100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Perfect... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am perfectly imperfect
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can be my old goat and JB can be my pregnant cow.  What makes you think you get to choose?  Oh wait, I know,... it's your superiority complex. Ok, carry on. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am going night night now. Even the devil needs rest. While I sleep I will be content that somewhere in these threads you are still thinking of me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok wow! Whew! Long read, all over the place too. OK perfection! Are we even capable of accommodating the idea of perfection in our little minds? (ANYONE?) If this earth had a perfect echo system, would that be a guarantee that this planet would exist forever? Of course not, because this planet may not depend on other worldly forces to have a perfect echo system. Would that make the echo system any less perfect? Or would our assumption of the perfect echo system have left out the ability ot that system to continue infinitely? Do you see, from the above questions, perfect, is an abstract concept. We can certainly think about it; we can delegate perfection within the confines of quantifiable and quality, but only if the factors are known to us. That is not a matter of INTELLIGENCE. For intelligence is only potential an ability to learn from . You guessed it, all the experiences within our personal and subjective human existence. Any attempt to measure intelligence requires testing that takes into account knowledge gained from subjective experiences, including the ability to think (use cognition) in many various forms; problem solving, using algorithms, heuristics, insight, creativity, divergent and convergent thinking. These are all signs of intelligence, but that intelligence has been PROGRAMMED by the human experience. Perhaps, intelligence is perfect, for it exists but can not function until it has experienced. Once it experiences, it becomes imperfect, for the experiences of intelligence are subjective and perfection to that intelligence is no longer something possible by the definition of others. So getting to the question of GODS. If god is all that is, and all that exists is only an extension of the contents of god, then it can not be perfect, for its thoughts are voices within that can not agree (ours). In the human experience we call that schizophrenic. Sure they tend to be pretty spiritual but even they cant agree. And if god is a single entity that created all of substance, and if in that creation there was any intelligent form of cognition than either god is a lier or humans made up the idea of god. For there could be no intelligence pertaining to substance in a being who had never experienced it, and it could not be experienced unless it pre-existed god. So there are two pretty definite answers to the question of perfection. One is that humans are not perfect outside their subjective thoughts and two , if god existed at all it was as intelligence, but once the potential was touched and the first experience was had, Its perfection diminished and it was god no more. An unborn child learns in the womb. Perhaps thats how humans are born with the original sin. Once they have had an experience, their intelligence has been tapped and they are no longer perfect creations. Hi Di, I haven't read your post yet, there's a zookeeper loose and we haven't gotten her back in her cage yet. Give me a minute and owl be right with ya. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My husband is out of town, I am not looking for a date ( as you are ) and I am only reflecting the same feelings being directed at myself and others by her. Who said I'm looking for a date? If you read my headline you'll see that I've merely said that I'm open to possiblities. And trust me, that's all I'm open to. You say that you were only reflecting "feelings", but the feelings you reflected were your own. I know JB and she doesn't go around degrading people for no good reason. Clearly you were offended by her stance on religious issues, and you've converted that into 'feelings' which you then translate into personal insults. It's a common dilemma around here. People have a really hard time separating their passions about issues from personal insults. That is a shame. But certainly not necessary. It doesn't serve anyone any good. Striking out at people with personal insults just deteriorates the whole status of the forums in general.  You stated that you wondered why a married woman was on a singles site. So is this site just for singles? And she must be a %$itch because she is married? You just put down all married persons. I get bored and you entertain me...that is all.  when someone is being entertained be it a movie, play, event, or other - they are normally not an active participant, they are an observer that normally critiques the entertainment after it is completed between others being entertained also. they are not part of the entertainment they dont get on the stage and perform. if you choose to do so then thats fine - but you will be subject to the comments and remarks you may recieve for your participation - just like me. if that is something you cant handle then i suggest you be just entertained. For every action has a reaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 06/05/08 08:26 PM
|
|
hey star:
Well apparently you hold Christians to a higher standard than you do yourself? It's really no secret, it's not that other hold Christians to such high standards, it's that Christians proclaim to live by MUCH HIGHER standards themselves. Obviously when you hear this repeatedly in the form of judgement from their lips about your life, it only makes sence that we EXPECT to view the behavior of Christians at a much higher level. The difficult task is getting Christians to see that they REALLY are not 'different' in ANY WAY than any other person. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
star_tin_gover
on
Thu 06/05/08 08:35 PM
|
|
hey star: Well apparently you hold Christians to a higher standard than you do yourself? It's really no secret, it's not that other hold Christians to such high standards, it's that Christians proclaim to live by MUCH HIGHER standards themselves. Obviously when you hear this repeatedly in the form of judgement from their lips about your life, it only makes sence that we EXPECT to view the behavior of Christians at a much higher level. The difficult task is getting Christians to see that they REALLY are not 'different' in ANY WAY than any other person. Wrong.  I would re-post what has been posted ad nauseum but I will leave that for someone who wishes to waste their time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star - was that you groveling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Abra,
It took me over an hour to get through these posts. So I'm about ready for bed. Thanks for reading my post though. I'm anxious to hear your reply. Can you kinda make it short, I have to get up early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok � wow! Whew! Long read, all over the place too. OK � perfection! Are we even capable of accommodating the idea of perfection in our little minds? (ANYONE?) If this earth had a �perfect� echo system, would that be a guarantee that this planet would exist forever? Of course not, because this planet may not depend on other worldly forces to have a perfect echo system. Would that make the echo system any less perfect? Or would our �assumption� of the perfect echo system have left out the ability ot that system to continue infinitely? Do you see, from the above questions, perfect, is an abstract concept. We can certainly think about it; we can delegate perfection within the confines of quantifiable and quality, but only if the factors are known to us. That is not a matter of INTELLIGENCE. For intelligence is only potential � an ability to learn from �. You guessed it, all the experiences within our personal and subjective human existence. Any attempt to measure intelligence requires testing that takes into account knowledge gained from subjective experiences, including the ability to �think� (use cognition) in many various forms; problem solving, using algorithms, heuristics, insight, creativity, divergent and convergent thinking. These are all signs of intelligence, but that intelligence has been PROGRAMMED by the human experience. Perhaps, intelligence is perfect, for it exists but can not function until it has experienced. Once it experiences, it becomes imperfect, for the experiences of intelligence are subjective and perfection to that intelligence is no longer something possible by the definition of others. So � getting to the question of GODS. If god is all that is, and all that exists is only an extension of the contents of god, then it can not be perfect, for its� thoughts are voices within that can not agree (ours). In the human experience we call that schizophrenic. Sure they tend to be pretty spiritual but even they can�t agree. And if god is a single entity that created all of substance, and if in that creation there was any intelligent form of cognition than either god is a lier or humans made up the idea of god. For there could be no intelligence pertaining to �substance� in a being who had never experienced it, and it could not be experienced unless it pre-existed god. So there are two pretty definite answers to the question of perfection. One is that humans are not perfect outside their subjective thoughts and two , if god existed at all it was as intelligence, but once the potential was touched and the first experience was had, It�s perfection diminished and it was god no more. An unborn child �learns� in the womb. Perhaps that�s how humans are born with the original sin. Once they have had an experience, their intelligence has been tapped and they are no longer perfect creations. when i'm speaking of "perfection" it is only as related to the biblical god or monotheistic god of religions that hold those belief's. or any other religions that see their god(s) as perfect. Otherwise i seldom think about perfection of any type at all. i dont believe anything is perfect at the moment - but!!! - i cant rule that out yet for sure. just keep it in the files. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star - was that you groveling? Nope. Graveling. Have to pour a sidewalk tomorrow. I hope your week of celebration is going well. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Abra, It took me over an hour to get through these posts. So I'm about ready for bed. Thanks for reading my post though. I'm anxious to hear your reply. Can you kinda make it short, I have to get up early. I just wrote a lenghty reply, answering each of your paragraphs, and then lost it!  They were really great points. I'll re-write it later! Have a nice night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hiya Di...
Thank you for interrupting the playful ones... It seems that you and pretty much agree on the notions that you have mentioned... As I would have expected... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di,
Just to make a long story short,... I agree with your that much of what we try to call 'perfect' is truly nothing more than our subjective view. I agree that it would be impossible to have a 'perfect' ecosystem in any sense, even an eternal one, if that could be possible. The very notion of an ecosystem requires imperfection. For me (and I think I stated this earlier in this thread). The only true prefection would be total homogeneity. From my pantheistic view,... God (if you will) is only perfect between incarnations. God becomes imperfect during incarnations. God becomes the incarnations. We are God being imperfect right now! Keep in mind that this whole notion of 'perfect' and 'imperfect' is based on the definition I gave above. Perfect = no form Inperfection = form These aren't mutually exclusive ideals. They are just different states of being. Concerning what you said about an external God. I agree. That idea of God is entirely a man-made idea. God is not a jealous egotistical judgemental old man who keeps track of who's naughty or nice and delves out punishments and rewards accordingly. That's an absurd notion and a notion that would be far from perfect anyway. There, I think that's pretty much what I has said before I lost the page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hiya Di... Thank you for interrupting the playful ones... It seems that you and pretty much agree on the notions that you have mentioned... As I would have expected... No wonder. You're both antheists. Actually I'm in pretty much agreement too. I think a lot of people are thinking ONE-WAY. Like there was a beginning, and then God created the world, and it all moves forward from there. In my view of pantheism, it's all cyclic. There is no beginning or end. No need for beginnings and ends. Because there is no time for God. What God does is cycle in the 'now'. A single point in time. An eternal 'now; that doesn't flow anywhere. It merely changes. I posted an explanation of that idea in one of Tribo's threads. God is PERFECT between incarnations. And IMPERFECT during an incarnation. And there's no conflict in this. One does not give 'rise' to the other. It's more like happy/sad, or energetic/restful. Between incarnations God rests. During incarnations God is energetic. Just two differnt states of being. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah!!!
Thank you for your pleasant entrance and exit anoasis... Perfect in our imperfection... to borrow from my love! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry JB, Tribo wants women from other countries that are even more desperate than you. Can you believe that is even possible? hahahaa just the reason im looking for someone not from here - you could not be a better spokesb**ch for why i donot like women from here. no emoticons Hey genius, we can see that you have no emoticons. It is amazing how people feel they can attack others but when it is returned suddenly the "is that how Christians act" comes into play. Well apparently you hold Christians to a higher standard than you do yourself? Can't blame you. Now where is that, oh shoot, they don't have a GO F*CK YOURSELF emoticon yet. Oh well. I never said " Is that how Christians act?" Where did you get that from? Now your just making stuff up...lol. Feisty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God is PERFECT between incarnations. And IMPERFECT during an incarnation. And there's no conflict in this. One does not give 'rise' to the other. It's more like happy/sad, or energetic/restful. Between incarnations God rests. During incarnations God is energetic. Just two differnt states of being. Forgive me James for flying through without reading the whole thread but I am curious about this statement of yours ... ....so in your view the idea of 'God' is that if functions within the confines of our human understanding of duality? happy/sad do not give rise to one another because they are the same continuum ... one cannot pick up only the 'head' side of a coin lying on the ground ... ----- ...I am also curious about this whole notion of perfect/imperfect as it relates to notions of 'God' ... a creative source creates ... it is impersonal ... it is humans who have developed the software ... it is called mass consciousness and it is filled with all sorts of negativity ... like attracts like ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 06/05/08 11:39 PM
|
|
I don't really know why, but I have never been concerned with the idea that anything is or is not "perfect" and this includes any concept of God.
I think either everything is perfect, or everything is not perfect and that it really does not matter. Some people's definitions of "perfect" is simply something that is complete or whole. But that's just me. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok James, that was a longer post earlier, but I wanted to reply...
Here goes... However, I can tell you this. You are not your thought. Ok... I have meditated deeply enough to have experienced being 'detached' from the river of thought. Experienced is the key word here James. Experience requires the ability to know that one is experiencing anything(awareness). I will get into awareness' dependency later in this post. Once detached from the river of thought you can clearly see that thoughts are not yours. They are completely independent of you. You CHOOSE thoughts from the river of thought. And you can choose not to think about any of them. This statement begs one question. Does the river of thought not include the conscious choice to "not choose"? For if a conscious choice is made, it is only done so through being thought first. As a matter of fact, all human action is begun with thought, whether it be conscious or subconscious. You might think to yourself, "By just the recognition of being next to a river of thought is a THOUGHT!" NO! It definitely ISN'T! It's an experience. Well sure it is, James. Recognition requires knowing of, which requires thought, which requires the perceptual faculty. As soon as you recognized, you became re-attached, according to your own words.... here they are again. But as soon as you THINK about it, you're no longer outside of the river. You can say to yourself, "Hey! I'm outside of the river of thought!". That's a THOUGHT! But if you think that thought you plunge right back into the river of thought and you won't be outside of it anymore. So like I said, when you recognized it, it was not! Clearly you have never experienced this. It is possible to experience. You have to learn to meditate until you can experience. Some people can achieve that state of mind and some people can't. Some people require much meditation and practice to even be able to stop thinking. Other people can do it so effortlessly they basically live their lives detached from the river of thought. They don't think about things. They simply react to them. This started out ok, I suppose... but uh, what are you saying here...really? Am I to believe that people who do not consciously think about their actions are in the process of experiencing this also? If not why then? I mean, they are outside the supposed river too right? You are so immersed in the river of thought you can't even see the shore. You're convinced that thought is all that exists. But you can experience total detachment from thought. And when you do you'll realize that awareness is not dependent on the ability to think. Now the source of this assumption cannot be based in fact James, I assure you that what you stated here is false. Ok, I am wondering where the underlined came from. How could you have possibly arrived at that conclusion based upon my words? You CAN experience without thinking. It is possible. I have never claimed otherwise, consciously speaking... of course! Try to do anything without subconscious thought! It is impossible. In truth, THOUGHT is what kills you, it's not what gives you life. At least from a spiritual point of view anyway. Honestly James, I find this statement unbelievable... completely. Without thought, you could not know that you exist. Without thought, one cannot learn. Perception determines choice of thought. Not the other way around!!! Had you never learned(perceived) of what you describe, you could not have entertained(thought about) the notion. It all is completely contingient upon your perceptual faculty James... Self-awareness does not exist without the ability to distinguish between self and that which is not self. If one cannot perceive that which is being distinguished, then self-awareness cannot exist. Perception facilitates how that information is gathered. Without the ability to receive and process information, which is done so exclusively by using the perceptual faculty, there would be no way to be aware of what is. If perception did not exist, neither would thought. There would be nothing to think about. Perception births conscious and subconscious thought(consciousness), which in turn facilitates the ability to become self-aware. Self-awareness depends on experience, which in turn depends upon the ability to perceive that which is being experienced. It is like your computer. Your computer only processes, it does not think. It processes that which has been input. The computers perceptual faculty does not include the will to change it's mind! People talk about computers having memory. They really don't have any memory. They only store information. quote]
No memory? But they store information? Where at then, if not in their memory? What would you call it then, that part which can be accessed at any given moment which would give one an accurate history of what has been input? The brain is not the thinker of thoughts. The person is the thinking center. The person is the self. The brain processes information. Remove that brain then, and measure how much that thinking center remains thinking! If you were to pull the plug and the body still remained alive, as in a comma, the person is still not operating through the body. The person may still be attached to the body, but operating in some alternate reality or dream state. You have no idea what you are talking about JB. I have been in a coma, and thoughts very well may be measured while in that state! Thoughts are born of memory. Memory is born of experience. Experience is completely dependent upon the ability to perceive the experience. Your dismissal of the importance of the brain's role in your own ability to form these opinions is quite ironic. |
|
|
|
|
