Community > Posts By > splendidlife

 
splendidlife's photo
Mon 12/01/08 08:54 AM

I didn't say they DO take anything away. I said they feel the need to

don't draw conclusions based on one comment from someone you don't know. You might embarrass yourself with erroneous assumptions


No assumptions about "you". If one takes the "you" out of the statement, perhaps one may be able to consider the logic.

Is it possible that this last reaction/statement could suggest an acted upon need to feel superior?

splendidlife's photo
Mon 12/01/08 08:47 AM

I think there are two kinds of atheists. The ones who don't believe there is a god and live their lives accordingly

and then there are the anti-Christians who seem to have some sort of bitterness directed at God and feel the need to try to take God away from believers


If one truly believes in God, how can anyone else can "take away" a single thing from it? I find it a bit amusing when someone makes a statement such as this, because it exposes the speaker's own fear or perhaps lack of "faith".

splendidlife's photo
Mon 12/01/08 08:34 AM
Edited by splendidlife on Mon 12/01/08 08:50 AM

Because that's what they believe and therefore they are right. Just as those that DO believe will try to prove they are right. Why, because they can.

I really don't think there's an answer to this except ego. flowerforyou


Agree...

Ego, carnal mind or "conscious" mind (that 4 to 10%) vs. collective understanding, Higher Self, God or Subconscious Mind (@ 100%).

Interestingly enough... this proposed 100% seems to be far more simplistic than the constant cruching of thoughts (so to speak) at a Modus Operandi of 4 to 10%.

splendidlife's photo
Mon 12/01/08 08:23 AM
Edited by splendidlife on Mon 12/01/08 08:28 AM

This is simple. Some peeps need to prove there is no god for the same reason people of faith need to prove their is ---> because they feel superior to you and want you to believe as they do. Nothing else will satisfy them.


That perspective or need to feel superior is exactly what separates an individual from its humanity.

When acted upon in the "conscious" mind, that "need" perpetuates the very feeling of separation that one desperately tries to prevent by insisting it be superior.

splendidlife's photo
Mon 12/01/08 08:17 AM

I still think it has a lot to do with narcissism!


Narcissism is another label. In this context, it suggests that we are "brazen" enough to believe that we create ourselves. One who points at another's Narcissism is comparing another to them self.

Isn't the labeling of others in comparison to self (in its self) Narcissistic?

splendidlife's photo
Mon 12/01/08 07:46 AM
Edited by splendidlife on Mon 12/01/08 07:56 AM
The moment that each individual loves others (and self) beyond any pictures that conscious mind paints and truly knows (feels) that "thread" connecting the collective is perhaps the moment that this idea of loving god can make sense for ALL.

splendidlife's photo
Mon 12/01/08 07:28 AM
Edited by splendidlife on Mon 12/01/08 07:29 AM
I have discovered a fascinating splinter sect known as:

The Al Dente-ists.

It is common practice within this group, upon stepping out of the redemption bath, to ritually fling ones self against the wall to assure the purest state of Al Dente.

Rah-Man!
Pastafari!


splendidlife's photo
Tue 11/25/08 02:09 PM


There must be a way to open minds to multiple and (with hope) infinite possibility.



"Spendidlife".... isn't that already taking place and why religions form splinter sects ...beliefs are infinite ...finding truth apparently isn't


If there were an infinite number of possibilities, wouldn’t that mean that ALL could be true?

Doesn't it seem that the more we flail to "find" truth, the more it eludes us?

What if "truth" sought us, but couldn't break through because we were so frantically seeking IT?


splendidlife's photo
Tue 11/25/08 12:46 PM


Does debating make people accountable? The kind of debate that points endlessly to the flaws in each counter-part's statements leads to endless circles of how the other's points are invalid.

How can anyone really hear the other's point if they are sitting, perched, waiting for areas of weakness in speech to jump at?

So, if no one really hears anyone else's point, what's the use of debate?

Where do we go when we reach an impasse?


"Spendidlife" ..yes debating does make some people "see the light" ..and debating tends to get people to think beyond the belief

once I started debating the bible as being absolute truth is when the religious started debating that it was not truth only metaphoric which means some have stopped pushing the belief as truth


Won't there always be those who will see it and preach it as absolute truth and even become violently opposed to any other proposed possibilities?

Its understandable that people who have been raised on fervent beliefs could almost feel like their skin is being separated from their body when told to consider the possibility that their beliefs could be "wrong". Presenting it as such tends to shut people down.

I'm most interested in open communication between ALL (especially those seemingly closed to any other ideas/beliefs than their own). Doesn't matter which "side" they’re on.

There must be a way to open minds to multiple and (with hope) infinite possibility.

splendidlife's photo
Tue 11/25/08 10:26 AM


Funches,

You have changed the subject, but I don't care. I made my point, you are obviously trying to avoid it. It's not even that big of a deal, you mistook my post for someone elses.


"Spidercmb" what are you talking about ...everything I said in that post applies to you I said that I wasn't speaking to you in particular that it was a host of Christians that do the same thing.. but the post was addressed to both you and "keepthehope"

to prove this.. I asked you what in that post didn't apply to you and that you clearly wasn't going to say that you yourself followed all the laws of Yahweh

also I said that you have a habit of getting angry and leaving the debate which shows that you yourself can't debate without getting offensive

remembered you called me dense obtuse and obnoxious when you left our last debate ....so quit being a hypocrite and acting like you don't call people names



Funches earlier:

yes let's stop all the debating about religion ..let's no longer call people delusional because they claim thhat their beliefs are truth

let's just let religion run rampant ...let's make the pope the president ..let's bring back the death penalty for heretics ..let's keep women silence and only let Men do the talking and make the major decisions ..let's start holy wars and invade those countries that has different religious beliefs than us....let's place the world totally under the rules of a religious God and stone unruly children and adulterers to death

or we could just debate and make people accountable for the beliefs they sprew to the public as being truth.

as you see..it only take one belief to bring horror to the world.


Does debating make people accountable? The kind of debate that points endlessly to the flaws in each counter-part's statements leads to endless circles of how the other's points are invalid.

How can anyone really hear the other's point if they are sitting, perched, waiting for areas of weakness in speech to jump at?

So, if no one really hears anyone else's point, what's the use of debate?

Where do we go when we reach an impasse?


splendidlife's photo
Mon 11/24/08 02:34 PM


wHAT IS THIS MORAL OBLIGATION TO HELP THOSE IN NEED? WHY DON'T WE [LIKE THE ANIMALS] JUST LET WHATEVER HAPPENS TO OTHERS JUST HAPPEN AND ACCEPT IT AS A NORMAL THING??


This defined "Moral Obligation" is a term that mankind has assigned to the phenomenon of an intrinsic desire to "help" those in need. "Ethics" being the personal choices we make to contribute to (or detract from) the welfare and/or happiness of others and ourselves is another term to describe something already intrinsic. Just because our advanced brains have allowed us to assign these names and subsequent definitions, doesn't mean we have the "WHY" of it.

What if there was a Universal "Why"? In other words, what if a clearly defined energy (some call it God) that connects each of us to one another drives us "instinctually" to help for the greatest good of the whole? What if, in those instances when we don't help, it still is of the greatest good of all?

Neanderthals were pack "animals". They needed each other to be "successful". Through the ages, Humans have demonstrated pack mentality on MANY levels.

What our "uniquely" Human "conscious" thought has been doing is adding layer upon layer of assigned meanings to everything before us, further creating illusion that we are somehow far beyond or "above" letting whatever happens... happen. We actually believe that our conscious thought is dictating, when in fact it merely is running the numbers, so to speak. Higher Self or God determines how much or how little. Many Humans (even the highly religious) think deep down that we possess the power to determine our destiny.

By Gum!

I'm beginning to see that we don't!
whoa


Having gone back and read this, I see how it would seem as if the statement was renouncing the crucial role consciousness plays in the whole process.

It’s like a game in which the overall object is to gain the key to true peace and as much wisdom possible within physical existence. Our conscious learning is THE reason we exist. It is in recognizing that our consciousness cannot create, by it’s own sheer will power. Conscious thought is prompted by greater knowing to take certain paths...

Infinite paths to choose from that can create infinite outcomes.


splendidlife's photo
Mon 11/24/08 02:10 PM

wHAT IS THIS MORAL OBLIGATION TO HELP THOSE IN NEED? WHY DON'T WE [LIKE THE ANIMALS] JUST LET WHATEVER HAPPENS TO OTHERS JUST HAPPEN AND ACCEPT IT AS A NORMAL THING??
This defined "Moral Obligation" is a term that mankind has assigned to the phenomenon of an intrinsic desire to "help" those in need. "Ethics" being the personal choices we make to contribute to (or detract from) the welfare and/or happiness of others and ourselves is another term to describe something already intrinsic. Just because our advanced brains have allowed us to assign these names and subsequent definitions, doesn't mean we have the "WHY" of it.

What if there was a Universal "Why"? In other words, what if a clearly defined energy (some call it God) that connects each of us to one another drives us "instinctually" to help for the greatest good of the whole? What if, in those instances when we don't help, it still is of the greatest good of all?

Neanderthals were pack "animals". They needed each other to be "successful". Through the ages, Humans have demonstrated pack mentality on MANY levels.

What our "uniquely" Human "conscious" thought has been doing is adding layer upon layer of assigned meanings to everything before us, further creating illusion that we are somehow far beyond or "above" letting whatever happens... happen. We actually believe that our conscious thought is dictating, when in fact it merely is running the numbers, so to speak. Higher Self or God determines how much or how little. Many Humans (even the highly religious) think deep down that we possess the power to determine our destiny.

By Gum!

I'm beginning to see that we don't!
whoa


I don't understand the objection to "assignment of meaning". That seems to me to be the basic purpose of consciousness - to assign meaning. Without "assignment of meaning" nothing has any meaning"! A beautiful work of art has exactly the same meaning as a raped child - i.e. none.

Having no meaning at all is one of the three most depressing things I can think of.

So please strighten this out for me splendid. I can't believe I'm understanding you correctly.


I whole-heartedly agree that this is exactly the purpose of "consciousness". No objection to the assignment of meaning.

Being human myself :wink: , I understand that assigning meaning is what our brains HAD to have been designed to do.

Don't we all struggle to varying degrees with knowing the difference between what is actually happening and the meaning(s) our past memories assign to what is happening? Cannot these perceptions shift on a dime?

The conscious learning that we experience can be directly attributed to assigning meaning. All for conscious learning here, but believe that this conscious process could be a mere tip O' the ole' iceberg.

splendidlife's photo
Mon 11/24/08 10:01 AM
Edited by splendidlife on Mon 11/24/08 10:13 AM


wHAT IS THIS MORAL OBLIGATION TO HELP THOSE IN NEED? WHY DON'T WE [LIKE THE ANIMALS] JUST LET WHATEVER HAPPENS TO OTHERS JUST HAPPEN AND ACCEPT IT AS A NORMAL THING??
It's just the right thing to do I guess, for me it's:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Old Testament

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have love you.

^^^^^^^^^^^ New Testament

One compliments the other, New and Old testaments.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that yea also love one another.

35; By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.




What if the key to a greater "conscious connection" to Higher Self or God is to be more interested in the well being of those around us (our neighbors) rather than our own self-preservation? This "idea" would be in agreement with Biblical text. But, what if it had just as much of a mind function explanation as "religious" meaning?

Of course, this points to humans possessing specialized cognitive ability to make a choice to take this path, much unlike actual pack animals.
:wink:

splendidlife's photo
Mon 11/24/08 08:44 AM
Edited by splendidlife on Mon 11/24/08 09:21 AM

wHAT IS THIS MORAL OBLIGATION TO HELP THOSE IN NEED? WHY DON'T WE [LIKE THE ANIMALS] JUST LET WHATEVER HAPPENS TO OTHERS JUST HAPPEN AND ACCEPT IT AS A NORMAL THING??


This defined "Moral Obligation" is a term that mankind has assigned to the phenomenon of an intrinsic desire to "help" those in need. "Ethics" being the personal choices we make to contribute to (or detract from) the welfare and/or happiness of others and ourselves is another term to describe something already intrinsic. Just because our advanced brains have allowed us to assign these names and subsequent definitions, doesn't mean we have the "WHY" of it.

What if there was a Universal "Why"? In other words, what if a clearly defined energy (some call it God) that connects each of us to one another drives us "instinctually" to help for the greatest good of the whole? What if, in those instances when we don't help, it still is of the greatest good of all?

Neanderthals were pack "animals". They needed each other to be "successful". Through the ages, Humans have demonstrated pack mentality on MANY levels.

What our "uniquely" Human "conscious" thought has been doing is adding layer upon layer of assigned meanings to everything before us, further creating illusion that we are somehow far beyond or "above" letting whatever happens... happen. We actually believe that our conscious thought is dictating, when in fact it merely is running the numbers, so to speak. Higher Self or God determines how much or how little. Many Humans (even the highly religious) think deep down that we possess the power to determine our destiny.

By Gum!

I'm beginning to see that we don't!
whoa

splendidlife's photo
Wed 11/19/08 01:30 PM
Edited by splendidlife on Wed 11/19/08 01:59 PM

AND this IS the science and philosophy forum BTW.


It is?

_________________________________________________


I admit that my interjection (which I'm sure seems from left field) was in reaction to your posts of this morning that did seem a trifle condescending.

Sorry Bushi...

splendidlife's photo
Wed 11/19/08 10:27 AM

JB I am merely asking what you read in Valerie Hunts book that WAS scientific, you said she had done research, had findings ect, that this was a part of your belief and helped you believe. You are taking an approach like I am being critical I have not seen anything for which to be critical of . . . only statements with no conclusions, I am asking a very extremely simple question, I am not asking how it works, I am asking what effect the energy field has on its environment if any, and where QM comes into play.

If you cannot articulate that . . . well . . . . . then why believe it? Other then having someone say becuase of these features of QM this is true . . . . why would it be true if there is no effect caused, no thing is being effected, so what is there?

I want to know what your energy fields do. I want to know why QM has anything to do with that effect. Simple. You should be able to answer this question in a single paragraph.




Non-Scientists inspired to think outside the box and apply what they do know to current scientific findings (to the best of their ability) may bring up new ideas and questions that could possibly be picked up and persued by interested scientists. These scientists, who have the knowledge and vocabulary to articulate possibilities, can choose to either pursue the idea or not. To demand a non-scientist articulate their idea within the the framework of a scientist's vocabulary might suggest one is focusing more on the person's lack of scientific understanding and vocabulary.

Lack of full understanding and vocabulary does not prove lack of validity to the idea.

splendidlife's photo
Wed 11/19/08 09:12 AM

It seems as though many here don't want to give any thought to the consequences of their actions or how it affects the world around them. They seem to hate Christians for pointing out the obvious...that sin corrupts.

Admonish 1 a: to indicate duties or obligations to b: to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner
2: to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to

Criticize 1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate
2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of

synonyms - criticize , reprehend , censure , reprobate , condemn , denounce mean to find fault with openly.

Judgement 1 a: a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b: an opinion so pronounced
2 a: a formal decision given by a court b (1): an obligation (as a debt) created by the decree of a court (2): a certificate evidencing such a decree
3 acapitalized : the final judging of humankind by God b: a divine sentence or decision ; specifically : a calamity held to be sent by God
4 a: the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing b: an opinion or estimate so formed
5 a: the capacity for judging : discernment b: the exercise of this capacity
6: a proposition stating something believed or asserted


Here's the question... isn't admonishment better than destruction? Then why be critical of people for pointing that out? No one can say they didn't know.

Those who point fingers as a cop out to avoid reality are the ones who have no credibility. They still want people to think they know better when they really don't & they enter into deliberate deception too.

My point is God's admonishments are not like humananity's. He does it to keep us sensitized to evil & destructive forces in the world. Instead of people denying God they should have a fear of Him that will save their souls.


Fear of God is MAN-MADE.

splendidlife's photo
Tue 11/18/08 11:45 PM


After 12 pages of bantering back and forth on the truth vs. bullsh*t thread, - I have concluded, (by all that was stated and debated) the following:

1. Something exists.

2. We can't be sure exactly what it is.

3. We don't know where it came from.


Embrace the Great Mystery!

Peace and love to all!

JB
YOUR FUTURE HAS BEEN A COMPLETE MYSTERY...

UNTIL NOW

For YOU are lucky enough to "live" in the End Times when the Word of Jehovah's Prime Ordinance has been made known to "Man"kind by the Primanimal SubGenius, the High Epopt of the Church!
In the early Fifties an industrious young American drilling equipment salesman, while watching late-night TV, was abruptly Removed and transported astrally to the 'IDGE' of JEHOVAH 1 HIMSELF! In this seizure-like trance he took the brunt of the first brain-buffeting communionications of countless to come from the alien Jehovah: awesome pronouncements which form the sacred PRESCRIPTURES of the SubGenius (available for S19.98 at most bookstores!)

This milestone in Man's mined path to Slack was
THE DIVINE EMACULATION OF J.R. "BOB" DOBBS!!
http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p7.html


Soon we will see stenciled pictures of Bob's grinning face (pipe and all) slapped all over the walls of our cities and eventually branching out into all rural areas.

I'm a slacker..
You're a slacker...
He's a slacker...
She's a slacker...
Wouldn't ya like to be a slacker too...
:banana:

splendidlife's photo
Tue 11/18/08 11:37 PM

Of course it will not be that way - if our economy goes down for sure mexicos and al of SA will also and the rest of the world, thats whats sad.


Could it be possible that a commerce-free society could ultimately be restorative?

My dad believes that humans would be reduced to savagery and that its dangerous to think in terms of embracing the collapse. He believes it would be better to do all we can to keep things from changing.

I suspect he thinks I'm just being naive.

If the collapse of our "civilization" is inevitable (I'm not saying it is OR it isn't), why not consider what life could be in the after-math. Why would visions of living off of the land be dangerous?

Just wondering...

splendidlife's photo
Mon 11/17/08 01:32 PM

I am the Supreme Chicken who laid the egg from which god hatched.

But he's really screwing things up so I think it's about time for a nice tasty god and dumplings dinner.

(I have no qualms about cannibalism.)

Next time I'll just make scrambled eggs.

<cluck>

:banana:


BEGOCK!!!!