This quote has had me pondering the many implications surrounding it, what do you think of it?


There are no facts, only interpretations.

-Friedrich Nietzsche


Some of the things that come to mind right away are questioning how we create rules surrounding reality. Does gravity really exist or do we interpret events as evidence supporting a theory?

Newton had an apple fall to the ground and asked why? but I ask, why not?

Perhaps this is the greatest problem perplexing the scientific method. It relies on the interpretation of results as either for or against a hypothesis. Let's think outside the box for a minute, shall we? What if gravity is not real? What if instead of having something which pulls objects down, there is a force which causes them to float, and on earth this force is absent. Is it not possible to create a hypothesis around this idea and then use some of the same evidence in support of gravity as evidence in support of something the exact opposite? I am not saying it would be something that could be proven, but still - it makes you wonder.

What do we really know? and what do we just think we know? Perhaps that is true defining factor of a wise man, the wise man is constantly learning how little he knows and the fool is constantly thinking on how little there is left to learn.

At the very least I think it is good to ask these questions once in a while to stimulate the mind and think outside the mental barriers that get built up overtime.

Think of it this way, when the Greek's believed everything was comprised of elements, they used the same phenomenon that we use to prove their theories. They interpreted what was happening as proof of their beliefs, just as we interpret phenomenon as proof of our theories. I am not saying science is always wrong, what I am saying, is that sometimes I think people get too absorbed in believing something must be 'right' or eternally true. The very thing science is against is dogmatic beliefs, yet, sometimes this is the very thing that happens. People learn to believe a certain thing about reality, it gives them comfort in having a firm grip on reality - but when those theories change, people resist that change because it puts them outside their comfort zone.

You have to step outside the box once in a while and remember...

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

-Albert Einstein

This quote is seriously over-exaggerating it....
Sure there are facts, thats how we got all the technology and medicine and psychology and so on... and logic and math.

logic and math are not facts. We have very practical and possibly close guesses, but no fact IMO.

It is always a good think to stimulate the act of thinking in people!

One fact stands out, however, and that is that there is a major difference between beliefs and facts.

Realities and Truths are very well worth realisation for everyone (if they can cope with them), unless they want to live what is effectively a false life.

Beliefs do serve a purpose, but should not be a yardstick to judge other peoples beliefs nor serve as principles for behaviour (unless they are laid down in human laws or agreed by all other people in the community).
This my opinion in fact.

But isnt the very definition of a belief - something that someone believes to be factual?

Exactly Max! How many things have we been taught without any real experience of the reality - Speed of sound/light, size of the Earth, boiling points of elements, poisonous substances, E=MC sqrd. The list of 'facts' we've recorded as truth are probably immeasurable. I know I've boiled water in science to prove water boils at (almost) 100 celsius. But is this enough to believe everything you read at school? I remember some glaring inconsistencies in the old textbooks on ancient civilisations. The education system is teaching outdated and wrong information simply because of the delivery methods.

I can see how all this science and technological progress seems like we've got our formulae bang on, but it doesn't mean we've discovered the ultimate truth to our situations. We just found a model that works for our current needs, one which will need revising whenever we change the level that we're working on (micro/macro). Considering everything humanity does is interpretation, I agree with your original post Max.

I think I can demonstrate the point I was trying to make about the difference between facts and beliefs.
I know I am at this instant typing type about tripe.
I did not believe I was typing type tripe - I know was, because that was a fact. (ok., I know you may tange off about the belief that I may in reality not be typing at all. But I use the words to mean what man described them, through language, to mean).

Is it a fact that the national debt of the USA increased by a trillion dollars under president W. Bush? It either is a fact or it is not. I think it's true and factual. Come on, people, how some courage of your convictions.

If Nietzsche said "There are no facts, only interpretations," then I say "is that a fact?"

hehe. I am convinced about a lot of things I have been taught - dont put your hand in lava being an example of my faith in my beliefs.

Good question. So then, is our universe and rules around it created by a system of beliefs?

I remember reading about how peoples perceptions change based off of their beliefs. One group of isolated tribesmen believed that the universe ended beyond a river. When the researchers went across the river and waved at the tribesmen - the tribesmen were unable to physically see the researchers in plain view. They literately said they do not see anything.

So then, Rick, if you believe something exists and your mind distorts reality to make it exist - is there really such a thing as an objective reality? If so, who has seen it?

It is a fact on epistemic grounds. Of course if you define a fact in some unrealistic way then it follows that there are no facts.

One is insane to the extent that one's "mind distorts reality" to fit one's beliefs. One would hope that fully sane people would believe and behave rationally. There really is such a thing as objective reality. Kick a large rock sometime and tell me if it hurts.

Have you never felt pain in a dream? Or had a nightmare you thought was real? What about feeling real pain or pleasure from an imagined experience.

Not to mention through hypnosis you can cause someone to experience the pain of kicking a rock, without having them kick it. Also, what if what you consider to be yellow, looks green to someone else? You may both call it the same name but be looking at different colors and would be none the wiser.

Furthermore I could take something which is not painful and create the sensation of pain through behavioral therapy. Or I could deactivate or dampen the pain sensitivity of the brain to remove the sensation of pain when preforming the act of kicking a rock.

Seems to me you are still lacking proof of an objective reality.

The existence of dreams and illusions doesn't nullify objective reality any more than a liar nullifies truth. That a tea pot might be in orbit around Mars doesn't mean that the photographs from the surface of Mars aren't of real objective rocks.

Einstein said one can never win an argument with a solipsist, so I won't attempt a proof of the existence of objective reality.

Maybe I will. Here goes:

Human beings frequently undergo reality testing behavior. That is, when a person begins to think that things aren't making sense, he attempts to obtain corroborating evidence. A false sensation or belief induced by a hypnotist or charlatan might fool some for a while, but day after day, a sane person will chip away at the false belief and expose objective reality, given enough time and incentive.

That reality testing exists in humans implies that it has survival value. By the definition of evolution by natural selection, then reality testing is effective. If there were no objective reality, that would not be the case. QED.

What I am getting at is why couldn't reality be a computer simulation and your brain is simply being sent sensory stimuli via electrical signals?

And not only that, but the brain does not distinguish the difference between real and imagined experiences on a neurological level.

Furthermore what if this is some sort of dream like existence of a singular consciousness and we are all simply branches of a single consciousness. Also, what about religious people Rick? They have no evidence of their beliefs yet they seem quite adamant in what they believe.

If reality gives way to sane people, who gets to decide who is sane and who is not? Who decides what reality is objective and what is not? If many people agree on something, does that make it correct?

You are trying to use the fact that many people believe a rock exists as evidence that the rock really does exist. However many people believe god exists, yet you do not believe in a gods existence. That seems to me like selectively accepting evidence for one thing but denying it for the other.

If two people disagree on the existence of something, which one is correct and why? If two people are looking at a lake and one see's a boat and the other does not - is one person hallucinating the appearance of the boat or is the other person hallucinating the disappearance of the boat - or neither?

What about the implications of a ten dimensional universe and having multiple things co-existing within the same space. How then do you formulate a objective reality in a world where more than one thing can exist at the same time while taking up the same space.

The problem lies in defining objective reality rick. You say it exists, but you cannot feel, taste, touch, hear or smell it. If all of reality is based off of the interpretations of those 5 senses and you are unable to perceive it using any senses, whether inherent in your own DNA or an external form of sensory feedback - how can you be sure something exists if you cannot perceive it in any way shape or form?

Lastly,

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one"

-Albert Einstein

Because of the principle of Occam's Razor: the simpler theory is the better one. Supposing the world is simulated raises more questions than it answers.

Regarding (unfounded) religious beliefs, to the extent that these interfere with happiness (of the believer or those affected by him), they are harmful and ought to be challenged. That they are so common speaks more about the non-optimality of the human brain in the current state of evolution than about any absence of an objective physical world.

Occam's Razor is only supposed to be applied where there are two theories with equal amounts of evidence, then it is said that the simplest theory shall be taken as the correct one. You say the objective reality is a simple theory, but if you ask me it isnt simple at all.

There is no concrete way of observing the so called objective reality, which seems to me to be lacking in evidence. I could come up with a theory of gravitation that says "an invisible force pulls down objects" and call that the theory of invisible down pulling force.

However, just because that theory is simpler than Einsteins theory of General Relativity, does not mean that it will be accepted as correct. A theory should be as simple as necessary, not simpler. You cannot simply apply Occam's razor and say the simplest theory is automatically the correct one, there is most certainly a lot more factors that need to be weighed in than just simplicity.

Furthermore, simplicity is a judgment made by people and therefore a variable, meaning what is simple to one is complex to the other. And thus, Occam's Razor is not the end all or be all.

If this a computer simulation then it does not raise any questions. It is a simple explanation that this is a program created by some intelligent life form. We have already created intelligent beings using computer programs, while their intelligence may be limited, it is not such a stretch of the imagination to suppose that one day it may be possible for us to do such things. Interestingly enough this would also mean that their exists a god or creator.

By 2010 we should have an artificial intelligence program which is as complex as the human mind. Imagine what would be possible 600 years from now when computational power is in the stratosphere.

Also what if this were a game. People would have their memories temporarily wiped to be induced into a different world, set at some point in the past - such as now. Then they would live out a life, which may seem like a lifetime to them but in reality may only be a short while.

It would essence fulfill the human desire of escapism, it would work like a virtual vacation. I am not saying that this is the only possibility, but it certainly is worth considering. Imagine this, if the world really is a computer program, then perhaps we could hack it? It may not be the same type of computer program we know, but perhaps something that fits in with chemistry and physics, like how the string theory seeks to explain the universe as made of strings - then perhaps those strings are like programming language to us.

Suppose this really is a computer simulation. Then someday we may have (simulated) computers powerful enough to do our own simulation of a universe. We could watch those sims arguing about whether or not they were in a simulation. Then someday (in sim-time) our sims could create powerful enough computers to create their own simulated universes, and so on, ad infinitum.

This infinite regress goes in both directions (up thorough our simulators) and down (through our simulees). That's an infinitely complex hypothesis.

I wonder if it's worth my time to wonder about it. I think a simpler theory (the world is real) is a better one.

Not to mention a simple fact that a simulation would not have any REAL causality and this make a real simulated reality impossible. It would just be a fantasy of a computer.

You can't use the word 'REAL' whilst discussing the prospect of a fractal simulated world. Anything within the simulation would be using the simulated rules, and that would be real. Also, I think we've almost discarded the concept of real Strangely, whilst typing and reading the word 'real' so many times, its meaning disintegrated lol. Isn't it funny when that happens.

Max has a point Rick. Its the only theory that Dawkins or anyone else could not disprove. Its also a perfect manifestation of a fractal recursive pattern, infinite in both directions, and its something I actually believe from my own observations of the 'real' world. However I don't think it works thinking about it as a simulation, it would simply be life on all levels in all permutations and configurations. So I disagree with you on that Rick, the percieved complexity is actually mathematically simple. All fractals begin with simple mathematical instructions.

This is a self-promoting theory

Believing and or knowing the world is simply an illusion is one thing, letting it become a fixation and ultimately depressing is another. My reality is created right here in my head, your reality is created in yours. The actual reality is like super-High Definition compared to our measely biological sensors. But we seem to be doing ok with them so far.

It has real practical application. In the case of cosmological theory, it's easy to show that Occam's Razor is correct. Occam's Razor is used to select the Copernican theory (sun centric) over the Ptolemaic theory (earth centric). The Copernican theory is better because it can be used to calculate spacecraft orbits and do space navigation. That's extremely cumbersome to do with the Ptolemaic theory. So simpler really is better.

I already told you that Occams Razor does not work in all situations. Evidence takes priority over simplicity.

Complexity is a matter of perception Rick. Maybe simulation is not the best word, but it is theoretically possible that this universe was the result of conscious thought. Furthermore if you do not believe that the world existing within another world hypothesis is correct, then what will happen when we are capable of making our own realities to the level where they cannot be distinguished from this reality? Then, in knowing people can create realities, how can you be sure you are not in one right now?

Also and I really want you to think hard about this one, what is real?

Isn't simplicity relative?
Lets say you are able to grasp the reality of all forms of relative creativity. Simplicity may be beyond the comprehension of someone who is incapable of comprehending silverware and its mechanical function.
As such the sages of the past have always espoused the fact that someone who bases their ideology on their own relative interpretations of fact and experience do not always set their beliefs down long enough to open themselves to a different experience. More than often there is an open challenge to anyone and this includes God, to come and show them something different than their own experience to show them that something other exists.
Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist, science can only by their methods state that God doesn't exist within the boundaries of scientific evidence. This is not proof, rather it is a statement of fact pertaining to a system of relative measure.
The obvious reality that science is always expanding beyond its own limits of definition and boundaries would lead us to make an assumption that as quick as our new home desktop computers become obsolete in the face of expanding technological advances that scientific definition and boundaries cannot be absolute.
In its own simplicity the absolute of One Truth being a constant would be the simplest idea within the complex nature of realities. Tho the word absolute has its relative implications it can serve as a focal point to relevant association in Uniting all ideas, concepts and creative impulse that all relative experience is born and surrendered to in the birth and death, that is evolution and change.

I challenge them to nibble a few special mushrooms, then the veil will be lifted No need to retaliate, just having literary fun!

Something from nothing, thats the underlying problem that science and religion both come across when theorising about the beginning of everything. This breaks a physical law, which is a 'fact'. If I have to believe that all this came from nothing, you can be sure that I believe the original form to be an extremely simple and fractal process. I don't really see how Occams Razor can be used to say that one idea is more complex than another, when the values we put on complexity are only relative to our human perceptions, which themselves are moulded with societal and environmental pressures.

Does it have to be simple to us before it makes sense as an answer to reality? Since the topic is 'There are no facts, only interpretations', all we're currently doing is proving it!

Proving it....
The "IT" not being so much the interpretation, but what "IT" is, that can be seen and interpreted differently in so many individual experiences.....

Rephrased then, since its so important to you:

Since the topic is 'There are no facts, only interpretations', all we're currently doing is proving the original statement correct.

The class of real things is the class of things that have the property of existence. This class is divided into two parts. The first is the physical and the second is the mental.

Physical things are characterized by mass-energy. Mental things are characterized by consciousness.

Consciousness is private, it can't be shared with others directly. However, it is the basis of knowledge. Consciousness is experienced directly.

Physical things are common to all. The physical world is inferred from experience. Different experiences sometimes lead to disagreements about the nature of the physical, but over time consensus is built.

It is because of consciousness that things are both created and perceived in their relative nature.
Consciousness is the nature of both separation of experience and union of experience.
In different relative states of conscious measure, there are experiences of consciousness relative to separation and union.
It would be correct to say that consciousness is private and cannot be shared if that is your experience, and then it would be false if you share the experience.
An example would be emotional resonance. Someone you are close to enters the room heavily absorbed in emotional thought and feeling. If you aren't self absorbed you pick up on it immediately. Relative to how observant you are or consciously awake you are the sharing of the resonant experience is close or distant.
It would seem unusual for some to think that it is possible for someone to be able to tune into another from a distance and know what they are experiencing, but from my own experience it is a reality.

We often think that we are separate and no one can know what we are thinking and experiencing but that is only relative to belief.
There are no conditions of limitation to the human experience other than those that are self imposed.
As such we do not always take the time to know anything other than skim surfaces based on the minds tendency to skim over the present and look ahead dragging memories from past experience.

Jesus once sat in front of one of his teachers as a child and as the teacher lectured him on scripture he asked the teacher if he knew the meanings of the letters in each of the words that made up the scripture.
The Teacher didn't understand what he was talking about and he then began to teach the teacher about the resonance of matter in sound as it connects to the cosmic fabric of space and time. Based on the conscious awareness of this resonance there is the ability to follow sound to its origin or beginning.
In Sanskrit the term is Samyamah, or the ability to tune into the object of perception and follow it through the steps of creation, from its latent relative experience back to the original thought.

Perception of reality is relative to the amount of filters layered onto the screen of the ego. Like any projector what you put in between the light and the screen creates an image and the image is interpreted through belief.

Max comments,
LGK: Especially for those who want to avoid the facts.



LGK: IMO, AE was using hyperbole. Knowledge, wisdom, imagination plus a rational faith, a lively hope and love at its best--that is, good will without conditions--are all important.

Say's Rick.

I agree. Rick, by consciousness, I presume you mean self-consciousness, agreed?

Self consciousness is the self aware of the self. IMO, the following words, basically, all mean the same thing: consciousness, mind, soul, spirit, even ghost--the Greek is pneuma (air, wind, breath), the Latin is spirito. The Hebrew word is ruach, and the Arabic is ruh.

Correct me, anyone.

What then do we do with animal consciousness? Animals know; but do they know that they know? To what extent are animals conscious, or spiritual, beings?

I think of animal consciousness as the psyche. It has its place. Hence psychology. My basic undergraduate work happens to be in psychology.

PNEUMATOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY
----------------------------------------------------------
It was not until 1964 that I became self-aware--that is, pneumatologically aware--that the archaic word for psychology is pneumatology--See World Book Dictionary. Google on it.
I think of human beings--thinking beings--as a complex combination of somatology, psychology and pneumatology--body, mind and spirit.

I am familiar with these experiences that resemble extra-sensory perception (ESP) or other supposed psychic phenomena. However, most instances of supposed ESP are actually cases of unconscious sensory perception. One unconsciously picks up on body language, expression, or tone, and instantly understands the other, and one actually is in emotional resonance with the other. But it's all explainable using known laws of physics. No magic is necessary to explain these things. Life itself is sufficiently magical.

No. Self consciousness is a special case of a person paying attention to himself. Most everyday conscious experience is out-ward directed. I actually mean (in my description to which you refer) pure consciousness, which is unstructured, and has no object of attention. Consciousness plus structure is thought. Pure consciousness is not describable, except by referring to experiences that others have too (we assume). Take for example a feeling of warmth. With no implied context, that feeling is pure consciousness.

There is a difference in the descriptions of unconscious awareness and conscious awareness by those who have experienced themselves the transitions of consciousness. The waking state (described in Eastern terms and Teachings of spirituality) is often lived unconsciously where we do things, think things, and feel things we are not familiar with in terms of Unity with Cosmic desire or direction. In other words most experience themselves as secondary to a greater Universe, rather than the creator of it.
What is often explained in scientific terms doesn't remain a constant in the explanation of cause and affect, and what most do is group everything into what fits, and then whatever is left over is brushed off as fantasy or illusion.
In effect known laws of physics are only known to those who play in the field of those laws. The universe is not bound by human interpretation or man made laws. It would appear by definition that the universe can be explained in the context of certain levels of understanding, but then everything becomes subject to belief.

Examples of those who live outside the box of scientific explanation are many. My wife would be one. She was diagnosed with Scleroderma a disease in which connective tissue anywhere in the body becomes hardened and rigid, which by medical standards is a disease no one recovers from and quickly leads to death. She was afflicted by the disease over 20 years ago and has very little remaining indications of ever having it in the first place.

So I have experienced that laws are often broken by greater experience than those who create laws from the lesser experience.

Actually no, what Einstein was referring to was that knowledge is limited, therefore by seeking to obtain knowledge we are limited in our potential. Imagination however, is unlimited and thus by using our imaginations we give ourselves unlimited potential in what we can achieve.



The problem with this theory is that you cannot get around the fact that your reality may be the only so called "real thing". Think of it like this, you say reality is something that multiple people experience in their own little realities, however, the truth is you are really just perceiving other people perceiving what you believe to be the same as what you are experiencing in your own reality.

In other words, you are perceiving other people who you assume are perceiving reality. Think of it like the color blue. We both have a thing we call blue, however the color blue that I know - and the color blue that you know, may very well be two completely different colors. Or at least they could be perceived as different colors.

Because you cannot escape outside of your own perception, you have no solid way of determining things from a multi perspective and thus, cannot confirm the existence of an objective reality. I believe it was Joesus who first prompted the notion that enlightenment was somehow moving beyond our own objective consciousness and entering into a different way of perceiving reality.

I will say that your explanation of reality and consciousness is very interesting. As I pointed out to you earlier Rick, the problem of your perception of reality is that you rely on consensus to determine what is real and what is not. We already discussed the dangers of consensus, why many people believe god exists, does that make them right? Many people also believed the world was flat, were they right?

Consensus offers very little proof in regards to reality. Here is why, people in general can have their beliefs heavily distorted (as is observed of born again religious people) therefore, by relying on consensus for verification of reality, which interpretation of reality that will be accepted is determined by who can make the most persuasive argument for said reality.

We do not always buy the best vacuum cleaners, but the best salesmen. If someone were persuasive enough, in strong enough authority or great enough of political skill, they could easily use this system of consensus to manipulate the agreements and perceptions of reality. Therefore, I find this system to be flawed.

Also, when you dream, I am sure you have had dreams with other people in it. So, are you sure these people are actually experiencing the same reality as you or are you simply perceiving them as agreeing with your definition of reality in order to alleviate fear that reality may not be what you have been believing?

The human mind is capable of so much distortion, how can you be sure your view of reality is the correct one relative to the theoretical objective reality?

Rick, you have lost me. I do not get your drift. Are you saying that self consciousness--the self being aware of and paying attention to the self--and what you call "pure consciousness" are two entirely different things?

If so, what is "pure" consciousness? I have never heard this expression before now.

Is there such a thing as impure (adulterated, unclean) consciousness?

THE NATURE OF SIN
BTW, I could be wrong, but I am of the opinion that what makes us human beings, and not animal beings, is our ability to be self conscious and capable of sinning--the conscious awareness of doing evil. This ability to be self conscious also make me responsible for any sinning that I do. Animals, and children before the age of, whatever, are not capable of sinning.

This is what truly spiritually-minded people mean when, for example, they confess to the sin of lying, admit it and choose to repent of it. If such sinners are sincere they will, for example, say: "I told you a lie, and I intended to do so. Please forgive me, and help me to stop lying to you."

If you get my drift.

Being spiritual is often self labeled, self measured and self regulated. In truth all things are of spirit and as such all things are spiritual. Becoming self aware of that union is when what is termed in Eastern philosophy "Right thinking" begins. The advent of self awareness allows one the opportunity to align with the unity of all things and live with the natural flow of creation in what Joseph Campbell termed as "Following your bliss" or living with the natural ability to expand the conscious awareness through conscious choices. This follow your bliss way of life is what expands consciousness permanently rather than temporarily when sensory attachments are placated by following relative happiness in duality.
Sin then has been determined to be the illusion of wrong thinking or thinking derived from separation with God or the absolute. All relative beliefs moving outward into activity create illusions of suffering when one is separate from the universe because one feels like the world comes at them rather than from them.

Lying intentionally, often consciously but without the superior morality of spiritual union doesn't make one conscious in terms of enlightened behavior. It only means that someone is making a choice from a lesser state of consciousness in the awareness of being connected to all things and the affects of choice in ones own evolution. In this case one living in Sin or separation can tell the truth with best intentions and still not release themselves from the affects of separation and suffering, that can only come from repentance or the changing of ones mind in the evolved awareness of reality. Repent means literally to change the outward experience of reality by moving the awareness from duality to union by taking the mind back to its source in all things rather than rearranging the illusions of spiritual belief.
In Religious cliques to "Sin" means acting outside of man made parameters or interpretations of righteousness according to the judgment of the Ego.

J, I do not have a clear understanding what is meant by the above. This why I set them up the way I have. The redder the colour, the more questions I have. Furthermore, I am not clear as to what your intentions are. Sometimes, I am not too clear as to my own intentions. I like to dialogue without being dogmatic so I hope this is what I intend.

Questions:
For information, only, do you mind telling us: What are your intentions?
Is the word sin strictly a theological concept?
If it is, should the word 'sin' be taboo in this forum?
If there is no God, are atheists without sin?
Atheists, do you dismiss the concept of sin?
I question most theological definitions of God. Is this a sin?
Buddhists do not believe in a god. Are they all sinners?
I have the feeling that sin is more of an attitude of thought than a wrong word, or deed.
What is the place and role of law, including the legal system, in all this?
Is there a difference between sin and evil?
God allows evil. Is God a sinner?

Jesus often said, "I and my Father are one",John 10:30
and
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.1 Corinthians 4:4
To some it would appear that he didn't have a life of his own, that he was trying to say he was God, but then when confronted by the Pharisees and accused of heresy by claiming to be God he said to them,"
"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"John 10:34
In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Patanjali (Govindra Yogindra) describes the association of relative measure in different states of consciousness.
According to the psychological and metabolic differences measured in the physiology of the human nervous system, sleeping dreaming and being awake,are each called a state of consciousness.
In both Eastern and Western Teachings of spirituality there is the notion of enlightenment, knowing of the Self, (Knower, the Known and the process of Knowing), God and mans relationship with God.
In whatever form all knowledge points toward the reality that ties or links all things together.

You Lindsey seem to like to create your own version of the word God in the word GØD to avoid any dogmatic symptoms which you have decided are real. Thus you have repeatedly followed the word with a detailed explanation of what it means to you.
If you were the one God as the Pharisees accused Jesus of labeling himself, then your word GØD could be the one and only original spelling and interpretation.

If you were to consider yourself enlightened then you would consider that you are connected with God and as such there is nothing that you do that is of yourself (separated from God), that everything you do is because, or you could say"For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord, (being connected to God in the experience of Union of all things, there is nothing you can do that would ever be separated from God regardless of any lesser judgment of ego).
Getting back to Patanjali and his teachings as understood in terms of Christianity, Jesus spoke of the Eastern philosophy of Karma and evolution,

Psalm 82

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

In the evolution of the soul he spoke of man being a child of God making decisions through free will to discover the inherent qualities of God within them. Those qualities being that there exists within the offspring of any Father the qualities of the Father which are passed onto the son (offspring) tho they may not show up until certain conditions are met.
We often recognize certain qualities of a parent in babies, eyes, mouth, nose etc. but as the child develops certain mannerisms may appear as well as the defined features that are recognized in the parent.

In the spiritual evolution of Man there exists within each the same spirit that is God, and man having free will is able to accept or reject the qualities of the parent as easily as a teenager can make the decision to follow or not follow in the footsteps of the parent.

In the case of spirituality often the rebellious teen only recognizes the parent by the surrounding conditions created by belief and experience and acceptance and rejection is made according to personal likes and dislikes rather than what the parent is and is capable of.
If the human parent is only capable of living from limited belief then the offspring may accept their own limitations as being real by example, if the parent is without limitations the offspring by example may not develop any limited beliefs in their ability to create intuitively and without fear, but there is no guarantee. Sometimes parents have children who are nothing like them and the child has nothing in common and will strike a path that is strictly their own.
The reality is, that God is not limited to any personality but is the essence of all personality and personalities.
If all personalities are by their inherent nature on a directional course to expand and grow into the inheritance that awaits them (Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.) then like children we explore the nature of ourselves and our possibilities, till we discover what is inside of us.

After that we act according to our nature.


Like all words they have their foundation in concept and application. If you use a word before a religion is developed and that word is used in a religion does the word become religious in nature?
Before dogma was simple truth and relationship of cause and effect. Man often comes together in fear and ignorance to create superstition in meaning and ideals.

Creating fences around fear does not prevent fear from lurking in its potential. One has to rise above the superstition in intelligent thinking and put fear and ignorance behind or in its place as fantasy and illusion is left behind when a child grows into greater knowledge and application of sense when becoming an adult.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it does it make a sound? One can speculate about reality or merge with it, only then does true understanding develop.

No

No, Buddhists do not deny God they just try to not isolate God into ritualistic form and function.

If you are separate from the parent then any intention even best intentions are made from a knowledge base of not knowing ones origin. If one denies their own inherited qualities because they don't recognize them then they move outward without complete understanding. This is the essence of sin, to move outward and create without the complete understanding of who we are. As such living in sin sometimes creates personal suffering as we judge ourselves and others. This product of ignorance or misunderstanding is not the parents fault because they are not making our choices for us.
In the ignorant waking state world the physical parent often influences their children with their own ignorance of their spiritual parent and as such ignorance and suffering is shared in belief, but within the child of man is the child of God and there is always the open pathway that exists to know from where we all come.
This can be intellectual or dogmatic. Spirituality is often measured in terms that are created by fathers and sons who do not know the spiritual parent (the origin of all things) and as such live in superstition and fear.

As man evolves it continues to put band-aids on surface appearances of disease and sickness until it discovers the nature of illness. Once all ignorance is removed the nature of man will be such that we live with the best interests of the one common thing that ties all together. As such no one would do anything that would eventually harm themselves.
The reality of violence is that it has the repercussions of creating suffering for those who commit the action. Sin is the living playground for Karmic repercussion. When one moves or evolves beyond sin then all Karmic debts are cleared and we experience directly what we give.

Evil is a word created in the ignorance of union with all things.
When one knows God then one knows all things exist within the possibility of God and that all things exist due to the nature of personal choice and understanding of reality.

Psalm 82

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Here again I bring up this Psalm because it describes the rise and fall of change in evolution.
God creates the stage and all the props, we then by our own beliefs and desires set the stage and act upon it. We in ignorance identify with the props and the costumes rather than the author and manufacturer of all design and creation. Until we do we continue to rise and fall in the experiences of life and death or change of scenery and story.
From the standpoint or reference of Author and designer we do not judge our creation as bad or good unless we hold these ideas within ourselves and as the nature of ourselves, only different as changes take place in experience. If we identify ourselves by the props and the clothes and we see good or evil in the clothes we wear, then we will see something that exists in our world and fear it from the ignorance of not knowing where such things come.

Within the potential of all humans we have good and evil or the ability to create anything we want to, in potential it is neither good or evil it is just potential. We don't label it until it manifests itself and we then by association to belief and relative values decide what it is. Generally speaking we create according to what we understand about ourselves and the universe, linking cause and effect to our experiences.


What you focus on grows.

Not a word, but the good luck and positive swastika symbol was ruined by the cult-like Nazi's.
If you acknowledge and recognise the word 'sin' and its symbolism, then thats all that has to be understood. Not using the word because of religious implications would be silly of us I believe. The words sin and evil should be used whenever necessary to convey what they mean.

You cant have good and positive without the evil and negative. I've said it before, but how can you measure values without both ends of your measuring stick?

Once you experience a new height of perception (love, hate, friendship, pain), a new scale is created in which all new experiences are measured within. Therefore I'd say the 'mathematical' value is being altered and rescaled, and so the interpretation of perception has also altered. We're amending our mental pictures to incorporate new perceptions all the time.

Wise words, T_L. Therefore, I agree. My dictionary has three meanings: 1. A deliberate breaking of the law of God. 2. Any immoral act, or wrongdoing: lying, stealing, cheating, dishonesty, being cruel. 3. A violation of any rule or standard, as of taste, propriety, etc.

It is very difficult for any human being to avoid all sin.I make no claim to being a saint, therefore I have sinned in many ways during my life.

BTW, in my library, I have the book, "Whatever Became of SIN? (1973)". It was written by the then famous psychiatrist Karl Menninger, M.D., Before that he wrote, "Man Against Himself". I will add to this post, later.
How can we, and should we, deal with the problem of sin?

Avoiding it is a fools dream, we should just make sure if we do 'sin' then something good and constructive comes from it. Otherwise your just dragging yourself down. A baby is a blank page if you believe dogma, and from that point there is only down, which then gives you guilt and such. We're only a few hundred generations from real animalism. Lets not be so pompous in our humanit!

Now there's a real topic starter, God's Law....

T_L, you comment that avoiding talking about and facing up to the fact of sin is a fool's game I think I understand your point, but give us an example of how good can come. In what way can good come out of serious crimes, like murder?

BTW, should we start a thread on the nature of sin, using the title of Dr. Menninger's book?

I think the topic of sin is definately a tangent off the original thread. But sin is pesonally interpretted so maybe its not such a divergence.

What I mean by something good and constructive coming from sin is the following:

Your family is starving and homeless, you've followed all of societies procedures and have been royally shafted by the depersonalised systems. Your young daughter will die if she doesn't get food and/or medicine. The opportunity comes up to steal what you need without having a major impact on any one person. Is it a sin to survive?

More mundane examples:

Having an affair in a marriage when your partner refuses to split up or even talk about things. Basically a stalemate on communication and an inevitable destruction of the relationship. Is it a sin to continue your life? What if your separated but not divorced?

Is telling a white lie to protect the feelings of another a sin? I've always been brutally honest with friends and family, and I've often made them upset by being as honest as possible. Sometimes it seems like this character trait does nothing to further my life goals.

What it comes down to is 'If your going to sin, make sure its for a good reason and your aware of the consequences'.

OK, T_L, unless I get a lot of flack, we can dialogue about sin, here.

BTW, I now have a spell-check program on my posts. Thank GOD! I hope you do not mind that I applied it to the quote above.

Perhaps to the title could be added: ...interpretations...Including interpretations as to what it means to be moral, ethical, good, evil, and sinful.

I like the definition: All sin is evil, but all evil--for example, natural disasters--are not sinful. Which poses the question: If God is a supernatural person who has the power to prevent natural disasters, and chooses not to do so, what does this make Him?

Limited by the imaginings of human invention stimulated by ignorance and the judgment created by lack of knowledge.