (V) real, or is he only an idea and so therefore I have the power to define who (V) is?

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.

http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm

"" 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?

(V): I need to set this up before making my point. If you want argue with the set up that's fine, but if you do then you will be missing the point. The set up isn't the point, so please be patient and wait for it.


~ What do you see when you look in a mirror? Do you see you, or a reflection (image) of you? You're seeing an image of you. If you were seeing you, then there would be two of you. One of you is looking at the mirror, the other you is looking back... at you. That can't be right, so what you are actually seeing must only be a reflection, and not the real you.

~ God made man in his image... in the image of God man was made. Man is not God, he is only a relfection of Him. Man is not a god, nor is he God, he is simply an image of God. The Bible doesn't say everything was made in Gods image (not everything is a mirror) so I have to assume man was set aside to be that reflective creation.

~ The very first mention or suggestion of man being more than an image, but that he is as God (or like gods) shows up early in the book of Genesis. Who suggested God had lied to man, and encouraged him to elevate himself? Who tempted man to elevate himself into a higher position than he was created to occupy?



so here's my point ===> . <===

Iamon lyme: I don't enjoy correcting myself, but if anyone does I want it to be me.

[ ...the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. ]

That doesn't make sense. It can't be less "obvious" or more "obvious", or even as "obvious". I forgot "obvious" has a non-negotiable meaning and is relative to the observer... what might be obvious to you wouldn't necessarily be obvious to me.


Obviously, this is a word I should use sparingly or stop using altogether... DOH!!

(V): Hey, if you don't want to deal with this then just say so. I came prepared to answer your objections, but you seem intent on objecting to something else.


[ No.. I asked a question if you are. ]

If I am what?


[ 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. ]

I was inviting you to think about what it means to see something that could not have happened without the help of an immaterial intelligence. Does the idea of a God who defies your description of Him offend you? I don't know why it would. So allow me to offend you again by posing this question:

If I know a little something about you and then fill in the gaps with what I imagine is true, then between just you and me, which of us would be the better judge of how accurate that picture is... you or me? Who is in a better position to know who you are, and what the true details of your life are?

( By the way, if the answer to this isn't obvious, then you may as well stop now because the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. )


So, using the same criteria, who is in a better position to explain who God is... you or God?

Silvery Moon: Yes of course, I think it must be a legal thing... as it certainly isn't a matter of what is lawful. :)

(V): That's strange the post I wrote to you about what you was smoking has vanished. I hope you understand I was joking to you?

You must of saw it to reply to it so thanks. ;)

I got to say... This board is getting less serious... good :)

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. :)

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv9pMydXRzU

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. ;)

(V): [ 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? ]

So pretend we are living say, a mere two or three centuries ago, and are having this conversation. 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?

How could I believe this was even possible, like the prophesy that says everyone in the world will be able to see an event as it unfolds... IMPOSSIBLE!!

COULD you believe that, when reason and everything you know about reality says it can't happen? A massive natural disaster on a global scale, okay, maybe all life could be wiped out by that. But completely wiped out by men? No way! It's impossible!

Seriously, do you think two hundred years ago you wouldn't be tempted to scoff at an impossible scenario "invented" two thousand years ago? It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it. But this is today, so your response was basically to repeat what I said and then ask "So?"

One of the proofs of prophesy, IMO, isn't just that an event happens as predicted, it also contains information that can only make sense at the time it happens. The idea that the whole world can witness an event as it happens, or that man would have the power to wipe out all life on earth would sound like the ravings of a lunatic 2 thousand years ago. There would be zero evidence of anything existing at that time to even base that kind of prediction on.

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? WE know it can happen, because we live in that pocket of time those prophesies pointed to, and so for us it usually means nothing more than "Of course this is true, so what?"

Artful Dodger: No more nicotine ring on your undies? Hmmmm, I wonder if that would work for me? I'm tired of having to wash my undies on a regular basis, so it appears there is one more reason for me to quit. I'm assuming no more nicotine stained fingers either... that IS nicotine, right? Okay, maybe not nicotine, but it does come from cigarettes... right?

Half way through this week it occurred to me I didn't have a plan. I expected to feel discomfort, but no plan for how I would deal with those moments of "hunger", and what to fill the extra time with. I thought this should be easier than when I was younger, when I didn't have as much experience and my days were full of things to do, but that's not the case. When I was younger I had more resolve, and more physical and mental strength. I needed those things when I was younger because of all the trouble I caused for myself. Smoking is one of the few things that hasn't naturally fallen away after I didn't want it anymore.

For me this is actually a normal way of doing things, jump into something with an idea that turns out to be wrong, then try again with a better idea, or plan, and then fail again... and again... and so forth. What eventually happens is I'll finally get it right, just so long as I don't give up and I keeping going with it.

I think I know what you mean by "will" power... my will can actually get in the way of what I want to see happening. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes giving up and surrendering is the only logical (practical) path to winning. It's like trying to tune in on one of those Magic Eye pictures... I can't make myself see it, I have to let myself see it. Does this make sense?

(V): Most politicians seem to suffer from that malady.

Iamon lyme: Odd. It's a youtube link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC1AOtznXsI Not sure why it gave that message.

As for smoking, I smoked for 13 plus years and finally was able to quit but it wasn't "will" power. I got too sick from the smoke and had to quit or put up with feeling ill every morning. I developed a plan that worked for me. I think God jumped in and removed the cravings because I quit one day and never craved another smoke. I went from smoking over a pack a day to smoking zero. My farting increased but there was no longer a nicotine ring on my undies

Iamon lyme: Holy Crap Batman!!!  Politics (30 new)

The Col: It's been known for a long time what happens in the brain when nicotine is present. I studied this in the late 70's because I thought learning why nicotine is addicting might help me overcome the addiction... then I learned that knowing and doing are two entirely different things.

Nicotine is addicting because the chemical is similar to one of the natural links in the wiring of your brain. Nicotine "successfully competes" for that link, which means the chemical intended for occuping that particular link in the wiring chain is shut out... it can't get in because nicotine got there first.

Then, a few days after you start introducing nicotine into your brain, manufacture of the natural chemical produced by your body (made for occupying that link in the chain) begins to shut down, because making it doesn't make sense if it's not being used for anything. In a way this is a testimony to your body's efficiency in dealing with a poison, because instead of trying to fight it your body gives in and accepts the new link.

But nicotine washes out very quickly, which means you need to keep replenishing it often to keep that link in place. So the signals meant to follow the circuitry are constanty being weakened and interrupted, until you take in more nicotine to fully replenish the link. Food and other things can trigger a desire to smoke, but you already have an internal trigger. Your mind starts saying to you, "Hey there, the link is dissolving... DO SOMETHING!!"

About 3 days after you stop smoking (three days of hell) your body finally figures out it ain't getting any more freebies to fill in that link, and it needs to start producing its own link again. Three whole days, yeah, it takes that long for my stupid lazy liberal no account brain to figure that out!!! Why can't there be better communication between my conscious mind and the goofballs who keep falling asleep at the switch inside my brain!! WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS, AND DO YOUR JOBS!!!!! Do I need to whack myself over the head with a frying pan to get your attention?!! Oh, sure, you'd like that, wouldn't you?!!! Boy, am I pissed!!! it's been a few hours since my last smoke... I deserve a break.

The Col: Yup. I'd agree that's part of what makes it hardest. The triggers. My favorite was after eating.
I'm still amazed I don't smoke anymore. I TRULY loved it.

Driving was hard too. I chain smoked when driving. On "regular trips" I always knew right where I would have to be passing for the best time to light the last one, so that I'd be done with it right when arriving. LOL

rod03801: Smoking is apparently harder to quit than heroin. I'm not an "addictive personality" generally, but triggers such as coffee,reading,being online, driving, alcohol(though I drink very rarely) cause me to automatically reach for a cig.

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.

The Col: I smoked longer than I should have. LOL. Started on a bet. (I thought people "addicted" to cigarettes were making it up)

And just because you smoke twice as much, it really doesn't give you a lot of grounds to discount the hard time anyone who smoked less had in quitting.

I can promise you I did not have an easy time. And if I hadn't had the month long hospital stay, I probably would have failed this time too. (Or 3 years later I'd still be buying that damn patch)

I enjoyed the patch though! Gave me VERY vivid amazing dreams! (Some people hate that part, but I LOVED it)

I mostly decided to quit the last time, because the cost had gone up again, and I was sick of spending all that money on something so awful. I miss it. I enjoy the smell. I'm not bothered being around smokers. (I enjoy the smell of the smoke and the cig.. A dirty ashtray or old smashed out butts gross me out though)

And I was sick of being banished outdoors in the Winter to puff. LOL

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.