BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> GØD as the Universal Wrapper--Introducing Epitheism and the TOE, --GØD and all the Sciences, including psychology and pneumatology
Lindsay
post Nov 24, 2006, 09:18 AM
Post #1


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



GØD as the universal WRAPPER
=====================
[Take note of the spelling: GØD. In my signature, it remains constant. However, my 'puter, every now and then, changes it in my posts. Does anyone know why this happens? BTW, I use this special spelling to make the point that I am not referring to a god who is a personal being with a male gender. As Nicola Tesla--a great scientist, who was not a physicalist, said, "God has no properties."]

Here, I will replace the , wth a ? :Epitheism. NB: I consider epitheism to be complementary to unitheism. The physical universe is the body of G?D--the manifestation, the physical unit of G?D. My personal body is a cell of G?D. I have my personal "wrapper" (my spirit, my pneuma). Each cell of my body also has its own wrapper.

The idea came to me as a result of my hearing a program about the latest research, in epigenetics. I heard about it on the CBC last Tuesday (Nov. 21, 2006)--the CBC is the Canadian version of PBS.

BTW, do we have any experts in epigenetics reading this post? In addition to what I learned from the CBC program, the following gave me more information.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/sfg...enetics.dtl#gen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
At Process.org, I discuss epitheism with Soma
http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/v...php?p=1538#1538
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Nov 24, 2006, 11:37 AM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Most biologists understand that the simple transcription/translation of a long string of DNA is not how it works. Here is a great article illustrating the "multiple answers" approach that we take nowadays:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/gregory.html

(ps the article does not explain everything biggrin.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 24, 2006, 03:38 PM
Post #3


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



HH, how come the article you mentioned by, T. Ryan Gregory, Ph.D., who is assistant professor in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, is filled with so much scientific jargon?

Is there anyone who is capable of putting the concepts presented by Dr. Gregory into understandable journalize?

Interestingly, my granddaughter, Neda (18), registered in the science department of the U of G, just this past September. Maybe, when she graduates, I can get some help from her.




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Nov 24, 2006, 05:44 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 24, 2006, 11:38 PM) *

..... is filled with so much scientific jargon?

Science has been around widely for quite some time now, so more than a small number of people understand the language and terms used. Notwithstanding that, the principle holds, of learning a little French vocabulary to truly understand the French! Personally, I think that the article was very well written (by a rising star?) but the area is very complex and spans a great number of biological elements that need to be understood in order to fully grasp the intended hypothesis (more substantial than that actually, but maybe not quite a theory). In essence it supports the notion that the genotype is much more than simply the sequence of genes that are expressed; it is the sequence and the expression mechanisms, the latter being a diverse range of mechanisms that play roles at different times and under different circumstances. This is includes the mechanisms involved during epigenetic inheritance.

For jargon, see (biggrin.gif):
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 24, 2006, 11:38 PM) *

GØD IS OUR WRAPPER
Epitheism. NB: I consider epitheism to be complementary to unitheism. The physical universe is the body of GØD--the manifestation, the physical unit of GØD. My personal body is a cell of GØD. I have my personal "wrapper" (my spirit, my pneuma). Each cell of my body also has its own wrapper.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 24, 2006, 08:32 PM
Post #5


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



For jargon, see (biggrin.gif):
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 24, 2006, 11:38 PM) *

GØD IS OUR WRAPPER
Epitheism. NB: I consider epitheism to be complementary to unitheism. The physical universe is the body of GØD--the manifestation, the physical unit of GØD. My personal body is a cell of GØD. I have my personal "wrapper" (my spirit, my pneuma). Each cell of my body also has its own wrapper.

Jargon explained:

GØD, is the epi of all that is. That is, GØD is the over all--the center and/or circumference of all that is--the central and over-all mystery. GØD has a body. It is the same thing as the physical and mysterious universe, which I experience with my five senses. My body, like yours, originates from, and exists within, this mysterious universe, the body of GØD, which is the 'no set' Ø--the math symbol for "set without numbers", and 'all sets'--at one and the same time, more mystery.

Beyond the body of GØD there is a mysterious, GØD-like wrapper, which holds all that is together. Meanwhile, individual things and beings--each with their own GØD-like and mysterious wrapper-- exist within this total mystery, GØD.

Mysteries, unlike jargon, cannot be explained. Otherwise, they would not be mysteries. However, they can be experienced, if we choose to experience them. Whether or not we choose to experience the mysteries of Ø is up to us. I choose....Which is another way of saying, I believe....
==================
Now, please explain: Fifty years ago, we learned that the total amount of DNA contained within a eukaryotic genome is independent of the complexity of the organism in which it is found. (Eukaryotes are all organisms whose cells contain nuclei and organelles.)

What is a "eukaryotic genome"? What are "eukaryotes" and "organelles"?
Or, are they mysteries? This jargon is driving me nuts!!! smile.gif

BTW, do nuts (the Greek for nut is 'karyon') grow without trees? Do organs grow independent from bodies?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Nov 24, 2006, 11:28 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



So, how does GØD think? I mean, can GØD hold one thought at a time? or would that be too over-simplistic for GØD? Does GØD think a trillion gazillion thoughts all at one time? or one at at time? And what is GØD thinking right now? Not when you read this, but right now? Did GØD already think that thought when you read this?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Culture
post Nov 24, 2006, 11:52 PM
Post #7


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 24, 2006, 09:18 AM) *

GØD IS OUR WRAPPER
Epitheism. NB: I consider epitheism to be complementary to unitheism. The physical universe is the body of GØD--the manifestation, the physical unit of GØD. My personal body is a cell of GØD. I have my personal "wrapper" (my spirit, my pneuma). Each cell of my body also has its own wrapper.

The idea came to me as a result of my hearing a program about the latest research, in epigenetics. I heard about it on the CBC last Tuesday (Nov. 21, 2006)--the CBC is the Canadian version of PBS.

BTW, do we have any experts in epigenetics reading this post? In addition to what I learned from the CBC program, the following gave me more information.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/sfg...enetics.dtl#gen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
At Process.org, I discuss epitheism with Soma
http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/v...php?p=1538#1538


The heading to this thread reads "A Theory of GØD based on the String Theory and Epigenetics"

Lindsay could you please point out how this post brings has anything to do with god and the string theory?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 25, 2006, 11:02 AM
Post #8


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Nov 24, 2006, 11:37 AM) *

"multiple answers" (I am glad to note this open-minded) approach that we take nowadays:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/gregory.html

(ps the article does not explain everything biggrin.gif)
Articlehighlights to which I (LGK) have added, in colour, my humble attempt to mke things clear, to me. Others are free to have their own opinion as to what make it clear to them.
==============================================================
Among the most startling discoveries in the history of genomics--the study of genes and genomes--were these findings:

* Fifty years ago--in the 1950's (I was then in my 30's)--we learned that the total amount of DNA--that is, the substances (carbon, hydrogen,oxygen) of which most genes are made, are chiefly responsible for making genes what they are--contained within a eukaryotic--that is, within a happy nut-like genome...genetic mass is independent of the complexity of the organism in which it is found. (Eukaryotes (happy nuts) are all organisms whose cells contain nuclei... that is, central masses of cells within the skin, or natural covering, of the immature egg (ovum) and organelles (minute parts within cells which act like organs within higher animals). Imagine that: Cells having organs just like other bodies.

* Five years ago, we learned that gene number and organismal complexity are likewise largely disconnected. Really? What about that mysterious skin, or natural covering mentioned above? Is it just sitting there and doing nothing?
About one of the authors: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/cohn/staff/eva-jablonka.htm


* Both of the above findings are intriguing puzzles, not paradoxes, which when resolved will lead to improved understanding of the form, function, and evolution of genomes. May I add: In trying to solve the puzzles, if researchers do not already have this in their game plan, that the pay close attention to that mysterious skin, or natural covering, and how it affects its contents.
=================================
See the concepts referred to in the recent book, EVOLUTION IN FOUR DIMENSIONS
BTW, Jablonka and Lamb write about evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology) (Hardcover)
by Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb "The content and format of this book are a little unusual, so we want to begin by explaining what it is about and how it..."

Jablonka, Lamb, and other epigeneticists, make the point that our genetic structure is important but it is not fixed from conception, or birth. Our chromosomes and genes are very mallable. Our nature (physical, mental and spiritual)--the package we brought with us at birth, can be dramatically changed by the way we are nurtured by family, the community, including our religion, the way we conceive of gods/God, and society at large.

I will add: They are also affected by our pneumature--the pneumatiological factor. That is, how we choose to be affected by our nature and nurture, and those we allow to mold us.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Nov 25, 2006, 11:10 AM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4048
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
Mysteries, unlike jargon, cannot be explained. Otherwise, they would not be mysteries. However, they can be experienced, if we choose to experience them. Whether or not we choose to experience the mysteries of Ø is up to us. I choose....Which is another way of saying, I believe....

Beliefs are filters of perception. perception either being filtered through belief or filtered through impressions of the source universe and its potential creates the Body of God or GØD G'D or Yahweh or any other interpretation you wish to put on the absolute to bring it into a form that suits the need of the intellect so that it can establish both the presence of ones self and that which creates the self.

The need to identify God in terms relative to ones self is the only way to establish a sense of purpose and to fulfiill ones sense of being. By looking outward at the images rather than inward beyond all images God becomes Iconic.
In the case of the ego, belief is the choice to attach awareness to meanings relative to ones own purpose and worth. Points of reference are in self created systems of measure, opinions of self and stored memories which build a foundation of belief and surreal castles to house ones own image(s).

A person of conviction gets a rush from hearing themselves speak of their own experiences and relative relationship with their God/GØD/G'D. The ego which is attached to sensory perception resonates with the experiences of putting attention on projections of God, rather than God itself. This is so because it preserves the identity of the collector of images.

This is what is or has been described as the eating of the fruit of the Tree of good and evil, the story of Adam and Eve.

God cannot be contained, so God cannot be condensed into an experience or an ism. The essence which is labeled as God can reflect itself in the many forms only as filtered representations of intellectual associative ideas based on individual identification. Ego creates God as image(s).
It seems to be a necessary pathway for the lesser state of consciousness to experience ones "Self" as a collection of experiences to begin to understand "Self" as much more than the castle of sand and its contents of belief.


QUOTE
Lindsay could you please point out how this post brings has anything to do with god and the string theory?


Lindsay creates these images because he is hungry for more, but his intellect can only combine what he has collected (his history of himself and his experiences) with others that are similar to his own beliefs to attempt to polish and preserve what is HIS.

Finding commonality, in landmark theories, other peoples belief systems and ones own belief system is the intellects attempt to escape age, mortality and its restrictions.
Knowledge is not enough, for every answer there arises a question. To believe in mysteries and to continue to entertain the intellect only temporarily satisfies the ego, but does not fill the heart with anything permanent. That which is born of impermanence eventually dies, all experiences created from changing ideas fade into memory and when the body dies the memories stop reflecting the images projected from filters of perception.
God did not arise from belief, but beliefs continue to create images of that which is not an image.

I think this topic was not started because of the Knowledge of the String Theory but because Lindsay is reaching out to find commonality in his GØD, with what he used to call G'D, and before that God, and with the other changing images and perceptions as they fade from his grasp.
Because God changes in the imaginings of his own mind he must necessarily seek to find himself in others and their thoughts to fill the time, before time runs out.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 25, 2006, 11:20 AM
Post #10


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



CB asks:
QUOTE
So, how does GØD think? I mean, can GØD hold one thought at a time? or would that be too over-simplistic for GØD? Does GØD think a trillion gazillion thoughts all at one time? or one at at time? And what is GØD thinking right now? Not when you read this, but right now? Did GØD already think that thought when you read this?
CB, Your questions will only be meaningful to traditional theists and deists. Perhaps they are also useful for atheists who love to taunt theists and deists.

As a unitheist/epitheist, they have no meaning for me. For me, GØD is wrapped up in the process of all that is, and so are we all. Can anyone avoid the process of being by act of will?
BTW, I note that you did not put your basic philosophy/theology in your profile, yet. How come?

ABOUT PROCESS PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY, check out:
http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/v...php?p=1538#1538
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Culture
post Nov 25, 2006, 11:36 AM
Post #11


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 25, 2006, 11:10 AM) *

I think this topic was not started because of the Knowledge of the String Theory but because Lindsay is reaching out to find commonality in his GØD, with what he used to call G'D, and before that God, and with the other changing images and perceptions as they fade from his grasp.
Because God changes in the imaginings of his own mind he must necessarily seek to find himself in others and their thoughts before time runs out.



Excellent post. You provide some insightful psychological analysis on god(s) or at least mankinds ego interpretation or projection of god. I think people believe in god for the same reason people believe in conspiracy theories. They want to feel like their are apart of something that's greater than them or out of their hands. It enables individuals to make excuses when something goes right and give thanks when something goes wrong, even when those excuses or praises go unheard or unanswered.

Though more people believe in God than conspiracy theories because it's considered socially acceptable.




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Nov 25, 2006, 11:37 AM
Post #12


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 25, 2006, 04:32 AM) *

Now, please explain: Fifty years ago, we learned that the total amount of DNA contained within a eukaryotic genome is independent of the complexity of the organism in which it is found.

Fifty years ago we thought that the more complex an organism the more DNA it would have. Now we know that there is no direct relationship between the amount of DNA and the complexity of an organism. By complexity I mean that a worm might be considered less complex than to an elephant.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 25, 2006, 04:32 AM) *

What is a "eukaryotic genome"? What are "eukaryotes" and "organelles"?
Or, are they mysteries? This jargon is driving me nuts!!! smile.gif

Stop calling this jargon. The terms are well founded and widely used scientific terms that crop up in early secondary school nowadays.

The term "eukaryote" relates to one of the two major types of cells that make up living organisms. "Prokaryotic" cells are relatively simple cells that contain no membrane-bound organelles. Examples are the bacteria (such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella enteritidis, Bacillus anthracis). Eukaryotic cells are more complex, having a nucleus in which highly folded DNA is kept, and several different kinds of membrane-bound organelles. Both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells have organelles that are not membrane-bound, for example the ribosomes, that are concerned with protein synthesis. Prokaryotic cells tend to be smaller than eukaryotic cells; an order of magnitude difference is good to keep in mind, but there are many exceptions. An E. coli bacterium is about 1 micrometre long. It is generally believed and evidenced that prokaryotic cells preceded the eukaryotic cells in evolutionary terms, and that eukaryotic cells developed from prokaryotic cells by the latter associating together in a process called endosymbiosis.

Organelles are tiny subcellular "machines" that have functions in the cells such as energy production (mitochondria), photosynthesis (chloroplasts), molecular modification and transport (endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, lysosomes).

Our own bodies are made up of eukaryotic cells (although in our gut alone we have more symbiotic bacterial cells than total human cells), that make up tissues, that make up organs. Of the five major Kingdoms of organisms (Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protists, Monera), only the Monera are prokaryotes. Life on Earth is dominated by Monera.

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 25, 2006, 04:32 AM) *

BTW, do nuts (the Greek for nut is 'karyon') grow without trees? Do organs grow independent from bodies?

Yes, in the lab we can now grow nuts without there having been a tree, and we can maintain organs separately from the body. There is research that is leading towards the generation of tissues and organs independently of any body, although the cells that make up these were originally derived from a body.

I recommend the web resource below as an introductory guide to biology. It is not very up to date, but is an excellent starting point.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabe...BioBookTOC.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 25, 2006, 03:19 PM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Thanks for your patience HH, and for taking the time to teach me a bit about biology. Now, as you demonstrate, I know that this is one of your interests. How deep are you into it? Why not list it, in your profile, as one of your interests?

BTW, I presume that, by now, you have figuered out that unitheism/epitheism is a rational approach to theology which respects valid science without making science a god.

For me, there are no gods, or God, in the attic, or demons in the basement. GØD is part of all processes. If science every proves that it is infallible, I will be right there praising it as GØD.

At this point, I suspect that true, moral, ethical and loving scientists like Faraday, Planck, Einstein and host of others, see themselves as servants of GØD, and humanity, not as gods. Or, have I got that wrong?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Nov 25, 2006, 03:39 PM
Post #14


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 25, 2006, 11:19 PM) *

Thanks for your patience HH, and for taking the time to teach me a bit about biology.

You're welcome. It's my job.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 25, 2006, 11:19 PM) *

At this point, I suspect that true, moral, ethical and loving scientists like Faraday, Planck, Einstein and host of others, see themselves as servants of GØD, and humanity, not as gods. Or, have I got that wrong?

They all had their faults, but what's new?

Unfortunately men make gods of men, and some mengods take advantage of this.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 25, 2006, 11:19 PM) *

BTW, I presume that, by now, you have figured out that unitheism/epitheism is a rational approach to theology which respects valid science without making science a god.

For me, there are no gods, or God, in the attic, or demons in the basement. GØD is part of all processes. If science ever proves that it is infallible, I will be right there praising it as GØD.

I think that we are very close. I just don't need GØD.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 25, 2006, 07:09 PM
Post #15


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Right on, Dinah. In John 10, Jesus made the claim that he was one with God. In John 10:34, he makes the point that we are all one with God. When, in John 17: 20 and following, he says: "That all may be one...", he makes the same point, very clearly.

BTW, HH, I forgot to mention Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, James Jeans, Jung, even Darwin, Edison, Brian Greene, Whithead, and there are others. It is possible to go beyond scientific materialism without losing ones brains.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Nov 26, 2006, 12:52 AM
Post #16


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 25, 2006, 11:20 AM) *

BTW, I note that you did not put your basic philosophy/theology in your profile, yet. How come?

I didn't know it was a requiremet here at BM, Lyndsay. I've already stated my lay man's philosophy before and you've read it and posted something in return. Didn't mean to offend you with my question, anyway. But I admit that it could have been construed as burlesque. I just find it very hard not mock at someone, anyone who bases their whole philosophy about the human experience on bonafide ancient astrology. Please forgive me. I just can't understand this weird passion that over-takes someone so, otherwise, seemingly rational, wise and knowledgeable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 26, 2006, 04:31 PM
Post #17


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



CB, believe it or not, I am not infallible.

At my age, which is 76, I have met so many wonderful people that I do not find it easy to keep specifics about them in the front of my mind. This is why I need to be reminded:

I am interested in knowing: Am I talking to the loveable so and so, who happens to be an atheist? Or, am I talking to the not-so-lovable-so-and-so who happens to be a so-called loving Christian?

Knowing which is which will help me frame the kind of response I would like to make.

BTW, at this point, I will assume that you are a loveable so-and-so. Okay? smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 26, 2006, 04:48 PM
Post #18


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



I say, let us explore what science and faith have in common. Check out:
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/scifaith.html

BTW, in my opinion, science and faith are compatible.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Nov 26, 2006, 07:10 PM
Post #19


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4048
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
I am interested in knowing: Am I talking to the loveable so and so, who happens to be an atheist? Or, am I talking to the not-so-lovable-so-and-so who happens to be a so-called loving Christian?

So much for being objective and giving unconditionally. If you prepare yourself according to your previous impressions it would really be difficult to meet anyone where they are at in the moment. You would be meeting everyone where you are at, taking all your preconceived ideas and prjudices with you.
In 76 years you have developed a sense of judgment rather than intuition.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 26, 2006, 07:58 PM
Post #20


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 26, 2006, 07:10 PM) *
....In 76 years you have developed a sense of judgment rather than intuition.
Is this YOUR judgment? Yes, or no?

BTW, I make no pretense of being totally objective. I am not perfect, yet. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Nov 26, 2006, 08:35 PM
Post #21


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4048
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
Is this YOUR judgment? I make no pretense of being totally objective.

Just call me master of the obvious...You did ask me once to Teach you something new, but then you resist everything that is obvious and not what you want to see. It would make sense, to be cognitive of what you ignore, is to learn something new.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Nov 26, 2006, 09:25 PM
Post #22


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 26, 2006, 04:48 PM) *

BTW, in my opinion, science and faith are compatible.

They are both products of the brain. It could be possible that they only exist because consciousness exists. And the human brain is a binary contraption. So, yes, I agree with that.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 26, 2006, 04:31 PM) *

I am interested in knowing: Am I talking to the loveable so and so, who happens to be an atheist? Or, am I talking to the not-so-lovable-so-and-so who happens to be a so-called loving Christian?

Call me what you want. Just not gullible and ignorant, A.K.A. Christian, Muslim, Jewish (the faith, not the people), or delusional. I'm also loveable as a Chihuahua puppy, but only to the meek and non-pretentious. I keep it simple and I'll say this one more time, quoting Rick here: If and when in doubt " I use Reason, and Love to guide it".
And here is my answer to your question, taken from another threat:
QUOTE(code buttons @ Nov 26, 2006, 01:51 AM) *

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 15, 2006, 08:35 PM) *

Do you really believe that your existence, and mine, is a temporary anomily, an accidental blip, in the story of evolution; that all human consciousness will cease with the death of the body of the last human being?

I believe fate is what we make of it, Lindsay. The here and the now belongs to us. And that's an awesome responsability. It's all up to us and no one else. No god, God, GOD or however you want to call it is watching after us. But don't feel bad. This way, should we f**k it all up, there'll be no one else to blame but us!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 26, 2006, 09:33 PM
Post #23


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



CB are these your words?
QUOTE
...it might just be possible that the poets will approach or surpass as good an explanation as can ever be found.
If so, I quite agree.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 26, 2006, 09:47 PM
Post #24


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(code buttons @ Nov 26, 2006, 09:25 PM) *

...I believe fate is what we make of it, Lindsay. The here and the now belongs to us. And that's an awesome responsability. It's all up to us and no one else. No god, God, GOD or however you want to call it is watching after us. But don't feel bad. This way, should we f**k it all up, there'll be no one else to blame but us!
I see nothing but congruency here. I have a short way of symbolizing this: GØD. You say that you do not need GØD. Please yourself, but as for me if, as Dianah writes "God is all that is", then I need God/GØD in the same way that I need existence. Without existence, GØD, there would be no me, or you, What a loss that would be!!!!! smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Nov 26, 2006, 10:23 PM
Post #25


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4048
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
"God is all that is", then I need God/GØD in the same way that I need existence.

Need is relative to feeling separate. Once you realize God within need is not an issue. There is no needing to be something when you are, only when you aren't.
QUOTE
Without existence, GØD, there would be no me, or you, What a loss that would be!!!!!

There is no loss when illusions of loss and gain don't exist. You really can go beyond manipulation of feelings and running from fear when you know God, rather than projecting your best guess from foundations that are built on shaky (subjective) ground.
It would appear that what you perceive as congruent is in ignoring Truth in experience of objectivity and accepting truth based on a the manipulation of changing subjective experiences.

24. Mariam said to Jesus: "Whom do your disciples resemble?" He said to her: "They resemble small children who are dwelling in a field which is not theirs. When the Lords of the field come and say, "Give our field back to us." They will strip naked before them to give it back to them, and give their field to them."- from the gospel of Thomas
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Nov 26, 2006, 11:14 PM
Post #26


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 26, 2006, 09:33 PM) *

CB are these your words?
QUOTE
...it might just be possible that the poets will approach or surpass as good an explanation as can ever be found.
If so, I quite agree.

No, they are not. I'm quoting Rick Wagner's visionary statement from an old post he put up somewhere in 2004. I decided to use it as an my signature because I find it to be a true statement in it's purest forms. It talks to me more directly than a life-time's worth of knowledge ever could. And it brought comfort to my heart when I read it for the first time, because immediately it confirmed in my mind what I already suspected: That maybe there is a chance that this insicnificant little nothing that is me has somehow found a way to be something of much more relevance than anyone could have ever concieved. something of a miracle, in your adaptive vocabulary. And I'm speaking in plural when I say 'me', of course.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Nov 26, 2006, 11:31 PM
Post #27


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 26, 2006, 09:47 PM) *

QUOTE(code buttons @ Nov 26, 2006, 09:25 PM) *

...I believe fate is what we make of it, Lindsay. The here and the now belongs to us. And that's an awesome responsability. It's all up to us and no one else. No god, God, GOD or however you want to call it is watching after us. But don't feel bad. This way, should we f**k it all up, there'll be no one else to blame but us!
I see nothing but congruency here. I have a short way of symbolizing this: GØD. You say that you do not need GØD. Please yourself, but as for me if, as Dianah writes "God is all that is", then I need God/GØD in the same way that I need existence. Without existence, GØD, there would be no me, or you, What a loss that would be!!!!! smile.gif

How can there be a loss when there was no way to know what a loss was if God never existed? We are here and now. That's all that matters!!! If we were not here and now, how can you weigh that as a loss when there woudn'd be anything to weigh the concept against? Does a rock know that it's missing out on so much fun if it were the Queen of England, for example? A loss is only a loss if it's pegged againts a gain. So, what a gain this is, then? Had I given the choice, I would not rather be here. And chosen not to ever exist. That way I wouldn't feel so much responsability over my shoulders about what is it exactly that awaits for us out there in the future. But now I have the power to chose, bacause I got no alternative. So, I'll do my best to chose wisely.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 27, 2006, 06:29 AM
Post #28


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



CB
QUOTE
...Had I (been) given the choice, I would not rather be here. And chosen not to ever exist. That way I wouldn't feel so much responsability over my shoulders about what is it exactly that awaits for us out there in the future. But now I have the power to chose, bacause I got no alternative. So, I'll do my best to chose wisely.
Do I take it from what you write here that you regret that you are a conscious being; that you resent being responsible for things and that you fear the future?

Clarify this for me, if I misunderstand what you wrote.

Speaking only for me:
I have the feeling that I, perhaps unconsciously, chose to be a conscious being. Though, as a child, I faced almost third-world conditions of poverty, somehow I knew that I was in control and that I could make things better than they were, at least for me. I couldn't wait to get an education and do something about what was going on around me. I used my power to make conscious choices and thus help make things happen for the better. Being raised to believe in a higher power, I began, consciously, working with that over-all power I now call GØD.

As it happened, despite the occasional bump or two, life developed pretty much according to my choices. Life has been, and still is, a happy adventure.

Currently, having proved things to my own satisfaction, following the principles of pneumatolgy--that is, the study of the spirit of humanity and GØD--I am working on ways to demonstrate how, for better or worse, we are ALL, with or without GØD, collectively creating the future--the eternal NOW.
I find that it is much it is much easier with GØD than without. smile.gif



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Nov 27, 2006, 06:45 AM
Post #29


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 27, 2006, 06:29 AM) *

CB
QUOTE
...Had I (been) given the choice, I would not rather be here. And chosen not to ever exist. That way I wouldn't feel so much responsability over my shoulders about what is it exactly that awaits for us out there in the future. But now I have the power to chose, bacause I got no alternative. So, I'll do my best to chose wisely.
Do I take it from what you write here that you regret that you are a conscious being; that you resent being responsible for things and that you fear the future?
Clarify this for me, if I misunderstand what you wrote.

I am ecstatic in awe at the chance of being here and now. I am the happiest man alive for this reason. And I cannot believe my luck. I don't know what I did to deserve this, but I don't dwell too much on it, because I realize that it is also a huge responsability, because I realize the times which I live in: A critical time in history where the fate of humanity lies in the balance here and now, Lindsay. So, to answer your question: I may have mislead you with my wording on the previous post.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Nov 27, 2006, 12:18 PM
Post #30


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



CB, you said nothing about whether or not you resent having to take personal responsibility for things, or about your fear of the future. Does this still hold true?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th May 2017 - 04:53 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles