100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why we are "god" | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/13/08 12:57 PM
|
|
Tribo: hmmm? - this sounds exactly like what i keep saying of your god?? actually yours sounds more like man than mine - i cant speak for JB there, but for me, creative force only has two things i can determine, infinite existance, and the power to bring forth creative substance into this reality. If i find more i will let you know, ok? that's the problem with living inside a box, you are unable to think outside of what you've put your faith or trust in as to beliefs, once you've found "the Truth" you become content and no longer search but to continue to put all your time and energy into that which rings true to you, i have not such faith in anything to do so to myself or others. I have no wish for someone else's future to be on my hands as to what the ""absolute truth"" is. If your god does exist and damns me for that, then so be it, he would then be, if that's the case, someone i would not want to be with anyway. I would rather believe that god is not emotional or judgemental in any shape or form, and let those who do go live with him in what i think would be such a boring existence i would probably rebel and start the whole process over again. I agree with your assessment on the attributes of the "creative force" - but I expand my understanding of this force to also have the ability to control and manipulate the forces outside of man. Weather comes to mind. The instincts of animals come to mind. He need not occupy Himself with the free choices of man to have influence over Him. On part the second... God doesn't "damn" anyone. There are actions, and consequences. The choice is left to man. He is his own judge. The problem comes when faced with the ultimate reality of "absolute truth". Either there is such a thing - or there isn't. This is the concept on which Man will ultimate answer for himself when he passes beyond the reality we know as "life". To claim there is not "absolute truth" - and then claim that one cannot accept a "judgemental God" if there is one, is to not comprehend either concept. A "Judgemental God" only exists where Absolute truth does. But then the blame falls back to man in this scenario - so a "God who condemns" is a mis-nomer. He only "appears" as such because the establishment of "absolute truth" eminates from Him - not man. I agree that we do judge ourselves. Who but ourself can know all that we have done that we are not so proud of doing? I don't agree that there is a god outside of myself that knows all of my thoughts. But I know all of my thoughts and all of my deeds. I will, in the light of truth and realization, judge myself after death and look back on my life and see where I mucked it up and where I might have done something different. Then I will decide, along with my other closely connected selves, what the next course of action will be. I may decide to incarnate yet again and see if I can retain what I have learned from my past experiences. JB But in light of your non-recognition of "God" beyond you who is an all knowing one - what are you going to use to evaluate your deeds and thoughts that you don't already have? How are you going to have a perspective to determine if the choices you made in life were right or wrong? As I have said before, my true self is the embodiment of all of my incarnate lives spent in the lower worlds, particularly the earth world. Their combined knowledge and wisdom will be shared, compared and discussed, and judgment will be made. Until I reach that state of being I do not have access to all of that information concerning my past lives and who I am because in order to live one life at time, memory of those things are withheld during incarnation and while I am in this life. My perspective will come from them (myself or my other selves). Beyond that, there is another higher self that is connected to this first self. It is not that I am claiming to be a high authority over anyone besides myself and my earth incarnations. There is always a higher being, a higher self. I have no idea how many there are, but all are eventually connected to prime source, what you call "the father." JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For centuries man has tried to create golsd out of coal. Eljay Is that word golsd is supposed to be gold? If so, it is not coal man has tried to make gold out of, it is lead. The chemical composition of lead is very close to gold. Mankind has, however discovered how to make a diamond out of coal. JB Okay - so I'm not the worlds best typer. Or is it typist. Whatever it is that man has tried to turn into gold - hasn't happened yet, and it's a pretty good bet it never will. 4 points I would like to make. 1) Man hasn't turned lead into gold, but a nuclear reactor does change the atomic structure of uranium which is creating one element from another. 2) If you don't think matter can be changed into energy ask a survivor of Hiroshima what they think. 3) All animals create life. It's called reproduction. 4) Man has created life without reproduction by cloning. spreid Of your 4 points 1) Without the nuclear reactor uranium would change it's atomic structure. It is the nature of the element. A reactor only speeds uop the process. No "creating" done here - it's actually a degeneration that is occuring. 2) Matter being changed into energy has nothing to do with "creating". It is once again - part of a degenerating process. 3) No animal "creates" anything. Giving birth is just that - giving birth. The offspring does not appear from nothing. It is a combination of a sperm and an egg. Part of a natural event of two separate entities which were already in existance. Without either one - there would be no offspring. 4) Cloning is not a "creative" process - but one of duplication. Man cannot clone anything that does not previously exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/13/08 01:21 PM
|
|
Double post deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/13/08 01:34 PM
|
|
For centuries man has tried to create golsd out of coal. Eljay Is that word golsd is supposed to be gold? If so, it is not coal man has tried to make gold out of, it is lead. The chemical composition of lead is very close to gold. Mankind has, however discovered how to make a diamond out of coal. JB JB Okay - so I'm not the worlds best typer. Or is it typist. Whatever it is that man has tried to turn into gold - hasn't happened yet, and it's a pretty good bet it never will. 4 points I would like to make. 1) Man hasn't turned lead into gold, but a nuclear reactor does change the atomic structure of uranium which is creating one element from another. 2) If you don't think matter can be changed into energy ask a survivor of Hiroshima what they think. 3) All animals create life. It's called reproduction. 4) Man has created life without reproduction by cloning. spreid Of your 4 points 1) Without the nuclear reactor uranium would change it's atomic structure. It is the nature of the element. A reactor only speeds uop the process. No "creating" done here - it's actually a degeneration that is occuring. 2) Matter being changed into energy has nothing to do with "creating". It is once again - part of a degenerating process. 3) No animal "creates" anything. Giving birth is just that - giving birth. The offspring does not appear from nothing. It is a combination of a sperm and an egg. Part of a natural event of two separate entities which were already in existance. Without either one - there would be no offspring. 4) Cloning is not a "creative" process - but one of duplication. Man cannot clone anything that does not previously exist. In order to understand creativity you have to define what you mean by it. Some people simply think it means to create substance from nothing. I don't believe that is what it is, because I don't believe "nothing" can have existence or that something can come from nothing. Creativity in any reality is taking the things you have at your disposal and rearranging it or making something else out of it. The Design of a temple out of stone. That is certainly creative in my opinion. We have what we need to create things. As an artist, I can create a unique statue but I need the clay. I can paint a unique painting, but I need the paint and the canvas. Dare try to tell me that is not creativity and I will smack you one. LOL So please understand what I mean by creativity. I am not talking about magic tricks here or so-called mind blowing godly ideas of creation of something from nothing with the wave of a hand. I am talking about the ability to use your thoughts and your imagination to rearrange your reality and build or create something worthwhile and/or beautiful. It is a simple idea a lot of people take for granted. We are creative beings. We have the material at our disposal to create what we want or need. The creative force works through all things in existence and all beings can have access to the creative faculty and the substance needed to rearrange things to their liking. Where does this substance come from? It comes from prime source or what you call "god." This is what you call "The father" and it cannot be and is not known by anyone. This prime source is not "nothing" in my opinion, it is "something" from whence all substance springs forth. All else is simply consciousness moving through substance. If that's too religious for you, I'm sorry. If it's not religious enough for you, again, I'm sorry. I just expressing my personal ides on the subject. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For centuries man has tried to create golsd out of coal. Eljay Is that word golsd is supposed to be gold? If so, it is not coal man has tried to make gold out of, it is lead. The chemical composition of lead is very close to gold. Mankind has, however discovered how to make a diamond out of coal. JB JB Okay - so I'm not the worlds best typer. Or is it typist. Whatever it is that man has tried to turn into gold - hasn't happened yet, and it's a pretty good bet it never will. 4 points I would like to make. 1) Man hasn't turned lead into gold, but a nuclear reactor does change the atomic structure of uranium which is creating one element from another. 2) If you don't think matter can be changed into energy ask a survivor of Hiroshima what they think. 3) All animals create life. It's called reproduction. 4) Man has created life without reproduction by cloning. spreid Of your 4 points 1) Without the nuclear reactor uranium would change it's atomic structure. It is the nature of the element. A reactor only speeds uop the process. No "creating" done here - it's actually a degeneration that is occuring. 2) Matter being changed into energy has nothing to do with "creating". It is once again - part of a degenerating process. 3) No animal "creates" anything. Giving birth is just that - giving birth. The offspring does not appear from nothing. It is a combination of a sperm and an egg. Part of a natural event of two separate entities which were already in existance. Without either one - there would be no offspring. 4) Cloning is not a "creative" process - but one of duplication. Man cannot clone anything that does not previously exist. In order to understand creativity you have to define what you mean by it. Some people simply think it means to create substance from nothing. I don't believe that is what it is, because I don't believe "nothing" can have existence or that something can come from nothing. Creativity in any reality is taking the things you have at your disposal and rearranging it or making something else out of it. The Design of a temple out of stone. That is certainly creative in my opinion. We have what we need to create things. As an artist, I can create a unique statue but I need the clay. I can paint a unique painting, but I need the paint and the canvas. Dare try to tell me that is not creativity and I will smack you one. LOL So please understand what I mean by creativity. I am not talking about magic tricks here or so-called mind blowing godly ideas of creation of something from nothing with the wave of a hand. I am talking about the ability to use your thoughts and your imagination to rearrange your reality and build or create something worthwhile and/or beautiful. It is a simple idea a lot of people take for granted. We are creative beings. We have the material at our disposal to create what we want or need. The creative force works through all things in existence and all beings can have access to the creative faculty and the substance needed to rearrange things to their liking. Where does this substance come from? It comes from prime source or what you call "god." This is what you call "The father" and it cannot be and is not known by anyone. This prime source is not "nothing" in my opinion, it is "something" from whence all substance springs forth. All else is simply consciousness moving through substance. If that's too religious for you, I'm sorry. If it's not religious enough for you, again, I'm sorry. I just expressing my personal ides on the subject. JB The "prime beef" or "source" as refer to it, is definitely "something" not nothing with that i agree. your take on - there can not be nothing is agreed to also.all else is up for grabs. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An idea is a thing, a concept is a thing, a word is a thing, yet none of these or matter or waves. It is just a representation for something we do. Metaphysics is also a philosophy and not science per say. I am still not even finding anything on metaphysics claiming thought is matter or a thing or a way. Please site your sources. You seem to be insisting that I back up everything I post with science, which is what you consider to be an authority that you accept. If science is the only authority you are prepared to accept for what you might believe then you probably don't believe the Bible and you probably aren't a "true believer" so why do you call yourself Christian? Science is important because of its empirical foundations, but it is limited because we do not see the necessary / causal connection between things, only the effects. Continued in the next post. JB The difference is you don't say this is what you believe. You state that this is. You give a definite and then try to explain it with science and I dispute it with science. I already stated that what ever religious beliefs I have I don't claim to be true. I claim to believe them and believe they are true, and that is completely different than telling people they are true. Example, you said a thought is a wave. There is no evidence of this, yet you are claiming it to be. It would be different if you said I think/believe thought is a wave (in the form of a personal belief and not based on science). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already stated that what ever religious beliefs I have I don't claim to be true. I claim to believe them and believe they are true, and that is completely different than telling people they are true. not really ..it means you're agnostic |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 07/13/08 03:27 PM
|
|
I personally do not find any evidence that supports the suggestion of Quantum Physics supporting a notion that we are all one. Quantum Physics is not understood. The observations do not lend enough evidence to support why we observe that which we do.
Therefore, it is a incorrect assessment to suggest that it supports itself, let alone anything else. Allow it to support itself, then we may be able to build upon it. Until then... we know nothing but what we think we are observing. Seems more like psuedo-quantum twistics to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/13/08 03:11 PM
|
|
The difference is you don't say this is what you believe. You state that this is. You give a definite and then try to explain it with science and I dispute it with science. I already stated that what ever religious beliefs I have I don't claim to be true. I claim to believe them and believe they are true, and that is completely different than telling people they are true. Example, you said a thought is a wave. There is no evidence of this, yet you are claiming it to be. It would be different if you said I think/believe thought is a wave (in the form of a personal belief and not based on science). I can understand what you are saying. I have the same complaint about people who state that the Bible is a fact and the word of God etc. etc. But even so-call scientific facts are only beliefs. The only reason people call them facts or truth is because of they think that their proof is infallible and beyond question. I don't think it is. Many so-called facts have been later proven wrong. You should understand that everything is just an opinion ... everything. Proof is only a matter of belief in the authority. Why you would require scientific proof of my opinions and you do not require scientific proof from your religious authority is beyond my comprehension. No matter what I state or what I think is true, it is always my opinion and perhaps my belief. I am always open to changing my belief if there is conflicting evidence to refute my claim. But if a thought is a thing then it is a wave. If it is not a thing, then what is it and how can scientists detect brain waves when people are thinking? How can you explain telepathic communication? (I have experienced that first hand so I see thoughts as waves just as radio transitions are waves and television transmission are waves. ) If you have a better and more scientific description of what a thought is, I would appreciate hearing it. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A thought is the unconscious process of one's own mental identification concerning an idea which is being or has been previously contemplated and or accepted as truth.
People think in words. Words represent contextual meaning for that which is or has been observed. Language was first used to express emotional content and represent what was witnessed in nature. It helped the different people to convey thoughts and/or ideas, so that further understanding could be maintained. A thought is but the unspoken language of the one thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A thought is the unconscious process of one's own mental identification concerning an idea which is being or has been previously contemplated and or accepted as truth. People think in words. Words represent contextual meaning for that which is or has been observed. Language was first used to express emotional content and represent what was witnessed in nature. It helped the different people to convey thoughts and/or ideas, so that further understanding could be maintained. A thought is but the unspoken language of the one thinking. People do think in words, but not only in words. After a person learns language they may think in words, and in addition to thinking in words they think in pictures and feelings and memories. If people could only think in words then they would never learn a language in the first place. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Language is the reason people think in words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Language is the reason people think in words. So? What is your point? Are you suggesting that a person ONLY thinks in words, or that a person who does not speak yet, (a toddler perhaps) does not think at all? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The earliest childhood memories i have are two nightmares, one was indians being in the kitchen where my crib was (i was 2 or3) and being scared and crawling out of my crib to go sleep with my mom.. The second was definitely when i was 3 and had to do with a large water stain that was on the wall paper leading up to the 2nd floor landing of where we lived. In my dream it came alive and had legs and walked up the stairs and came towards me, I then woke up and again went to sleep with mom. My recollection is this - i dont remember "thinking" of "words" only what i was seeing and fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/13/08 11:11 PM
|
|
Very interesting.
I have a childhood memory of when I was very young, before I could talk. I was in my baby bed and I was hungry and fussing for something to eat. My mom handed me a baby bottle with milk in it. The hole in the nipple was not large enough to suit me and I wanted to drink faster or out of a glass but I had no words to express this desire. Frustrated, I threw the bottle to the floor and it broke. My mom yanked me out of the crib and spanked me.  I could certainly think but I could not talk. I wanted to tell her what I wanted but I did not know how. I was a real brat huh? LOL  JB 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Language is the reason people think in words. CS Though I am not going to disagree with "people think in words" - I have to agree with JB on thinking can be other than just words. As a designer I think in images all the time. No words run through my thoughts - only pictures. Images of potential solutions to the problems I must anticipate before I execute the design. As specific as this may be, it does not serve as an exception to your statement, but - in my experience, an addition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Language is the reason people think in words. CS Though I am not going to disagree with "people think in words" - I have to agree with JB on thinking can be other than just words. As a designer I think in images all the time. No words run through my thoughts - only pictures. Images of potential solutions to the problems I must anticipate before I execute the design. As specific as this may be, it does not serve as an exception to your statement, but - in my experience, an addition. that's an interesting way to put it Eljay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 07/14/08 09:45 AM
|
|
When I work with clay, my thoughts are of clay things. I look at people and I see two faces. I see their face as it appears to most people and I also see in my mind's eye there face in clay.
When I do work painting portraits I will look at a person's face and I see brush strokes on it. I see and envision the colors I would use. Cadmium yellow, and ultramarine blue, etc. When I spend a lot of time on the computer talking to people my dreams become dreams of computer communications and code. My dream world transforms from a copy of this reality to a computer reality. Thought adjusts to what we place our attention on. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we differ, yet we all think alike also, that is why the truth's you seek are within you, not without you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we differ, yet we all think alike also, that is why the truth's you seek are within you, not without you. The truth ?. The truth is a sweet word that can be very bitter and only few people see it . |
|
|
|
|
