100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: "The Observer" | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Funches it sounds to me like you are the one preaching Christianity. Jesus never existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus is just as real as that "agreement" you are talking about
besides if you don't believe that Jesus existed then just remove Jesus's name from the story and insert yours ...it still comes out the same |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus is just as real as that "agreement" you are talking about besides if you don't believe that Jesus existed then just remove Jesus's name from the story and insert yours ...it still comes out the same Well funches, there isn't much I can do about your delusions. You created them in your own mind, they are your reality and you certainly have a right to believe what you wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are universal constants...completely exclusive of what we "agree" on. Like what? Like gravity... if we jump from a building we will fall...not fly. We can disagree but to our own consequence. Like 2 + 2 =4 It won't be 5 no matter hard much we want it to be. To be simplistic that is... If we jump from a building we will fall right? Do you agree with that? Is that a fact? Do you think gravity is a good idea? If it were not for gravity, we would all be floating around and so would everything else. In spite of its pitfalls, gravity is a good idea, and I think we all agreed on it. Do you know anyone who does not agree with that? (I don't) Therefore, gravity is a good example of an agreement. It was also an agreement before individual souls agreed to enter this environment, (but that belief requires a belief in the incarnation process.) Gravity is not an idea. it is a reality whether we all agree on it or not. Becouse there was a time when we did not. When the church said that the sun revolved around the earth and everyone agreed with them did that make it so? Of course not. You can believe with all your hart that somthing is real but if it's not, then it's not. There are facts and there are beliefes they are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
funches
on
Wed 11/12/08 09:40 AM
|
|
ah "JennieBean" if I'm preaching delusion then reveal the differences with the "Jesus concept" and your "agreement concept"
in the story don't you think Jesus as God made an "agreement" to enter into reality through the womb or a test tube just like your "agreement concept" states |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/12/08 09:49 AM
|
|
There are universal constants...completely exclusive of what we "agree" on. Like what? Like gravity... if we jump from a building we will fall...not fly. We can disagree but to our own consequence. Like 2 + 2 =4 It won't be 5 no matter hard much we want it to be. To be simplistic that is... If we jump from a building we will fall right? Do you agree with that? Is that a fact? Do you think gravity is a good idea? If it were not for gravity, we would all be floating around and so would everything else. In spite of its pitfalls, gravity is a good idea, and I think we all agreed on it. Do you know anyone who does not agree with that? (I don't) Therefore, gravity is a good example of an agreement. It was also an agreement before individual souls agreed to enter this environment, (but that belief requires a belief in the incarnation process.) Gravity is not an idea. it is a reality whether we all agree on it or not. Because there was a time when we did not. When the church said that the sun revolved around the earth and everyone agreed with them did that make it so? Of course not. You can believe with all your hart that somthing is real but if it's not, then it's not. There are facts and there are beliefes they are not the same thing. This only proves that concept of "the observer" is not simply a human being. Most people who try to understand the philosophy behind "the observer" examples only think in terms of a human being. Human beings are not the final determining observers, they are merely manifestations of their higher spiritual selves who are the true observers. These true observers hold much more knowledge than mere human being observers. If you want to talk about human knowledge then go over to Creative's thread where they will agree with you, but this is a thread about philosophy and personal truth, and is a little more abstract in concept because it is based on the premise that life is supported by an infinite conscious spirit. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/179102 Gravity and all the laws of physics are agreements that were formed and agreed upon by those observers who manifested (manifest) this reality. All who enter this reality agree to these laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah "JennieBean" if I'm preaching delusion then reveal the differences with the "Jesus concept" and your "agreement concept" in the story don't you think Jesus as God made an "agreement" to enter into reality through the womb or a test tube just like your "agreement concept" states Why are you so hung up on Jesus? Every human agreed to come into this world via being born through a womb. That was long before mankind made up the story of Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/12/08 09:59 AM
|
|
Agreements:
I will compare entering this reality (via being born or incarnated) to a marriage. Here, if you agree to get married, that is an agreement. It is a contract you sign and register with the State. After you are married, you might decide you don't want to be married anymore. But all the wishing and hoping and deciding will not end the marriage. You can pretend you are not married all you want, you can try to convince yourself you are not married, you can act as though you are not married but none of that will change the reality that you are married by contract. The only way to get out of the agreement of marriage is divorce. In this reality, the only way to get out of this agreement of life is death. Being here in this reality is an agreement. If you want to change that, you have to die in the physical sense. (That is why marriage is similar to death and often is more painful than death.) But the point is, agreements are sometimes harder to get out of than into. You cannot change gravity by wishing it away. You agreed to it and if you want to change it in your reality you have to die. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are universal constants...completely exclusive of what we "agree" on. Like what? Like gravity... if we jump from a building we will fall...not fly. We can disagree but to our own consequence. Like 2 + 2 =4 It won't be 5 no matter hard much we want it to be. To be simplistic that is... If we jump from a building we will fall right? Do you agree with that? Is that a fact? Do you think gravity is a good idea? If it were not for gravity, we would all be floating around and so would everything else. In spite of its pitfalls, gravity is a good idea, and I think we all agreed on it. Do you know anyone who does not agree with that? (I don't) Therefore, gravity is a good example of an agreement. It was also an agreement before individual souls agreed to enter this environment, (but that belief requires a belief in the incarnation process.) Gravity is not an idea. it is a reality whether we all agree on it or not. Because there was a time when we did not. When the church said that the sun revolved around the earth and everyone agreed with them did that make it so? Of course not. You can believe with all your hart that somthing is real but if it's not, then it's not. There are facts and there are beliefes they are not the same thing. This only proves that concept of "the observer" is not simply a human being. Most people who try to understand the philosophy behind "the observer" examples only think in terms of a human being. Human beings are not the final determining observers, they are merely manifestations of their higher spiritual selves who are the true observers. These true observers hold much more knowledge than mere human being observers. If you want to talk about human knowledge then go over to Creative's thread where they will agree with you, but this is a thread about philosophy and personal truth, and is a little more abstract in concept because it is based on the premise that life is supported by an infinite conscious spirit. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/179102 Gravity and all the laws of physics are agreements that were formed and agreed upon by those observers who manifested (manifest) this reality. All who enter this reality agree to these laws. My bad I did not know this was the thred where everyone had to be in agreement whether it was true or not. And your right there are to many leaps and untruths for me to be apart of the observer thred and I am one to want to point them out and I see thats not what you want. Again, my apologies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and why are you so hung up telling everyone that they have agreed to something ...it's the same as saiding because we are born we made an agreement to be responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve ..and you offer no proof or logic behind what you speak of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/12/08 10:28 AM
|
|
There are universal constants...completely exclusive of what we "agree" on. Like what? Like gravity... if we jump from a building we will fall...not fly. We can disagree but to our own consequence. Like 2 + 2 =4 It won't be 5 no matter hard much we want it to be. To be simplistic that is... If we jump from a building we will fall right? Do you agree with that? Is that a fact? Do you think gravity is a good idea? If it were not for gravity, we would all be floating around and so would everything else. In spite of its pitfalls, gravity is a good idea, and I think we all agreed on it. Do you know anyone who does not agree with that? (I don't) Therefore, gravity is a good example of an agreement. It was also an agreement before individual souls agreed to enter this environment, (but that belief requires a belief in the incarnation process.) Gravity is not an idea. it is a reality whether we all agree on it or not. Because there was a time when we did not. When the church said that the sun revolved around the earth and everyone agreed with them did that make it so? Of course not. You can believe with all your hart that somthing is real but if it's not, then it's not. There are facts and there are beliefes they are not the same thing. This only proves that concept of "the observer" is not simply a human being. Most people who try to understand the philosophy behind "the observer" examples only think in terms of a human being. Human beings are not the final determining observers, they are merely manifestations of their higher spiritual selves who are the true observers. These true observers hold much more knowledge than mere human being observers. If you want to talk about human knowledge then go over to Creative's thread where they will agree with you, but this is a thread about philosophy and personal truth, and is a little more abstract in concept because it is based on the premise that life is supported by an infinite conscious spirit. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/179102 Gravity and all the laws of physics are agreements that were formed and agreed upon by those observers who manifested (manifest) this reality. All who enter this reality agree to these laws. My bad I did not know this was the thred where everyone had to be in agreement whether it was true or not. And your right there are to many leaps and untruths for me to be apart of the observer thred and I am one to want to point them out and I see thats not what you want. Again, my apologies. And you certainly have a right to disagree with the premise of a spiritual existence behind everything, but I had not intended to continue the endless argument of the existence of spirit or God behind all life in this thread. I am talking philosophy and defining "the observer" as a spiritual entity manifesting itself. I understand and accept that you do not agree. Perhaps you are an atheist. You do have the right to decide what is true and what is not true and what is real and what is not real, and it is apparent that you have already done that. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and why are you so hung up telling everyone that they have agreed to something ...it's the same as saiding because we are born we made an agreement to be responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve ..and you offer no proof or logic behind what you speak of That is because truth is a personal thing, and logic is also unique to the individual. If you do not agree or see any truth in my words then they are not meant for you to read. Nobody is twisting your arm to be reading this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and why are you so hung up telling everyone that they have agreed to something ...it's the same as saiding because we are born we made an agreement to be responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve ..and you offer no proof or logic behind what you speak of That is because truth is a personal thing, and logic is also unique to the individual. If you do not agree or see any truth in my words then they are not meant for you to read. Nobody is twisting your arm to be reading this thread. temper temper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Confusion, of a pathological degree, usually refers to loss of orientation (ability to place oneself correctly in the world by time, location, and personal identity) and often memory (ability to correctly recall previous events or learn new material). Confusion as such is not synonymous with inability to focus attention, although severe inability to focus attention can cause, or greatly contribute to, confusion. Together, confusion and inability to focus attention (both of which affect judgment) are the twin symptoms of a loss or lack of normal brain function (mentation).
So confusion is the lack of NORMAL brain Function. So what is normal. normalcy Hear it! Related Forms · Quotes Variant of normal normal Definition nor·mal (nôr′məl) adjective 1. conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; esp., corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular Accepted standard is normal. Then would we by definition say anyone who does not conform to Normal standard is then in a state of confusion. Normal has to be defined as the majority. Then if we go out side of the normal standard of the majority are we not then in a state of confusion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So confusion is the lack of NORMAL brain Function. So what is normal. abnormacy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Confusion, of a pathological degree, usually refers to loss of orientation (ability to place oneself correctly in the world by time, location, and personal identity) and often memory (ability to correctly recall previous events or learn new material). Confusion as such is not synonymous with inability to focus attention, although severe inability to focus attention can cause, or greatly contribute to, confusion. Together, confusion and inability to focus attention (both of which affect judgment) are the twin symptoms of a loss or lack of normal brain function (mentation). So confusion is the lack of NORMAL brain Function. So what is normal. normalcy Hear it! Related Forms · Quotes Variant of normal normal Definition nor·mal (nôr′məl) adjective 1. conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; esp., corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular Accepted standard is normal. Then would we by definition say anyone who does not conform to Normal standard is then in a state of confusion. Normal has to be defined as the majority. Then if we go out side of the normal standard of the majority are we not then in a state of confusion? Yes, the majority rules. but does that make it moral? If the majority of people said that stealing is moral. Is it? And if a few said they did not believe stealing was moral then are they just confused? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and why are you so hung up telling everyone that they have agreed to something ...it's the same as saiding because we are born we made an agreement to be responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve ..and you offer no proof or logic behind what you speak of That is because truth is a personal thing, and logic is also unique to the individual. If you do not agree or see any truth in my words then they are not meant for you to read. Nobody is twisting your arm to be reading this thread. temper temper Don't misinterpret my brutal honesty with anger. I'm simply telling you the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Confusion, of a pathological degree, usually refers to loss of orientation (ability to place oneself correctly in the world by time, location, and personal identity) and often memory (ability to correctly recall previous events or learn new material). Confusion as such is not synonymous with inability to focus attention, although severe inability to focus attention can cause, or greatly contribute to, confusion. Together, confusion and inability to focus attention (both of which affect judgment) are the twin symptoms of a loss or lack of normal brain function (mentation). So confusion is the lack of NORMAL brain Function. So what is normal. normalcy Hear it! Related Forms · Quotes Variant of normal normal Definition nor·mal (nôr′məl) adjective 1. conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; esp., corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular Accepted standard is normal. Then would we by definition say anyone who does not conform to Normal standard is then in a state of confusion. Normal has to be defined as the majority. Then if we go out side of the normal standard of the majority are we not then in a state of confusion? Yes, the majority rules. but does that make it moral? If the majority of people said that stealing is moral. Is it? And if a few said they did not believe stealing was moral then are they just confused? This was just meant as a demonstration of what some so called facts can lead you to believe. Shalom...Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 11/12/08 01:39 PM
|
|
Yes, the majority rules. but does that make it moral? If the majority of people said that stealing is moral. Is it? And if a few said they did not believe stealing was moral then are they just confused? You seem to be proposing that there is such a thing as an "absolute" when it comes to morality. But that is not the case. "Morality" is what the majority says it is. Look at it this way: in the entire history of mankind, is there anying that has been considered "moral" by every person who ever lived? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Wed 11/12/08 01:41 PM
|
 Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all?  Yeah, I remember when you had a thread about this. I personally feel that although there may be an aspect of this to reality as we percive it,there is a more fundamental true reality that we may not be fully able to percieve. Like Plato's Cave. Actually, higher reality can be percieved through a variety of methods.The best example I can think of would be through mathematics.The fundamental truth of any mathematical equation is always true.For example 1 + 1 always equals 2.Theres some unchanging truth for ya.
|
|
|
|
|
