Restoring My Beliefs

[Danoff]

Existence and non-existence. No difference. Both are affirmative statements that rely one one another for context.

Sorry that's just false. There is a difference, and they do not rely upon each other for context. They rely upon a concept for context, but then again, so does everything.

Seriously, do you think it makes you sound smart to say that existence and non-existence are equivalent?

For more on that, read anything by Jiddu Krishnamurti, Buddha, Jesus (Gospel of Thomas), Dogen and anyone else that have seen things beyond this finite manifestation of a universe.

It has yet to be established that they have in fact seen anything beyond this "finite manifestation of a universe".

 

[Swift]

As such, it cannot be observed nor can it be thought about because it's a paradigm that supercedes consciousness and thought. Neither can approach the immensity of it. I won't get into details because this sort of thing is beyond even the most discerning intellects, including mine. The better part of ninety-nine point nine percent of people aren't capable nor ready of breaking out of their deeply-entrenched conceptual prisons to see through all the nonsense they take for reality. That's the problem with religion.

And that's all I choose to say on the matter.

Uncreated

Uh...if you aren't capable of comprehending it, then what are you talking about?

 

[Famine]

absolute truth, that's distinctionless non-dual truth beyond all thought, time, space and matter
[...]
read anything by Jiddu Krishnamurti, Buddha, Jesus (Gospel of Thomas) and anyone else that have seen things beyond this finite manifestation of a world

I hope this is a windup.

 

[ledhed]

Existence and non-existence. No difference. Both are affirmative statements that rely one one another for context. Those terms scratch one another's back, so to speak, and to say the kingdom exists or doesn't is to say the same thing. Both statements miss the point by a million miles when set against absolute truth.

Whether we say existence or non-existence, that absolute truth escapes us. And to qualify what I mean by absolute truth, that's distinctionless non-dual truth beyond all thought, time, space and matter -- not some fleeting relative truth one might find in books or somesuch.

Think I'll dilly-dally back off into the Tourist Trophy forum now.

Uncreated

PM me with the name of your supplier I want some of that stuff...

 

[The Uncreated]

Sorry that's just false. There is a difference, and they do not rely upon each other for context. They rely upon a concept for context, but then again, so does everything.

Trivially simple to demonstrate. What is up without down? What does one make of an outside when there's no inside? Get rid of all the evil people and I guarantee you there won't be anymore good people either. That's just a few basic examples.

That said, there is no existence without non-existence. If you say one, you say the other. It's impossible to speak of one without implying the other. To say this apple before me "exists" or to say water "doesn't exist" in an empty water bottle is to, again, miss the point about the apple and water by very wide margain. That's truth for you -- ever elusive.

Schroedinger's cat is trapped in that box. An hour has passed and there's a fifty percent chance the giger counter triggered, breaking the vial of poison. Before you open that box, that cat remains in a quantum superposition of life and death. Not one or the other. It does not become one or the other until the state of the cat is determined by consciousness -- observed with one's eyes. It's at that point when the cat's essence, it's truth is missed entirely.

Real truth contains all possibilities at once. False truth is the absence of every other possibility.

Seriously, do you think it makes you sound smart to say that existence and non-existence are equivalent?

I don't care to demonstrate any sort of smarts you might think I have. All the I.Q. in the world can't answer the most important questions in life. I realized that long ago.

At any rate, read what I said above.

I'm done. See you later.

Uncreated

 

[Danoff]

Trivially simple to demonstrate. What is up without down? What does one make of an outside when there's no inside? Get rid of all the evil people and I guarantee you there won't be anymore good people either.

Let me assure you, the "kingdom" doesn't exist.

Existence and non-existence. No difference. Both are affirmative statements that rely one one another for context.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is no difference. And your claim that the existence of heaven relies on the non-existance of heaven for reference doesn't help bolster that argument.

There is a difference, and they do not rely upon each other for context.

We missed each other here. I was referring to the literal existence of heaven not requiring the literal non-existence of heaven for reference - it only requires the concept of heaven and the concept of existence for reference.

If I say an apple exists. It requires only the concept of an apple and the concept of existence for context. It does not require the context of an apple not existing.

But this is a big tanget to the point - which is that existence and non-existence are fundamentally different, and heaven, in the only meaningful sense of the word, "truly" belongs in the latter category.


btw:

I don't care to demonstrate any sort of smarts you might think I have. All the I.Q. in the world can't answer the most important questions in life. I realized that long ago.

👍 Good job deflecting my inflamatory remark. Well played sir.

 

[ledhed]

I don't care to demonstrate any sort of smarts you might think I have. All the I.Q. in the world can't answer the most important questions in life. I realized that long ago.

actually thats about the best thing I got out of all his post...not a critisim just personal preference to stay away from expanding my head until my brain pops out. cripes algerbra makes my ears bleed...imagine what this stuff will do to me .

 

[James2097]

If you say an apple exists, you DO immediately infer you're aware of the concept of an apple's potential non-existance (or ANYTHING's non-existance for that matter). If you didn't know what non-existance was, you would just think everything is just THERE, without even needing to say it exists or not.

I do get what Uncreated was saying (or what I presume he was saying), and I think Danoff was talking about a slightly different thing (where we automatically understand what the concept of existance is, and just need to clarify whether certain things literally exist). A person who refers to something as existing as a basic concept, is automatically familiar with the opposite, hence their need to make the distinction.

 

[FoolKiller]

Full circle. I don't speak of localized personal truths. They mean nothing.

Yeah, but they sure do help.

Give me an example of a truth that's identical for everybody, everwhere and at every point in time throughout history.

What do you mean by truth? Because I am assuming that the fact that everyone everywhere and everywhen had to breath and receive nourishment and water in order to live is not what you mean.

 

[Famine]

Apropos of nothing, and not out of wishing to start yet another fight, what was Jesus' surname?

I mean, "Christ" is an honorific, right (meaning "anointed one", I think)? His "father" wasn't Joseph Christ as far as I know. Other people in the Bible have surnames - Judas Iscariot, Mary Magdalene, errrr... some other people... SO what WAS Jesus' surname?

 

[Perfect Balance]

unless you are Adam, Eve or Jesus, you aren't perfect.

You realize the first 2 are possibly the worse examples of "perfect" you could have used.

 

[a6m5]

You realize the first 2 are possibly the worse examples of "perfect" you could have used.

My understanding was that Adam and Eve were "perfect" in the begining. I could be wrong.

Famine: You know more about the religion than I do, but I was under the impression that Jesus was simply known as Jesus of Nazareth(where he was from), with no lastname?

 

[Perfect Balance]

Well, maybe in the beginning, but they were suppposedly the ones who first sinned.


Side note - Gosh people like Famine and Danoff are smart. It takes me a while to even understand what they're saying, much less interpret it to myself.

 

[a6m5]

Well, maybe in the beginning, but they were suppposedly the ones you who first sinned.

You mean, "ones who first sinned?". I do see why you made the comment you did. Where did you get that quote by me? Can you point me to it? It doesn't quite sound right.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I edited my mistake out.

The post is on the first or second page of this thread. I saw your post and automatically replied, then I realized how far the thread had gone.

Hold on i'll find the post.

EDIT: Aha! Post #9

 

[a6m5]

Thanks. I didn't realize it was part of such a big post!

Long story short, I've been rethinking my beliefs. The only hole in what I believe in is death. To be honest, I am scared of it. I don't know what is going to happen when I die, but all I know is I DONT want to find out... That is one reason that have been thinking of changing what I believe in, since according to the bible, and God, I can still get into heaven yet. I know this kind of sounds stupid, but, I would like to believe in some sort of life after death, because eternal darkness is scary. Switching to the christian faith will give me something more to believe in, maybe giving me some inner peace, which I lack of recent.

I think that is one of the reasons why many people belong in religions. All I can tell you is just live the right way. With or without religion, you should live clean life. We all know; don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, etc., etc. Just remember, and this is according to the Bible you are so afraid of , unless you are Adam, Eve or Jesus, you aren't perfect. We should make effort that religions like the Christianity asks of us, but there is no way we will ever be perfect(at least not in this lifetime).

OK, I did bit of googling. Looks like Adam was (created)perfect, until he sinned. I assume the same of Eve, but doesn't look like the Bible touches on if Eve was perfect or not. None of us regular humans are perfect, because their sin were passed onto us. This did not affect Jesus, because he was son of God.

 

[Famine]

My understanding was that Adam and Eve were "perfect" in the begining. I could be wrong.

Famine: You know more about the religion than I do, but I was under the impression that Jesus was simply known as Jesus of Nazareth(where he was from), with no lastname?

But he must have had a family name - after all, these were Roman times, and Roman citizens had at least THREE names - and other mentioned characters have a surname...

 

[GT4_Rule]

Thanks. I didn't realize it was part of such a big post!

OK, I did bit of googling. Looks like Adam was (created)perfect, until he sinned. I assume the same of Eve, but doesn't look like the Bible touches on if Eve was perfect or not. None of us regular humans are perfect, because their sin were passed onto us. This did not affect Jesus, because he was son of God.

That was what I learned while studying the Bible for a year and half. They were perfect until they commited the sin.

I've always thought Jesus' last name was Christ.

 

[Famine]

That's an honourific, meaning "anointed one". If it were his last name then his father and/or mother must have had the same surname. Joseph Christ? Mary Christ?

 

[Touring Mars]

They were perfect until they commited the sin.

and

My understanding was that Adam and Eve were "perfect" in the begining.

That's something that I've always had an issue with, and one that is central to my 'belief system' (if indeed you can call it that...) The notion of 'humankind' being perfect or, more specifically, that we originated from 'perfect beings' such as Adam and Eve (before they sinned etc.)... I find the concept of 'perfection' in this case to be misleading and thoroughly unhelpful when it comes to forming an opinion with regards to a belief system...

We should not accept that Adam and Eve were 'perfect' any more so than we should somehow consider ourselves imperfect... in a literal sense, no animal or living thing is 'perfect' - yes, we may be 'perfectly adapted' to our surroundings, but 'perfect' implies a suitedness to all environments that is simply not the case, and is infact impossible. If the 'perfect human' were dropped in the middle of the ocean, we'd soon see how perfect they really were...

We bound around the word 'perfect' without really analysing what it means to describe something as perfect... at best it is a subjective and comparitive term (and not a literal one) and at worst it's thoroughly misused and misleading...

 

[FoolKiller]

We bound around the word 'perfect' without really analysing what it means to describe something as perfect... at best it is a subjective and comparitive term (and not a literal one) and at worst it's thoroughly misused and misleading...

But I am sure that everyone here understands the term perfect is referring to sin and nothing more. No one is trying to use it to say that Adam was 100% adaptable to any life-threatening situation. He is not a polymorph.

Of course if we believe in Adam then we must believe in the Garden of Eden, in which case, there was no life-threatening situation and he could be called perfect in a broad sense as he was perfectly adapted to his surroundings. If I understand the story correctly, it wasn't until they sinned that God decided to make things threatening and cause mortality.


FAMINE, I must say you have stumped me. You are correct about Christ being an honorific. Jesus Christ is actually shortened from Jesus the Christ. The Christ part referred to him as being the saviour told of in prophecy.

I have only heard of him referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene(sp?). I have never heard of Joseph or Mary being referred to as anything else. However, the issue you bring up about the whole Roman rule, did that apply to those they had taken over as well? Or is it possible that his legal name was not determined under Roman law since they fled to Egypt after his birth? Also, did they give surnames based on their jobs, such as Jesus the carpenter of Nazareth? If that's the case I guess he would be Jesus Carpenter.

Wait, perhaps that is where the Jesus Christ came from is that he was referred to as the Christ instead of his legal profession of carpenter and essentially became Jesus Christ, both honorific and surname? Probably not, I'm stretching there.

 

[Touring Mars]

But I am sure that everyone here understands the term perfect is referring to sin and nothing more. No one is trying to use it to say that Adam was 100% adaptable to any life-threatening situation. He is not a polymorph.

Well, in that case, I'd still say that Adam was pretty far from perfect, since even before he sinned he clearly had the propensity to sin...

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, in that case, I'd still say that Adam was pretty far from perfect, since even before he sinned he clearly had the propensity to sin...

Freewill, it is a double-edged sword.

 

[Touring Mars]

Freewill, it is a double-edged sword.

Indeed, especially when you consider it as a 'God-given' ability...

If I understand the story correctly, it wasn't until they sinned that God decided to make things threatening and cause mortality.

If you believe that God gave Adam (and by extension, us) free will, then it must also have been God himself who gave us the ability and desire to sin in the first place...Therefore it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that the human race should be cursed or punished with the bane of mortality for possessing abilities that God himself gave us...

It seems very strange to me that people choose to believe in a vengeful, even spiteful God who would do this. I for one do not believe for one second that our mortality was ever something that was 'given' or 'taken away'... human immortality is something that firmly dwells in the realms of fantasy/fiction... even conceptually it just doesn't work or make any sense.

 

[Danoff]

If you believe that God gave Adam (and by extension, us) free will, then it must also have been God himself who gave us the ability and desire to sin in the first place...Therefore it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that the human race should be cursed or punished with the bane of mortality for possessing abilities that God himself gave us...

It seems very strange to me that people choose to believe in a vengeful, even spiteful God who would do this. I for one do not believe for one second that our mortality was ever something that was 'given' or 'taken away'... human immortality is something that firmly dwells in the realms of fantasy/fiction... even conceptually it just doesn't work or make any sense.

Somehow this all seems very familiar.

What exactly would we have been like if God hadn't given us free will?

 

[Swift]

What exactly would we have been like if God hadn't given us free will?

A robot following rules. Like the ones in I, Robot.

 

[Danoff]

A robot following rules. Like the ones in I, Robot.

Good thing god gave all living creatures free will then.

 

[Touring Mars]

What exactly would we have been like if God hadn't given us free will?

That's a moot point.... (although I'm well aware that you know that...) The fact is that we do have free will.... It's more a question of whether you believe our free will was given to us by God or not... Of course, I believe not... there is a dichotomy you must face if you choose to believe that God is responsible for our free will, which is what I was hinting at earlier... if He did give us free will and hence the ability to sin, then why were we also then subsequently punished for using it?

It seems ironic (to say the least) that if we had not been 'given' free will, we would be nothing more than a zombie race of automatons controlled from on-high... a vision of hell if ever there was one... hardly consistent with the utopian dream that humankind strives for - freedom being the single property held most dear to our hearts (esp. American hearts!)...

In other words, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't (have free will)... with it, we are able to sin and thus cast out of the image of 'perfection' as attained only by Jesus Christ. Without it, we're mindless robots doomed to an eternity of nothingness. Bit of a raw deal if you ask me... well, only if you measure yourself against the yardstick of the 'unattainable', which is never a good idea...

 

[Danoff]

I'm wondering if all animals can sin, since they all have free will.

 

[Swift]

I'm wondering if all animals can sin, since they all have free will.

Do they really?