"if you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't perceive God." -- anonymous third-century Christian heretic

It has been noted here numerous times that we have different perceptions of God. We create our own reality--as the Veda puts it, "We are not in the world, the world is in us." Same thing with God.

Deepak Chopra posits that there are seven faces, or levels of God. If your God is first-level, you will not communicate well with someone whose God is seventh-level, for instance. Since God is infinite, he/she/it/them/whatever can manifest to us with equal validity at any level, depending on our own level of spiritual development--no one is any "better' than any other.

Level one -- God the protector --this is best recognized as the God of the Old Testament, the God which AF ( I think) and I both reject. This god is vengeful, capricious, quick to anger, jealous, judgemental, unfathomable and (sometimes) merciful.

Level two -- God the almighty --this is, I think, the God of Catholicism in general and the Jesuits in particular, being soverign, omnipotent, just, the answerer of prayers, impartial, rational, organized into rules.

Level three -- God of Peace -- This God is maybe a little more Hindu than Christian--as an Indian guru once said "You believe that you were created to serve God, but in the end you may discover tha God was created to serve you." This god is detached, calm, offering consolation, undemanding, conciliatory, silent, meditative.

Level four -- God the redeemer -- this God leans more toward the pagan conception of Goddess, having strong qualities we typically associate with the feminine. This God is understanding, tolerant, forgiving, nonjudgemental, inclusive and accepting.

Level five -- God the creator --One finds this god when intuition becomes so powerful that it must manifest physically. This is the level at which shamans and psychics typically work. This god is of unlimited creative potential, has control over space and time, abundant, open, generous, willing to be known, and
inspired.

Level six -- god of miracles -- This is the level of some saints, among the dozens of whom who could levitate, be in two places at once, emit light from their bodies at prayer, and do healings. This god is transformative, mystical, enlightened, beyond all causes, existing, magical, healing--an alchemist. Words can only convey a hint of this Being.

Level seven -- the god of pure being. This is the god who can only be experienced by going beyond experience. This God is unborn, undying, unchanging, umoving, unmanifest, immeasurable, invisible, intangible and infinite. This is the god spoken of by Sufi and Hindu sages. As Rumi wrote "There is someone who looks after us/ From behind the curtain./In truth we are not here/This is our shadow."

That feels like it has some basis.

"if you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't perceive God." -- anonymous third-century Christian heretic

It has been noted here numerous times that we have different perceptions of God. We create our own reality--as the Veda puts it, "We are not in the world, the world is in us." Same thing with God.

Deepak Chopra posits that there are seven faces, or levels of God. If your God is first-level, you will not communicate well with someone whose God is seventh-level, for instance. Since God is infinite, he/she/it/them/whatever can manifest to us with equal validity at any level, depending on our own level of spiritual development--no one is any "better' than any other.

Level one -- God the protector --this is best recognized as the God of the Old Testament, the God which AF ( I think) and I both reject. This god is vengeful, capricious, quick to anger, jealous, judgemental, unfathomable and (sometimes) merciful.

Level two -- God the almighty --this is, I think, the God of Catholicism in general and the Jesuits in particular, being soverign, omnipotent, just, the answerer of prayers, impartial, rational, organized into rules.

Level three -- God of Peace -- This God is maybe a little more Hindu than Christian--as an Indian guru once said "You believe that you were created to serve God, but in the end you may discover tha God was created to serve you." This god is detached, calm, offering consolation, undemanding, conciliatory, silent, meditative.

Level four -- God the redeemer -- this God leans more toward the pagan conception of Goddess, having strong qualities we typically associate with the feminine. This God is understanding, tolerant, forgiving, nonjudgemental, inclusive and accepting.

Level five -- God the creator --One finds this god when intuition becomes so powerful that it must manifest physically. This is the level at which shamans and psychics typically work. This god is of unlimited creative potential, has control over space and time, abundant, open, generous, willing to be known, and
inspired.

Level six -- god of miracles -- This is the level of some saints, among the dozens of whom who could levitate, be in two places at once, emit light from their bodies at prayer, and do healings. This god is transformative, mystical, enlightened, beyond all causes, existing, magical, healing--an alchemist. Words can only convey a hint of this Being.

Level seven -- the god of pure being. This is the god who can only be experienced by going beyond experience. This God is unborn, undying, unchanging, umoving, unmanifest, immeasurable, invisible, intangible and infinite. This is the god spoken of by Sufi and Hindu sages. As Rumi wrote "There is someone who looks after us/ From behind the curtain./In truth we are not here/This is our shadow."

And can you demonstrate this with any evidence? You certainly would win the nobel prize if you can.

AM was not the originator of the idea, or so I read in his post.

But you also have to see that, even with solid proof, people would ignore it.

This doesn't seem to be a scientific fact, it is not a compound with a definate atomic weight.

I see some truth in the classification, There is rarely a single god who pools from all the elevels, or even two.

Now fo a asshole/religion classification table!

Why couldn't your God be a collection of all seven, just at different times in your walk of faith?

I think we too often try to humanize God or put him in a box. I'm quite sure that God is above human logic and classification, and ultimately above our ability to understand him completely.

"if you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't perceive God." -- anonymous third-century Christian heretic

It has been noted here numerous times that we have different perceptions of God. We create our own reality--as the Veda puts it, "We are not in the world, the world is in us." Same thing with God.

Deepak Chopra posits that there are seven faces, or levels of God. If your God is first-level, you will not communicate well with someone whose God is seventh-level, for instance. Since God is infinite, he/she/it/them/whatever can manifest to us with equal validity at any level, depending on our own level of spiritual development--no one is any "better' than any other.

Level one -- God the protector --this is best recognized as the God of the Old Testament, the God which AF ( I think) and I both reject. This god is vengeful, capricious, quick to anger, jealous, judgemental, unfathomable and (sometimes) merciful.

Level two -- God the almighty --this is, I think, the God of Catholicism in general and the Jesuits in particular, being soverign, omnipotent, just, the answerer of prayers, impartial, rational, organized into rules.

Level three -- God of Peace -- This God is maybe a little more Hindu than Christian--as an Indian guru once said "You believe that you were created to serve God, but in the end you may discover tha God was created to serve you." This god is detached, calm, offering consolation, undemanding, conciliatory, silent, meditative.

Level four -- God the redeemer -- this God leans more toward the pagan conception of Goddess, having strong qualities we typically associate with the feminine. This God is understanding, tolerant, forgiving, nonjudgemental, inclusive and accepting.

Level five -- God the creator --One finds this god when intuition becomes so powerful that it must manifest physically. This is the level at which shamans and psychics typically work. This god is of unlimited creative potential, has control over space and time, abundant, open, generous, willing to be known, and
inspired.

Level six -- god of miracles -- This is the level of some saints, among the dozens of whom who could levitate, be in two places at once, emit light from their bodies at prayer, and do healings. This god is transformative, mystical, enlightened, beyond all causes, existing, magical, healing--an alchemist. Words can only convey a hint of this Being.

Level seven -- the god of pure being. This is the god who can only be experienced by going beyond experience. This God is unborn, undying, unchanging, umoving, unmanifest, immeasurable, invisible, intangible and infinite. This is the god spoken of by Sufi and Hindu sages. As Rumi wrote "There is someone who looks after us/ From behind the curtain./In truth we are not here/This is our shadow."

Personally I would switch around level three and level four. Level 5 shamanic stuff is all in their minds. They alter their own consciousness, brainwave patterns and neurochemistry through drugs, sonic driving etc. until they start to see the Spirit World. From my perspective, they are percieving illusiary beings because of their altered states of consciousness - a disruption in their normal brain chemistry. But even "normal" reality is illusiary, at least to Buddhists and myself.

As you said in quoting the Veda, "We are not in the world, the world is in us." Whatever you percieve/think/feel, is effectively your reality. There's an old buddhist story about a monkey trapped in a house... it's a great analogy for this. in your thread 'What is meditation?' I mentioned a book, Cutting through Spiritual Materialism. If you ever get a hold of it, read the section about the monkey.

on that note, Level 7 sounds like buddhist descriptions of enlightenment

AM, have you read anything on how long it typically takes a person to be lifted from hell to the seventh heaven?

I've only been in the seventh heaven once while alive, and I held command over the wind (it stopped upon the instant telling it so, and began upon the instant telling it so) until I shrunk back to a lower heaven. That was the moment I quit seeing NDEs as hallucinations and spirituality as nonsense. Nature obeyed...for no understood reason.

I'd say the majority of the time, at his current point in my life, I range between a level 3 and a 4. I've also experienced levels 2,5 and 7.

AM, have you read anything on how long it typically takes a person to be lifted from hell to the seventh heaven?

I've only been in the seventh heaven once while alive, and I held command over the wind (it stopped upon the instant telling it so, and began upon the instant telling it so) until I shrunk back to a lower heaven. That was the moment I quit seeing NDEs as hallucinations and spirituality as nonsense. Nature obeyed...for no understood reason.

lol +2

"if you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't perceive God." -- anonymous third-century Christian heretic

It has been noted here numerous times that we have different perceptions of God. We create our own reality--as the Veda puts it, "We are not in the world, the world is in us." Same thing with God.

Deepak Chopra posits that there are seven faces, or levels of God. If your God is first-level, you will not communicate well with someone whose God is seventh-level, for instance. Since God is infinite, he/she/it/them/whatever can manifest to us with equal validity at any level, depending on our own level of spiritual development--no one is any "better' than any other.

The third century heretic was indeed a Gnostic. The belief that you are a part of God and yet God transcends you. Panentheism is being stated here. But this heretic does not equate your ego with trying to make yourself equal with God, for that can never be... at least initially.

The idea is similar to Gnosticism that there are three levels to a human being: Carnal (Hylic), Psychic (The Soul or Psyche or Psychology), and Spiritual (Pneumatic). This here is similar to our connection of how we perceive God and ourselves. Most are Pre-dominantly Psychic. It should be noted that in this Gnostic view you are all three yet one is more pre-dominant in you.

Why only seven? There's been so many different opinions out there, not to mention you only stuck to monotheistic beliefs.

Also, why stop at the seventh level. Are there not those who can transcend that level and see God in yet a more involved light. I mean, who is to say we are not all marionettes and God is playing each of us? Granted there's not theological scriptures about this sort of God, but if I or anyone else can think it up, does it not hold as much merit as a book a group of people got together, wrote, edited, and published?

Why couldn't your God be a collection of all seven, just at different times in your walk of faith?

I think we too often try to humanize God or put him in a box. I'm quite sure that God is above human logic and classification, and ultimately above our ability to understand him completely.

Point made. I think most people agree that God is infinite. Thing is, our comprehension is not, so we try to put God in human terms--which often does God a great disservice..

But those of us who commune with God on a day to day basis usually relate to him/her/it/them/whatever on one of those seven levels at a time. Mostly I'm at the third or fourth level, sometimes at the fifth, and at the seventh only a few times and not for long at that.

And can you demonstrate this with any evidence? You certainly would win the nobel prize if you can.

The "evidence" chimera rears its ugly head once more.

As I have stated many times before in various contexts, my only "evidence" is personal experience.

I have read, and accept as true, that it is the soul's intention to know itself experientially--and thus to know God. The soul understands that We and God are One--that at the Highest Reality, we are All One--even as the mind denies this truth, and the body acts out this denial.

The soul understands what the mind cannot conceive.

Why only seven? There's been so many different opinions out there, not to mention you only stuck to monotheistic beliefs.

Also, why stop at the seventh level. Are there not those who can transcend that level and see God in yet a more involved light. I mean, who is to say we are not all marionettes and God is playing each of us? Granted there's not theological scriptures about this sort of God, but if I or anyone else can think it up, does it not hold as much merit as a book a group of people got together, wrote, edited, and published?

That we are marionettes and God is playing us IS the seventh. Or, as Solomon says towards the end of his mental breakdown: Verily, we are all of one soul. (This is an observation marked towards all life, not just humans)

That feels like it has some basis.

lol wut?

I say switch to hinduism ASAP.

Why i like hinduism the most?

Islam, christianity talks about only ONE god. But hinduism is NOT like that..

though hinduism say there is one god it can manifest in different FORMS.

Thats why there are 33,000000 gods in hinduism.. just imagine.

Some people call type bullshit..

But let me give you an example:

You eat MANY things while having your meal.

Like starters, main course, dessert's, etc.,

why dont humans just eat one thing at once in a meal..

why dont people eat JUST carrot in a meal.. because if you want to be satisfied, you need to taste different things..

thats what hinduism gives you..

MANY GODS to satisfy your spirit.

Why only seven? There's been so many different opinions out there, not to mention you only stuck to monotheistic beliefs.

Also, why stop at the seventh level. Are there not those who can transcend that level and see God in yet a more involved light. I mean, who is to say we are not all marionettes and God is playing each of us?


Why seven? Beats me--but seven comes up an awful lot in both metaphysics and folklore. But I think those seven cover all the bases. And polytheism fits in too, when you look at say, old Greek myths--many of their gods reflect a single one of the seven faces.

The marionette thing--that would be level one--read the Book of Job for a perfect example.

AM, have you read anything on how long it typically takes a person to be lifted from hell to the seventh heaven?

I've only been in the seventh heaven once while alive, and I held command over the wind (it stopped upon the instant telling it so, and began upon the instant telling it so) until I shrunk back to a lower heaven. That was the moment I quit seeing NDEs as hallucinations and spirituality as nonsense. Nature obeyed...for no understood reason.

sometimes i cant even read this guys bullshit and stop halway through a paragraph such as this..

sometimes i fail to comprehend this persons metaphysics..


Fixed.

It is a very interesting way of looking at things. I don't think you can say much else though.

Humans have a remarkable capacity to develop cohesive belief structures and then perceive reality within those structures. (I am probably not doing a very good job of expressing the idea here).

I would have to assume God could manifest himself in any and/or all ways, but you see what you are looking for, if that makes any sense.

I would have to assume God could manifest himself in any and/or all ways, but you see what you are looking for, if that makes any sense.

Exactly. The old paradigm says that seeing is believing.

The new paradigm says that believing is seeing,which is just another way of saying that we all create our own reality.

What an adorable little story.

What an adorable little story.

LOL...

AM, have you read anything on how long it typically takes a person to be lifted from hell to the seventh heaven?

I've only been in the seventh heaven once while alive, and I held command over the wind (it stopped upon the instant telling it so, and began upon the instant telling it so) until I shrunk back to a lower heaven. That was the moment I quit seeing NDEs as hallucinations and spirituality as nonsense. Nature obeyed...for no understood reason.

Hex...were you asleep? We call those dreams. They can get pretty scary. You should refrain from confusing sleepy time with wakey time.

The "evidence" chimera rears its ugly head once more.

As I have stated many times before in various contexts, my only "evidence" is personal experience.

I have read, and accept as true, that it is the soul's intention to know itself experientially--and thus to know God. The soul understands that We and God are One--that at the Highest Reality, we are All One--even as the mind denies this truth, and the body acts out this denial.

The soul understands what the mind cannot conceive.

Are there any techniques to guide people toward having this personal experience?

AM, have you read anything on how long it typically takes a person to be lifted from hell to the seventh heaven?

I've only been in the seventh heaven once while alive, and I held command over the wind (it stopped upon the instant telling it so, and began upon the instant telling it so) until I shrunk back to a lower heaven. That was the moment I quit seeing NDEs as hallucinations and spirituality as nonsense. Nature obeyed...for no understood reason.

I can't help but think you're deluded in regard to wind thing. The wind probably changed the moment you tried to change it, due to sheer coincidence. Your brain then registered it as an unusual event, but you dont think about all the times it DIDN'T happen.

Christians saying Hurricane Katrina was caused by God's wrath comes to mind. There are natural weather patterns, they are predictable.

LOL...



Hex...were you asleep? We call those dreams. They can get pretty scary. You should refrain from confusing sleepy time with wakey time.

No, it was one of the four times I've been awake.

I can't help but think you're deluded in regard to wind thing. The wind probably changed the moment you tried to change it, due to sheer coincidence. Your brain then registered it as an unusual event, but you dont think about all the times it DIDN'T happen.

Christians saying Hurricane Katrina was caused by God's wrath comes to mind. There are natural weather patterns, they are predictable.

Read my latest post in the Bodhisattva thread.

God sucks. Dick.

Only idiots, drunks, and ex-convicts turn to religion.

With that said, I still found this to be an extremely insightful thread. Thank you.

I don't understand why people who are without religion congregate around a religious sub forum.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can explain why I've enjoyed this forum for many years, though I'm not religious:

It's the belief in belief that's fascinating, to me. It's learning about how others use the God concept in their life to help them through dark days and bad times, and learning through the trials and tribulations of others how to make my own personal struggles more positive, even though I don't rely on God to see me through.

It's interesting to hear how other people interpret their religion. It's interesting to learn how they came to know God, and it's very valuable to me to have a group of (anonymous) peers offer their opinions on what God is (or isn't).

I've seen the God concept presented in so many different ways on here. It helps reaffirm my own stance, and helps reinforce some core beliefs I hold onto, some that tend to slip away from me from time to time. Beyond all the arguments, name-calling, finger-pointing and ridicule that goes on here, there's something to be said for a group of atheists and a group of theists developing a rapport with one another that might be absent out in The Real. Something about the online disinhibition experience - it brings out a very raw and no-holds-barred discourse that allows each participant a stand behind the proverbial podium and an audience that might otherwise not listen if they were approached any other way.

I always wonder at the end of the day (or at the end of a post) how something I or someone else might have said may have influenced another individual. While most of us claim NOT to be pushing agendas, it's evident in our banter that we're ALL perspective-pushers in our own rite.

But their's a major difference between explaining your POV and offensively damning anyone (read: everyone) else's. When someone brings up an idea, it's good to get the creative juices flowing and debate with them or wrap around their "inconsistencies" or "eccentric ideas" but when people come in and bash and bash, never giving one good word for anyone, just shitting all over everyone it's kinda lame.

That's when the ignore feature comes in handy.

That's when the ignore feature comes in handy.

I don't use it b/c I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt that in some other sub-forum they'll make an educated post that is relevant towards the material. But then again... eh good point. I'm gonna start using it.

No, it was one of the four times I've been awake.

Was it in one of these four periods of awakedness that you went to heaven and saw the face of God and spoke to him?

Did he tell you to come here? Did he tell you your purpose? Did he grant you super powers of any kind?

Tell me of these other three times of awakedness. Did you time travel? See Elvis? Travel to an alien planet?

How bad does your life suck that you have to make up absurd stories about your supernatural adventures? Seriously. I have met plenty of people like you and I am unimpressed with the lot of you pathological lying wastes of flesh.

Best advice you will ever get: Stop believing in magic, and get a life based in the real world.

I don't use it b/c I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt that in some other sub-forum they'll make an educated post that is relevant towards the material. But then again... eh good point. I'm gonna start using it.

Why not use your pscionic mind powers to block out the text you wish? Does your super power work that way? What can you do with it?

Tell me, does your supernatural pscionic mind power allow you to stop making up absurd shit? Is there a magical mind power for that?

^Debate, disagreement is fine--sarcasm and personal insult is not acceptable here, however. If you want to flame someone,do it in HB or B&M.

Post there and you are sitting at the grown-ups table, and you WILL behave yourself or you WILL be spanked.

Are there any techniques to guide people toward having this personal experience?

Good question. However, there is no good, pat answer. We are ALL on the road to sainthood, but it is more like the ultimate superhighway--it has bazillion lanes. Some of us are in the passing lane,others in the slow lane, some temporarily parked on the shoulder with a flat tire. But we are all headed in the same direction,and no "lane" has to be any better than another.

Nature helps a lot, which is one reason I love living here so much. Just contemplating the snow-capped mountains is quite inspirational. Meditation might help. Doing good works might help. Meditation and/or mescaline might help. In my case,simply CHOOSING to be enlighted works--sometimes. One time,I was sitting in an outhouse after just having read a bunch of good metaphysicial stuff,and saw a little spider--and I attained unity consciousness with the darn thing--I knew in my heart exactly what it felt like to be a spider. Another time, I did the same thing with a tree.

Whatever works, work--effectiveness is the measure of truth.

^Debate, disagreement is fine--sarcasm and personal insult is not acceptable here, however. If you want to flame someone,do it in HB or B&M.

Post there and you are sitting at the grown-ups table, and you WILL behave yourself or you WILL be spanked.

Tell me personal insult is not acceptable here, and then equate me to a child who needs to be spanked.

Not very professional, condusive to getting your message acrossed, or enlightened of you.

Was it the absurd shit comment? Would it be okay if I asked him what super human powers he believes he possesses? Seriously, what is the proper way to ask somebody what super power they have, what God looks like up close face to face, without sounding sarcastic?

If you could answer that without being hypocritical (i.e. telling me not to insult, whilst insulting me) that would be terrific.

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/gallery/mythology/europe/greek_people/hydra.gif

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!:mad:

Tell me personal insult is not acceptable here, and then equate me to a child who needs to be spanked.

If you could answer that without being hypocritical (i.e. telling me not to insult, whilst insulting me) that would be terrific.

1) That was a general statement and a figure of speech --if you choose to take it personally and literally, that is on you.

2) This statement of yours:

"you pathological lying wastes of flesh" is what I found to be particularly objectionable.

Maybe this will help you:

OKAY-- "I find your metaphysics to be medieval"

OKAY -- "I must strongly disagree"

OKAY --"Are you QUITE cdertain of that? If so, do elucidate."

NOT OKAY -- "You lie"

NOT OKAY -- "You are a moron"

REALLY NOT OKAY -- "Fuck you, asshole"

Please don't get me wrong--Iam not completely dim,and Igrok that the very nature of this forum can bring out some deeply-held opinions and some strong feelings.

All I ask--demand, if you prefer-- is that we express our feelings without resorting to vulgarity, profanity, obscenity, or ad hominem stuff.

1) That was a general statement and a figure of speech --if you choose to take it personally and literally, that is on you.

2) Gis statement of yours:

Ah, I see, you HONESTLY meant no insult by equating me to child who needs to be spanked.

You are being hypocritical. That is a fact. If you cannot accept this, or take offense at this statement of fact personally, that is on you. This is rather childish:

If I were to say you should start drinking your milk from a big boy cup and not a ba-ba, would you take offense.

re-read his post^then you may understand

I see, just so we are clear:

OKAY: Equating someone to a child.
NOT OKAY: Saying fuck you to someone.

Now when your fellow spiritualist Masero called me a marvelous cunt without provocation or insult, did you miss that one, is it okay, or shall I point it out for you?

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2102449&page=2

I don't understand why people who are without religion congregate around a religious sub forum.

Do you want to understand why?

Some people take being called "unevolved" as a deeper insult than being called a fucking cunt.

Policing each other's attitudes and measuring the weight of each other's insults is a bit pointless, IMO. We're all grown-ups. We all have thick skin. This is just text.

Sticks and stones, my friends. Sticks and stones.

Best advice you will ever get: Stop believing in magic, and get a life based in the real world.

You know what belief is really magical? Thinking your perception is an accurate measure of reality when you've wholly known less than a billionth of the currently living people, let alone those that have lived and will live. Thinking it is accurate when you've been on the same planet your short life, that occupies a practically non-existent space in the big picture.

Yet, you still think I live in fantasy land because my experience isn't the same as yours. Do I think you're deluded? No. I think you're an arrogant prick to think your awareness of reality is somehow more sane than anybody else's. Do you know what narcissism is? It's an over-inflated value of self. Picture in your mind how big seven billion is. Now picture one. You are one. Living men on earth is seven billion. That's how much you matter as a human: One seventy millionths of a percent. You mean almost nothing to humanity, and even more so in the grand scheme of things.

Perhaps rather than trying to give me advice on how to see reality, pull your head out of your ass, humble yourself, and explore some ideas that might seem crazy to you. This being because the REALITY is you don't know shit, and after spending your entire life gathering information about 'reality', you still won't know shit about reality...but at least you won't be a narcissistic prick.

I see, just so we are clear:

OKAY: Equating someone to a child.
NOT OKAY: Saying fuck you to someone.

Now when your fellow spiritualist Masero called me a marvelous cunt without provocation or insult, did you miss that one, is it okay, or shall I point it out for you?

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2102449&page=2

I'm pretty sure I called you a marvelous cunt on the first page, not the second :D, and I was pointing out the naivete of your grabbing of straws. God wouldn't hate fags, God would hate the sin of homosexuality.

Deuteronomy 17:2-6 (King James Version)

Deuteronomy 17

2If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

4And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.


That's the context of one of your passages. MAN OR WOMAN. WITHIN THE GATES GOD HAS GIVEN. As in, adultery was fucking wrong back then in Israel, not just homosexuality.
--------------------------------------

And for your other one, Leviticus 20:13, we're going to look at the entire chapter of 20, so that you can learn context.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

3And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

4And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

5Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

6And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

7Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

8And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

9For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

10And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

11And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

12And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

17And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

18And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

19And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

20And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

21And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

22Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

23And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

24But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

25Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

26And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

27A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

So now that we've made it clear that these laws apply to people when they are IN ISRAEL, I think you can see these were hebrew laws for hebrew people, not people outside of the area of Israel.



I'm finished with this matter because you're not listening to reason. You, like every other non-believer who is out to destroy any sort of religion, have decided to also pick and choose, the very thing you claimed Christians to be hypocrites for. The pot is calling the kettle black. You're no better than anyone you attempt to disrupt. Therefore, you invalidate yourself, just as we have invalidated ourselves in your eyes. In other words, go away and you can live in your fairy tale world and we'll live in our fairy tale world and at the end of the day, we'll sleep better at night knowing that we're not trying to disprove and destroy anything other people are doing with their personal life, unlike you who had the audacity to troll around and call the Kettle black, Mr. Pot.

[QUOTE=AngryFemme;9684045]Some people take being called "unevolved" as a deeper insult than being called a fucking cunt.
QUOTE]

I fail to understand why.

There is a huge difference between making observations--which I do--and making value judgements--which I do not. I have repeatedly stated that no one is any better than anyone else, and that we are all on the road to sainthood--some of us are farther along on the road at any given time--so what? We all get to the same place eventually.

BTW, most biologists would agree that a chimp is more highly evolved than a kitten--guess which I would rather have in my cabin.

A wolverine is much more highly evolved than a butterfly--guess which I would rather have on my shoulder.

There is a huge difference between making observations--which I do--and making value judgements--which I do not.

Reporting someone else's statement as unacceptable and objectionable requires that you place a value on the content of their statement, based on your observations. Deeming the veracity of someone's skepticism towards someone's personal beliefs as OKAY/NOT OKAY/REALLY NOT OKAY is a value judgement.

Is it not?

Fixed.

as if metaphysics were the true end all and be all, shut the fuck up.

as if metaphysics were the true end all and be all, shut the fuck up.

Shutting the fuck up is no fun. If we all did it simultaneously, there would be no discussion here.

Bad suggestion!

Reporting someone else's statement as unacceptable and objectionable requires that you place a value on the content of their statement, based on your observations. Deeming the veracity of someone's skepticism towards someone's personal beliefs as OKAY/NOT OKAY/REALLY NOT OKAY is a value judgement.

Is it not?


Actually, NOT. When I say that someone else's statement is unnacceptable, I am making a statement about myself--a confession, really, since I strive to accept everything. My statement says NOTHING, really, about the original statement, but is a reflection of my own state of mind--it is purely subjective. Saying that another's statement is, say, uingrammatical , is a judgement of sorts--but it is NOT a value judgement. There is nothing wrong with being ungrammatical--it merely hampers communication.

Making value judgements implies that something is inherantly right or wrong--and I have said repeatedly, at the highest level, there is no such thing as right and wrong--only what works and what does not, what serves us and what serves us not.

So you're saying:

If Idea A works for Person A, but not for Person B then Person B has no right to say Person A is wrong for using Idea A, but should just not worry bout Idea A since it's not their cup of tea, aye?


Wherein, Person B nor Person A is right or wrong, but it doing what works best for them, which may not work best for the other person.

just not worry bout Idea A since it's not their cup of tea, aye?

Now there's some sound advice.

Now there's some sound advice.

Thank ya, Dear. :D I'm glad I can pull off something useful every now and then.

So you're saying:

If Idea A works for Person A, but not for Person B then Person B has no right to say Person A is wrong for using Idea A, but should just not worry bout Idea A since it's not their cup of tea, aye?


Wherein, Person B nor Person A is right or wrong, but it doing what works best for them, which may not work best for the other person.

Person B has the right to say it, but it is not an accurate statement.

Person B has the right to say it, but it is not an accurate statement.

Wow... this was so long ago...

What gives him the right? Free speech?

Maybe I should've said that he has no reason to assess that Person A is wrong. Either way... If Person B accuses Person A of being stupid for something that he has no person care about then he is problematic and needs to fix himself.

I'm finished with this matter because you're not listening to reason. You, like every other non-believer who is out to destroy any sort of religion, have decided to also pick and choose, the very thing you claimed Christians to be hypocrites for. The pot is calling the kettle black.

Christians believe and have believed whatever parts of the old testament they see fit to believe in a given time period. Christians differ on which parts of the old testament they believe to be true, on a sect by sect basis.

Since they cannot agree on what God meant when he said this, or when he said that, what makes one more correct than the other?

Especially if they all believe their salvation is through Jesus. That is the only requirement to being a Christian, is it not?

I say, the only way to figure out whose right and who is wrong is by seeing which sect follows the divine inspired word of God to the letter......that would be WBC.

You see, this is the problem you will get when you believe in a book that is PURPOSEFULLY written in the fashion of OVER GENERALIZED horoscopes, with the explicit purpose of getting everyone to believe it applys to them.

Just tell me, can you figure out that WBC are not true Christians by using your psionic mind powers? Is there a thread somewhere we can discuss your self proclaimed super powers?

Christians believe and have believed whatever parts of the old testament they see fit to believe in a given time period. Christians differ on which parts of the old testament they believe to be true, on a sect by sect basis.

Since they cannot agree on what God meant when he said this, or when he said that, what makes one more correct than the other?

Especially if they all believe their salvation is through Jesus. That is the only requirement to being a Christian, is it not?

I say, the only way to figure out whose right and who is wrong is by seeing which sect follows the divine inspired word of God to the letter......that would be WBC.

You see, this is the problem you will get when you believe in a book that is PURPOSEFULLY written in the fashion of OVER GENERALIZED horoscopes, with the explicit purpose of getting everyone to believe it applys to them.

Just tell me, can you figure out that WBC are not true Christians by using your psionic mind powers? Is there a thread somewhere we can discuss your self proclaimed super powers?

Okay, with all due respect, you're probably the shittiest person on all of Totse. At least no one else parades around their ad hominem attacks as much as you. I'd respect you if you didn't have to have a dick measuring contest with everyone and have to take shots at people. But no, I'll go against my religion and say you're just a worthless cunt who is wasting my oxygen and needs to grow up and stop being an internet tough guy. If you could hold one argument where you didn't banter on like a little child and force others to have to follow your steps then maybe you'd be worth talking to. I already said I was finished with the matter, but almost two months later you have to come in and act like you're some billy badass by bringing up other threads. Get a fucking life. Grow up. Stop being a trendy douche. No one likes you. NO ONE LIKES YOU. And in traditional totse whatever go huff raid, murder/suicide, make your mom to appear, or what other crap you want to hear. Suck a tailpipe and rid this world of the troublesome idiotic nuisance that is you.

Seriously, you're a piece of shit and it's people like you that will always hold this world back. You can suck science's dick all you want and you can put all of your faith in it, but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, you're still a little peon who thinks it's witty to hate everyone else and that is the reason why you'll never amount to anything in life because you have to learn to serve before you can learn to lead. You're just an attention whore and I'm giving you your fix right now with this lengthy response, playing into your little game of deviance. I'll continue to play in it because it's exposing you for the restless twit that you are. You're not cool. You're not badass. You're nothing. Just some kid who hopped on a bandwagon and instead of presenting actual facts and making any sense, you run through people's responses like a hot knife through butter and just attack, attack, and attack. You give me no reason to ever think you could become a credible person and the best thing for you to do is to videotape yourself tasting the end of a loaded gun and pulling the trigger for all to see. You're honestly a wretched amalgamation of everything that's wrong with society today. I won't even call you a human being because you don't deserve it. Maybe if you learned how to respect other people then you'd get respect, but until that day you're just a shitty attempt at life who spends their entire waking hours thinking of ways to make fun of other people because they have no friends. At least Rust, while our opinions differ, actually asks questions and makes progress with people. He's a good person. You're just a fucking leech. Have a nice day.

AM, have you read anything on how long it typically takes a person to be lifted from hell to the seventh heaven?

I've only been in the seventh heaven once while alive, and I held command over the wind (it stopped upon the instant telling it so, and began upon the instant telling it so) until I shrunk back to a lower heaven. That was the moment I quit seeing NDEs as hallucinations and spirituality as nonsense. Nature obeyed...for no understood reason.

pics or it did'n't happen


oh and btw, if neither level is better than the other, why use the term level with a connotation of being increasing? why not use a better "equal" term

Christians believe and have believed whatever parts of the old testament they see fit to believe in a given time period. Christians differ on which parts of the old testament they believe to be true, on a sect by sect basis.

Since they cannot agree on what God meant when he said this, or when he said that, what makes one more correct than the other?

Especially if they all believe their salvation is through Jesus. That is the only requirement to being a Christian, is it not?

I say, the only way to figure out whose right and who is wrong is by seeing which sect follows the divine inspired word of God to the letter......that would be WBC.

You see, this is the problem you will get when you believe in a book that is PURPOSEFULLY written in the fashion of OVER GENERALIZED horoscopes, with the explicit purpose of getting everyone to believe it applys to them.

Just tell me, can you figure out that WBC are not true Christians by using your psionic mind powers? Is there a thread somewhere we can discuss your self proclaimed super powers?

broke prophet, we need to have a chat, you and me think along the same lines

would you agree that all this is for the purpose of comfort? so people can think they are special(stopping the wind and all of hexidecimals other bullshit)? can they not accept that there are some things out of the scope of human understanding? why can they not find comfort in that? that there are some things that won't be known in their lifetime? and that the fact that there are multiple religions virtually disproves the existence of all their gods? and that all this metaphysical bullshit has NO basis in fact, therefore believing in that is the same thing in believing in christ?

to me, God is just a metaphor for logic. unsurity spawn the belief that there is SOMETHING that could understand it and believing that they are seperate from each other is agreeing that Logic/knowledge/rationality is not meant for humans, sounds like a self destructive doctrine.

I am "God".

Pro bono bump.

sounds more like the archons/principalities to me.

^Um, which archons do you mean? The Greek rulers, the rock group, what?

^Um, which archons do you mean? The Greek rulers, the rock group, what?

the beings/rules created by the Demiurge ("Adam, where are you?") to keep humans from realizing their full divine potential. the powers that the pharaisees serve.

if you don't know what I'm talking about, pick up the nag hammadi library.

I've often wondered if the 7 principalities (the 7th one actually converts to the true God I believe, and becomes ruler over the cross over point) correspond to the 7 circuits/chakras.

Okay--thanks for clearing that up.

Bumped because this relates to a new thread.

I think this is relevant to some recent posts.

Yo, AF--think this thread is sticky-worthy?

I think this is relevant to some recent posts.

Yo, AF--think this thread is sticky-worthy?

Your call, Arms. 3rd largest viewed thread on the front page.

broke prophet, we need to have a chat, you and me think along the same lines

would you agree that all this is for the purpose of comfort? so people can think they are special(stopping the wind and all of hexidecimals other bullshit)? can they not accept that there are some things out of the scope of human understanding? why can they not find comfort in that? that there are some things that won't be known in their lifetime? and that the fact that there are multiple religions virtually disproves the existence of all their gods? and that all this metaphysical bullshit has NO basis in fact, therefore believing in that is the same thing in believing in christ?

I agree that belief in the afterlife is more comforting than the reality. I do think most believers feel they have some insight into some special knowledge most others do not. I do think they should accept that the correct answer to something out of the scope of human understanding is "I dont know".

to me, God is just a metaphor for logic. unsurity spawn the belief that there is SOMETHING that could understand it and believing that they are seperate from each other is agreeing that Logic/knowledge/rationality is not meant for humans, sounds like a self destructive doctrine.

I am "God".

Here is where I disagree. To me God is like Peter Pan, Papa Smurf, and Bigfoot. To me God represents the ideas of scared, and primitive humans, who needed something to unify them, to comfort them.

God is the thumb that humans have sucked for thousands of years. To me, the word God is an embarassing reminder of this.

God had a purpose, and a time, and a place in humanity. That time has passed, and it is just going to take some children longer than others to accept it. Some will kick and scream, and demand their religion be taught in the class that has made their religion obsolete. Some will feel that fags getting married is somehow their business and will lash out. Some will vote for any politician that drools out the name Jesus in a stump speech.

But one day God will join a multitude of other Gods, in the realm of mythology.

To me God is a window into the primitive minds of our ancestors. God has nothing to do with logic. God has only to do with comfort and control. It was why God was created.

God is dying.

to me, God is just a metaphor for logic. unsurity spawn the belief that there is SOMETHING that could understand it and believing that they are seperate from each other is agreeing that Logic/knowledge/rationality is not meant for humans, sounds like a self destructive doctrine.

I am "God".

This is what the ancient Greeks taught^^, hence why the word Logos is used in the Greek versions of the NT.
In the beginning was Logos/logic/reason/word/"knowledge/rationality",
and Logos/"Logic/knowledge/rationality" was with God,
and Logos/Logic was God. In this philosophy God is defined as the controlling principle, thus Logic is the controlling principle of existence.

I am 'fractal' of "God":)

This is what the ancient Greeks taught^^, hence why the word Logos is used in the Greek versions of the NT.
In the beginning was Logos/logic/reason/word/"knowledge/rationality",
and Logos/"Logic/knowledge/rationality" was with God,
and Logos/Logic was God. In this philosophy God is defined as the controlling principle, thus Logic is the controlling principle of existence.

I am 'fractal' of "God":)

Logos (pronounced /ˈloʊːgɒs/) (Greek λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion. It derives from the verb λέγω legō: to count, tell, say, or speak.[1] The primary meaning of logos is: something said; by implication a subject, topic of discourse, or reasoning. Secondary meanings such as logic, reasoning, etc. derive from the fact that if one is capable of λέγειν (infinitive) i.e. speech, then intelligence and reason are assumed.

Considering that....Logos is usually translated as "the Word" in English Bibles such as the KJV....I am going to have to say the Greeks used the primary meaning of logos (something said) in their translation of the bible.

NOW...any place you find that has the word Logos in place of anything but 'the word', in the bible, is probably attributed to...Gordon Clark (1902 - 1985), a Calvinist theologian and expert on pre-Socratic philosophy, famously translated Logos as "Logic": "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God." He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were contained in the Bible itself and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the Christian world view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Use_in_Christianity

And finally, suggesting God is logic, does not make it so. Whever it may imply this in the bible or ancient philisophy, does not make it so.

God is not logic. God is a supernatural all powerful being. There is nothing logical about an all powerful being...and there is little if any logic in the supernatural.

Famous example: Can God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it?

God is not logic. God is not a metaphor for logic.

Famous example: Can God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it?

Famous answer: God is the rock.

God is not logic. God is not a metaphor for logic.

Why is it reasonable to be logical?

Is existence logical?

[I]

God is a supernatural all powerful being. There is nothing logical about an all powerful being...and there is little if any logic in the supernatural.

Famous example: Can God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it?
.

This is the commonly accepted, albeit obsolete, conception of God. Many people these days take a less limiting view of God. Hinduism always did. Sufi Muslims "officially" rejected it some time ago.

Famous answer: God is the rock.

This "answer" has less logic than the illogical question I presented. My point still stands.

Why is it reasonable to be logical?

Is existence logical?

Not entering into one of your childish infinite regress all the way back to simple bitch belief that "everything is an illusion", I, along with numerous others, are bored to death with it. I was bored to death with it when I was your age.

Feed elsewhere trollchild.

Your ass has already been handed to you, numerous times, on this subject.

Many people these days take a less limiting view of God. Hinduism always did. Sufi Muslims "officially" rejected it some time ago.

I dont really give a shit what the Hindus think, or what religions changed their stances on this in the face of changing times, considering my response was to someone who tried to assert that the Christian God was a metaphor for logic.

If you wish to assert that Christian God is not all powerful, and thus can be a metaphor for logic, feel free to show your work.

This "answer" has less logic than the illogical question I presented. My point still stands.

Existence and reality are chaotic. Everything can be considered inconceivable, if simply because anything exists at all.

There is no logic behind existence. Logic itself is circular.

For what reason should the explanation be logical?

simple bitch belief that "everything is an illusion"

If you think I believe reality is an illusion, you never understood my position all those times we discussed it.

I do not believe my perception is illusory BP. I just believe that I cannot know the truth about that.

If you think I believe reality is an illusion, you never understood my position all those times we discussed it.

LMAO.

I do not believe my perception is illusory BP. I just believe that I cannot know the truth about that.

So you believe you cannot know the truth about reality, but you don't believe that what passes for reality for everyone, is an illusion?

I do not even care to hear what passes for your abstract justification of this obvious contradiction, b/c.....

I am not entering into one of your childish infinite regress all the way back to simple bitch belief that "everything is an illusion", I, along with numerous others, are bored to death with it. I was bored to death with it when I was your age.

Feed elsewhere trollchild.

Your ass has already been handed to you, numerous times, on this subject.

So you believe you cannot know the truth about reality, but you don't believe that what passes for reality for everyone, is an illusion?

Why should I assume experience is an illusion simply because I do not know if it is real? Theres no more reason behind that then there is behind assuming it is real.

I do not even care to hear what passes for your abstract justification of this obvious contradiction, b/c.....

Because your science has become a religion. I am being very personal here when I say you, BP.

As soon as you are unwilling to put your beliefs to the test or even consider an alternate explanation, your system has become a religion not a science.

Which is the real reason you will continue to ignore the below. Not because you've already "handed my ass to me". It is because, as usual, you are so afraid that what I am saying might be correct that you aren't even willing to read it over:


Existence and reality are chaotic. Everything can be considered inconceivable, if simply because anything exists at all.

There is no logic behind existence. Logic itself is circular.

For what reason should the explanation be logical?


You'll ignore that and tell me that you know I am wrong and my beliefs make no sense. But I'm not the one who refuses to consider alternative explanations, while claiming to be a follower of the scientific process. Take your dogma and go home broke.

You'll ignore that and tell me that you know I am wrong and my beliefs make no sense.

You are correct.

You are correct.

You agree that your beliefs have become a religion, and that you propagate them as objectively true, acting no differently then some of the people you are so very opposed to?

Thats a first step. Next you should consider how your actions contribute to the exact problems you are opposed to and are doing nothing to improve the situation.

You agree that your beliefs have become a religion, and that you propagate them as objectively true, acting no differently then some of the people you are so very opposed to?

No.

Stop pretending like I refuse to listen to your alternative explanation, in my scientific religious dogmatic fantacism. It is dishonest.

I have heard it. I completely understand. I, Haregeist, Rust, AngryFemme, and NUMEROUS others have dismissed it as either unproductive, inconclusive, contradictory, illogical, or nonsensical. I that we have been over your lame nonsense time and time again, and we have.

The only thing new you appear to have added is that you no longer assert that reality is an illusion, just that we cannot know reality. I don't care to hear you try to explain what the perception of reality is, if not an illusion. I dont care to hear how you justify this.

You offer nothing that remotely peaks my interest or curiosity, and have nothing in the way of evidence. I dont care what you think, on this subject any longer. This is after countless posts and hours discussing it with you, so again, stop pretending like I refuse to listen to your alternative explanation, in my scientific religious dogmatic fantacism. It is dishonest.

I am done discussing your childish philosophy with you Obbe. Deal with it. Grow up, get a big boy concept, and come see me.

P.S. Arms stickied this thread, b/c there was some interesting discourse happening, please stop getting classic Obbeshit on it.

I, Haregeist, Rust, AngryFemme, and NUMEROUS others have dismissed it as either unproductive, inconclusive, contradictory, illogical, or nonsensical.

Have any of you concluded it is wrong? Untrue?

Although you've all dismissed it, I don't think you have ever personally had the privilege of "handing my ass to me" and I don't think any of you have ever arrived at the conclusion that I am wrong with out making at least one assumption. Hare Geist will point out things he finds contradictory, but that usually has more to do with language then content. Same with Rust. Angryfemme might not agree with me, but she's not a bitch at all.

I don't think I'm being dishonest BP. You do refuse to consider things from outside what you're secure with, you do propagate your opinions as objective truths. Remember when you were trying to propagate that God is objectively imaginary? I haven't forgot.

The only thing new you appear to have added ...

Appear to have added? How would you know? Apparently you ...

...dont care to hear how you justify this.

How do you know anything is different? You never considered what I had to say the first time around.

If you had, you would realize this is no addition: Asking you and others how you know reality is not an illusion, or asking how you know it is real, was just my attempts at getting others to consider that they may not actually know anything at all.

Unfortunately people like you often refused to consider that, preferring to insist "this" or "that" must be real and that I am a fool.

You offer nothing that remotely peaks my interest or curiosity, and have nothing in the way of evidence.

I can say the same things about you. The only difference is I don't feel the need to be a complete dick about it, and I am willing to consider the things you have to say.

I dont care what you think, on this subject any longer. This is after countless posts and hours discussing it with you, so again, stop pretending like I refuse to listen to your alternative explanation, in my scientific religious dogmatic fantacism. It is dishonest.

When did you ever care about what I think on this subject?

Ever since I began telling you my ideas, you've been telling me they're wrong without consideration. You think you've heard it all before and know exactly what I mean. You wrap yourself up in your own beliefs like a blanket to protect you from the uncertainty of mine. You propagate your subjective opinions as objective truths. This is completely honest.

I am done discussing your childish philosophy with you Obbe. Deal with it. Grow up, get a big boy concept, and come see me.

Thats fine. I don't give a shit if you don't want to talk about my ideas. I just think you should stop propagating your own as The Truth and acting just like the same sort of religious dicks you hate.

P.S. Arms stickied this thread, b/c there was some interesting discourse happening, please stop getting classic Obbeshit on it.

That discussion would have continued if you could have faced the question of why this illogical existence requires a logical explanation. But instead you chose to blather on about what a troll I am. Unbunch your fucking panties.

Hare Geist will point out things he finds contradictory, but that usually has more to do with language then content. Same with Rust. Angryfemme might not agree with me, but she's not a bitch at all.

Here The argument we had in this thread:

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2035959

In particular post 75 and beyond.

Please tell me what I assumed that didn't follow necessarily from the premises you were using. As far as I can see, the necessary conclusion was that your comment was incorrect. (Even you admitted that you could see my point yet apparently didn't want to utter the words).

Since you're making accusations regarding me and my posts, I thought you would do the honest thing and at least attempt to substantiate them...

The "evidence" chimera rears its ugly head once more.

As I have stated many times before in various contexts, my only "evidence" is personal experience.

I have read, and accept as true, that it is the soul's intention to know itself experientially--and thus to know God. The soul understands that We and God are One--that at the Highest Reality, we are All One--even as the mind denies this truth, and the body acts out this denial.

The soul understands what the mind cannot conceive.
Then why do you think the soul is bound to the body?

.............

If you have nothing new to offer, I am done with you, and your child's play. Feel free to start a new thread asserting your tired bullshit:

"Nobody can know anything except that they exist."

See how much interest it peaks and how long it lasts. I will never discuss it with you again, there is no reason to, unless you can suggest ANY fucking way your concept can be useful to anyone, anywhere, anytime, aside from "winning" a debate.

Thought not, now go fuck yourself very hard, little fella.

If you have nothing new to offer, I am done with you, and your child's play.

How would you know? You have never considered anything I've offered. You've already heard it all before, apparently.

....your concept can[not] be useful to anyone, anywhere, anytime, aside from "winning" a debate.

I disagree with that. Logic and reason exist in a small part of reality, and are of no use when explaining the illogical and chaotic majority of reality. I think that since the biggest most important questions about reality and existence lay outside the capabilities of logic/reason, there is no reason not to use an explanation like mine if one wishes to arrive at some answers to those questions.

I think that rather then just considering my concept pointless you are considering any attempt to answer those big, mysterious questions at all to be pointless.

Thats fine for you, but don't assume everyone regards reality in the same way. To some people, understanding "Why does anything exist?" is much more important then the games others occupy themselves with to avoid thinking about the same question.

This is not to say, "Don't even attempt to use logic to answer those questions," sure you can try. I think that logic is incapable in the outside, but sure, you can try. But how is my concept of no use to anyone seeking answers?

You could say, "Because it lacks logic, stupid child!" but I see no reason why it requires it.

I think that since the biggest most important questions about reality and existence lay outside the capabilities of logic/reason,


Lay outside the cababilities of logic? I think you mean "I don't like the logical answers, therefore I'll do my best to ignore them".

Please, by all means, let us know what falls outside the cabatilities of logic in regards to reality.

Anything that exists illogically.

So in regards to reality, everything. But since most people don't realize this and consider certain things to have logical and reasonable explanations, the "outside" can also be considered anything which is not emotionally regarded as 'real'/everything that appears to be inconceivable in the mind of the person doing the considering.

Logic isn't going to uncover an answer there. For what reasons should someone seeking an answer not turn to methods like mine?

Anything that exists illogically.

So in regards to reality, everything. But since most people don't realize this and consider certain things to have logical and reasonable explanations, the "outside" can also be considered anything which is not emotionally regarded as 'real'/everything that appears to be inconceivable in the mind of the person doing the considering.

Logic isn't going to uncover an answer there. For what reasons should someone seeking an answer not turn to methods like mine?

You could've said a platypus and probably made better headway...

Anyways... considering that illogic is reality and justification is a farce, can you explain why one generation's science is routinely proven ~50-70% wrong by the next generation?

Then why do you think the soul is bound to the body?

Actually, I don't. If I gave that impression, I erred.

IMHO, the body is simply the means by which the soul manifests on the material plane--sort of like the way your TV is the means by which Jay Leno manifests in your living room--your soul is no more bound to or in your body than Jay is bound to or in your TV. (Crude analogy, I know, but all I could come up with.)

The soul--like mind itself--is nonlocal--that is, everywhere in general and nowhere (which also = now, here) in particular.

Anyways... considering that illogic is reality and justification is a farce, can you explain why one generation's science is routinely proven ~50-70% wrong by the next generation?

Absolute justification may be unattainable, but relative justifications are. Just like logic it seems to work on the reality we can consider to be the inside, but not on the reality considered to be the outside.

Anyways ... I can tell you that the scientific process, like logic and order and reason, all work in regards to what we can consider the inside. And so of course we can make advancements and prove old theories wrong ... our logic is getting better, we have better justifications to believe this rather then that, we have more reason now to think this is the truth ...

All of it concerning the inside, the relative, because these things have no meaning on the outside. No attempt is made to explore/accept the outside if it pops up in front of our unwilling eyes, and when it does we try to convince our selfs that there is no hole in our carefully knit veil of logic. For example, I will use chance:

I read that physicists speak of things being "caused by chance" as if chance was something that had some sort of effect on the thing. If an electron moves in one direction or the opposite it is either caused by something which may or may not be known by the humans at the time and would make sense (and exist on the inside), or caused by nothing which is inconceivable (and would exist on the outside). When a logical cause cannot be found, the physicists leave the event as being "caused by chance" as if chance were something that logically existed on the inside, instead of actually being a reference towards the illogical outside.

This is also an example of creating/seeing an order where there isn't one. Creating the inside from the outside. The finite out of the infinite. I'm doing it right now. And so on ...

Anything that exists illogically.

That's a non-answer.

"What's bad?"

"Anything that's bad"


So in regards to reality, everything.Care to substantiate that, at all? Pulling stuff straight out of your ass or giving vague answers isn't going to cut it here. Much less contradicting yourself ("Logic and reason exist in a small part of reality").

Please answer the question with concrete information or admit that you cannot:

what falls outside the capabilities of logic in regards to reality.


Just like logic it seems to work on the reality we can consider to be the inside, but not on the reality considered to be the outside.


You saying "inside" and "outside" isn't going to make these figments of your imagination any more part of reality, or part of a description of logi'cs supposed short-commings.


When a logical cause cannot be found, the physicists leave the event as being "caused by chance" as if chance were something that logically existed on the inside, instead of actually being a reference towards the illogical outside.

Could you please show me a Physicists saying that an event was "caused by chance" where he/she means chance is "something that had some sort of effect on the thing"? I've never one speak in that manner, and I've read plenty of their works. On the other hand I've seen them use the phrase "caused by chance" to describe the manner in it which it was caused (i.e. to describe the event was random or pseudo-random).

How would you know? You have never considered anything I've offered. You've already heard it all before, apparently.

This is dishonest. I have spent hours debating you and your bullshit. I have considered it. I understand it, unless you have anything knew to offer.

I ask AGAIN, do you?

....there is no reason not to use an explanation like mine if one wishes to arrive at some answers to those questions.

There is a perfect reason....it is utterly baseless.

I think that rather then just considering my concept pointless you are considering any attempt to answer those big, mysterious questions at all to be pointless..

Nice strawman, fuckstick. NO, I do not consider any attempt to answer big, mysterious questions to be pointless. I simply find YOURS pathetic, and wanting.

Your concept does have a point. THE ONLY POINT your concept has is to stalemate a debate, by regressing and retreating all the way back to your childish baseless assertion.

But how is my concept of no use to anyone seeking answers?

If someon is seeking answers, and you offer them a baseless assertion, how does it have value?

You could say, "Because it lacks logic, stupid child!" but I see no reason why it requires it.

Here is the crux of your problem. I know you don't see any reason why your assertion requires logic.

That is why you are Obbecunt the Uber Troll.

That's a non-answer.

"What's bad?"

"Anything that's bad"

What's "bad" would be anything within the observers subjective perception of what "bad" is.

The illogical would be anything outside the observers subjective perception of what "logic" is. I do not think I can logically explain to you what the illogical is, or give you a reason for why it is illogical - after all, it is illogical, irrational.

Care to substantiate that, at all? Pulling stuff straight out of your ass or giving vague answers isn't going to cut it here. Much less contradicting yourself ("Logic and reason exist in a small part of reality").

Please answer the question with concrete information or admit that you cannot:

what falls outside the capabilities of logic in regards to reality.

I do not know how you perceive reality rust. Therefore, I cannot tell you what you would consider illogical.

I can tell you that anything that exists illogically falls outside the capabilities of logic. Unless a person is able to find a logical reason behind somethings existence, then it exists illogically. In regards to reality this means everything.

You saying "inside" and "outside" isn't going to make these figments of your imagination any more part of reality, or part of a description of logi'cs supposed short-commings.

Nope, I'm glad you understand that. My saying "inside" and "outside" is a perfect example of a human creating an order out of chaos. A human seeing logic where there is only the illogical.

There is only one "side", the "inside" is just what I like to call the part of reality considered to be 'real' by the observer.

Could you please show me a Physicists saying that an event was "caused by chance" where he/she means chance is "something that had some sort of effect on the thing"? I've never one speak in that manner, and I've read plenty of their works. On the other hand I've seen them use the phrase "caused by chance" to describe the manner in it which it was caused (i.e. to describe the event was random or pseudo-random).

Then why don't they just say "there was no reason this happened," or "nothing caused this" ?

Why use the phrase "caused by chance" when there is no observable cause whatsoever? Because they are creating a cause ... "chance". They are creating an order out of the chaos.

What is so wrong about a person doing that same thing, but using the word God instead?

This is dishonest. I have spent hours debating you and your bullshit. I have considered it. I understand it, unless you have anything knew to offer.

I ask AGAIN, do you?

Make up your mind broke bitch. First you say you're done with me, now you're back asking me if I've written anything new?

Why don't you just read the fucking posts and decide for yourself, dipshit?

But you've already assumed you've been where I am before, that you've heard it all before, and that you know everything I'm gonna say. I really don't understand why you're here reading this if you've made up your mind.

There is a perfect reason....it is utterly baseless.

So is any logical explanation for existence as well. Disagree? Feel free to expand on that one then. Have fun explaining the reason behind your premise.

Or maybe you would care to explain the reasoning behind why preferring a baseless explanation is wrong. After all, since reality is completely logical and reasonable, I'm sure you have a good one. Right?

Nice strawman, fuckstick. NO, I do not consider any attempt to answer big, mysterious questions to be pointless. I simply find YOURS pathetic, and wanting.

Your concept does have a point. THE ONLY POINT your concept has is to stalemate a debate, by regressing and retreating all the way back to your childish baseless assertion.

I disagree entirely. The point of my concept is to understand existence. Your arguments against my concept always regress back to baseless assertions.

If someon is seeking answers, and you offer them a baseless assertion, how does it have value?

My answer has no value to them. They should be doing the thinking on their own, not looking to me for answers.

To me it explains existence. I find that very valuable. I see no reasons people should not use the same methods to find their own answers.

Why must there be some logical progression? Why can it not be illogical?

Here is the crux of your problem. I know you don't see any reason why your assertion requires logic.

That is why you are Obbecunt the Uber Troll.

How is that a problem? Instead of asserting that, perhaps you could try explaining why it requires it. :rolleyes:

Congratulations you figured out the most simple explanation of God and its different minds lol this is so basic

Make up your mind broke bitch. First you say you're done with me, now you're back asking me if I've written anything new?

I hate talking to stupid people. I have to explain simple little things to them over and over. Here goes...try to keep up little fella.

I said I was done with you UNLESS you have ANYTHING new to offer. Then I asked if you have anything knew to offer, and you refused to answer that. Instead you asked me.....

Why don't you just read the fucking posts and decide for yourself, dipshit?

I read the posts......and decided for myself that, no, you have nothing new to offer to your concept.

You cannot have anything new to offer to your concept. Nobody can know anything, except 'I AM' does not leave a whole lot of room for expansion, does it?

Unless you forego logic, rationality and reason, which you don't feel should be required of you to uphold in your concept......more on that later.

So is any logical explanation for existence as well. Disagree? Feel free to expand on that one then. Have fun explaining the reason behind your premise.

Perfect example of your childish regression, and a case in point as to why I refuse to debate someone whose lame pathetic answer when backed into a corner is....

Can anyone really know anything? Or some other equally unfalsifiable nonsense of which the ONLY PURPOSE is to stalemate a debate, presumably so you can feel like a smart person.

I see through your Obbeshit Obbecunt.

I disagree entirely. The point of my concept is to understand existence. Your arguments against my concept always regress back to baseless assertions.[QUOTE=Obbe;10561989]

My argument against your "nobody can know anything" argument is not baseless.

My argument is a simple "how can you know that'?

And we can go back and forth, like that. The only value in your bullshit is to stalemate a debate.

This shows your nonsense to be illogical, circular and fit for a child such as yourself. My simple question also shows how anything you suggest to be a benefit of your concept, falls to it.

So disagree with simple logic most children can understand if you like, it does not change the fact that you are a pretentious troll, with little to offer philosophy.

[QUOTE=Obbe;10561989]How is that a problem? Instead of asserting that, perhaps you could try explaining why it requires it. :rolleyes:

You see no reason why your concept should be logical.

This is a problem if you ever wish your bullshit concept to be taken seriously. Obviously, as a troll, you don't give a fuck if it is or not. I say it is a problem b/c you seemed to get upset when I told you I did not want to discuss it you.

I said I was done with you UNLESS you have ANYTHING new to offer.... You cannot have anything new to offer to your concept.

So you're done then?

Perfect example of your childish regression, and a case in point as to why I refuse to debate someone whose lame pathetic answer when backed into a corner is....

Can anyone really know anything? Or some other equally unfalsifiable nonsense of which the ONLY PURPOSE is to stalemate a debate, presumably so you can feel like a smart person.

I see through your Obbeshit Obbecunt.

Backed into a corner? You havn't even presented an argument!

You have provided no reasons for why someone should not use an illogical answer.

My argument against your "nobody can know anything" argument is not baseless.

My argument is a simple "how can you know that'?

And we can go back and forth, like that. The only value in your bullshit is to stalemate a debate.

This shows your nonsense to be illogical, circular and fit for a child such as yourself. My simple question also shows how anything you suggest to be a benefit of your concept, falls to it.

So disagree with simple logic most children can understand if you like, it does not change the fact that you are a pretentious troll, with little to offer philosophy.

Is "nobody can know anything" my argument in this thread? No, I am saying there are no reasons not to use illogical answers for the big questions. That reality is illogical, not logical. Do you have any opinion on that?

You see no reason why your concept should be logical.

Nope, because existence isn't either.

Obbe:

Since you didn't saw it fit to actually reply to anything I said but instead provided me with utter unsubstantiated bullshit, I'll ask again:


Either support what you've said (e.g. everything in reality exists illogically) or kindly admit that you cannot.

You can pull stuff straight out of your ass, it's still not going to make it true. This is yet another case of you failing miserably - either through sheer incompetence or dishonesty - in your ridiculous solipsism (i.e. you saying "anything that exists illogically falls outside the capabilities of logic." which if true would imply an objective form of logic, which you yourself go on to reject).

Obbe:

Since you didn't saw it fit to actually reply to anything I said but instead provided me with utter unsubstantiated bullshit, I'll ask again:


Either support what you've said (e.g. everything in reality exists illogically) or kindly admit that you cannot.

Please refer to my last response to you. To make this easier for you, I have quoted myself:

I do not know how you perceive reality rust. Therefore, I cannot tell you what you would consider illogical.

I can tell you that anything that exists illogically falls outside the capabilities of logic. Unless a person is able to find a logical reason behind somethings existence, then it exists illogically. In regards to reality this means everything.

I have not been able to find any logical reasons for existence.

Therefore, existence is illogical.

You can pull stuff straight out of your ass, it's still not going to make it true.

I never said my subjective perception is objectively true.

I said, "I do not know how you perceive reality rust. Therefore, I cannot tell you what you would consider illogical."

If you have found a logical reason for existence, then you can say you believe I am wrong. And I would certainly love to hear what that reason is and consider it, if you have found one.

If you haven't, then there are no reasons for me to believe I am wrong.


This is yet another case of you failing miserably - either through sheer incompetence or dishonesty - in your ridiculous solipsism (i.e. you saying "anything that exists illogically falls outside the capabilities of logic." which if true would imply an objective form of logic, which you yourself go on to reject).

I understand it would imply an objective form of logic. This is why I said:

My saying "inside" and "outside" is a perfect example of a human creating an order out of chaos. A human seeing logic where there is only the illogical.

Me saying "anything that exists illogically falls outside the capabilities of logic," is again an example of a human creating an order out of only chaos, seeing a logical order where there is none.

It would also be nice to hear your opinion on:

Then why don't they just say "there was no reason this happened," or "nothing caused this" ?

Why use the phrase "caused by chance" when there is no observable cause whatsoever? Because they are creating a cause ... "chance". They are creating an order out of the chaos.

What is so wrong about a person doing that same thing, but using the word God instead?

It's alright for physicists to do it with "chance" and the movement of electrons, but its not alright for me to do it with "God" and the reason for existence?

So, would this be a logical reason behind what Obbe is saying?

P1. I can be decieved/mistaken about the truth:
a.I know this because I have been decieved/mistaken in the past.

P2. If I am decieved/mistaken, I will not know that I have been decieved/mistaken about the truth;
a. When I have been decieved/mistaken, I have belived the deception/mistake to be the truth.

C1. I may be decieved/mistaken about the truth at this moment in time.
C2. If I am decieved/mistaken right now I will not know it.
C3. I can be truly certain of nothing.

Not sure how well that works.

^Thing is, in my book, neither truth nor reality is an absolute. There are levels of each. For all of us, say, pure water freezes at 0 C.

But according to both quantum physics and the Perennial Philosophy, we create our own reality. (John Wheeler, who was a colleague of Einstein's and who died recently, was very big on the observer-created uiniverse concept, which annoyed the shit out of Albert, BTW).

I have not been able to find any logical reasons for existence.

Therefore, existence is illogical.

You don't have to "refer" me to anything you said, much less bold it for me. I read every painful word.

It is precisely because of statements like that one (i.e. "I don't see reasons for X, therefore X is illogical") that it wasn't worthy of my time.

I never said my subjective perception is objectively true.

I said, "I do not know how you perceive reality rust. Therefore, I cannot tell you what you would consider illogical."

If you have found a logical reason for existence, then you can say you believe I am wrong. And I would certainly love to hear what that reason is and consider it, if you have found one.Yes, I know what you said. That answer is a cop out. You are deciding logic is subjective and then deciding not to answer my question.

I can provide a similar non-answer:

I don't know what those words you're using mean, therefore I cannot answer your questions. If you have found a way to explain those words to me, then you can tell me what you mean.


It's that easy. Any attempt you make to explain anything to me can be dismissed in the same manner (i.e. I don't understand that) just as any explanation for a "logical reason for existence - which is in itself a complete strawman because that's not what I asked - could be dismissed by you as well.


I understand it would imply an objective form of logic. This is why I said:I know what you said, there is no reason to repeat yourself. It's precisely because it implies an objective form of logic that your statement "seeing logical order where there is none" makes absolutely no sense at all.



It's alright for physicists to do it with "chance" and the movement of electrons, but its not alright for me to do it with "God" and the reason for existence?I don't believe the Physicists are doing what you're claiming they are.

So, would this be a logical reason behind what Obbe is saying?

No.

"The only thing a person can know is that they exist."

This is Obbe's philosophy. In defending it he turns into a child and asks basically asks 'why' after every question. He regresses. He does this to stalemate a debate. It is all he can do with his teeny brain. A person can regress on any topic to anyone in this fashion. ANY TOPIC. I grew out of this aggravating phase when I was 10.

Let me explain what is wrong with "The only thing a person can know is that they exist."

You can't know that statement to be true, if it's true. You cannot support it with anything, if it's true. You can make no claim to knowledge anywhere outside of the self, if it's true.

His concept falls to his own concept. A snake eating it's tail. Circular. It is nonsense, and if that is not enough, serves NO OTHER REALISTIC purpose other than to stalemate a debate. Children do this.

Obbe clings to this idea and pukes onto a thread, in a knee-jerk type response, anytime someone is about to hand his ass to him in a debate. Sometimes he just jumps right in the middle of a discussion with this painfully simple, circular, illogical idea, and pathetically beams proudly as if he has stumbled onto something original, helpful, profound our amazing.

The worst thing about Obbe and his infantile concept, is that he is either blissfully or foolishly unaware of just how awful it truly is. Obbecunt fails.

.....



Sorry, I wasn't referring directly to Obbe here really, I just want to know whether my last post is logically correct.

Personally, from the premises the conclusions follow, as far as I can see.

But for the sake of passing the time I'll try and include "The only thing a person can know is that they exist."

So, once again, if this is a little clumsy, apologies.

P1. I can be decieved/mistaken about the truth:
a.I know this because I have been decieved/mistaken in the past.

P2. If I am decieved/mistaken, I will not know that I have been decieved/mistaken about the truth;
a. When I have been decieved/mistaken, I have belived the deception/mistake to be the truth.

P3. One thing that is constant to me is the experience of the self in the present moment.
a.Regardless of what I think or experience, the awareness of a self is always present.

C1. I may be decieved/mistaken about the truth at this moment in time.
C2. If I am decieved/mistaken right now I will not know it.
C3. I can only be certain that I am experiencing the self.
C4. Besides C3 I can't be truly certain of anything.

OR

P1. I am always aware of the self.
P2. I cannot be mistaken in regards to awareness of the self
a. I am always experiencing the self in the present.
P3. Apart from the awareness of self I can be mistaken.
a. I have had erroneous beliefs in the past.

C1. I can be certain that I am experiencing the self.
C2. I cannot be certain that I am not mistaken beyond the experience of the self.

'Course, I'm toally ripping off Descartes.

Edit: I think the use in what Obbe says is merely to keep perspective. If you are aware that you may be mistaken I think that you may be more open to correcting mistakes, avoiding dogma, and building tolerance towards other people.

No, the argument doesn't follow.


For example,

"
P1. I can be decieved/mistaken about the truth: a.I know this because I have been decieved/mistaken in the past.


P2 If I am decieved/mistaken, I will not know that I have been decieved/mistaken about the truth;



There are other problems, like saying "The only thing a person can know is that they exist" while your argument requires that they know "the truth" exists (although not necessarilly know what that truth is), in order for them to claim the have been decieved about it in the first place.

No, the argument doesn't follow.


For example,

"
P1. I can be decieved/mistaken about the truth: a.I know this because I have been decieved/mistaken in the past.


P2 If I am decieved/mistaken, I will not know that I have been decieved/mistaken about the truth;



There are other problems, like saying "The only thing a person can know is that they exist" while your argument requires that they know "the truth" exists (although not necessarilly know what that truth is), in order for them to claim the have been decieved about it in the first place.

Ah, yeah, I see.

But, wouldn't that kinda lead to a belief that I cannot actually ever know if there is a truth or what the truth is? I mean, I can't know if I've been decieved unless I know what the truth is, If I know what the truth is I can't be decieved. Even supposing that I can learn the truth, surely there should be something that distinguishes it from non-truth. And seeing as it is possible for people to disagree with eachother about everytthing that I can think of, is it impossible to really know what the truth is?

The only one thing, that I can think of, that is something that is true regardless of what one believes, is that I currently experience something.

I might be thinking very wrongly here, but would the only way to know the truth be to know the truth?

I just pointed how your argument didn't follow; if you're changing to to be in line with "cogito ergo sum" then great, but I'm not here to discuss Descartes' argument and I don't see how it even relates to Obbe's contradictions.

If what you want is for me to find problems in your argument (if there are any), then fine:

"wouldn't that kinda lead to a belief that I cannot actually ever know if there is a truth or what the truth is? " doesn't follow either. Not only do you go on to claim that you know of a truth (i.e. "I currently experience something") but the statement itself doesn't follow from anything. Why wouldn't you be able to know if there is a truth? You can find out you've been deceived by finding out the truth.

In other words: You were taught A. You later learned B is the truth. You find out you were deceived.

The problem I pointed out was that you said you knew you were deceived and then right after said you couldn't know you were deceived.

Rust, is the sole reason you frequent this forum so that you can pedantically criticise everything anyone else says? Are you even in the slightest bit interested in religion or spirituality, or do you find it all worthless as you seem to state at every given opportunity? Fair enough this forum has athiests, agnostics and whatever religion you could care to mention contained within, but to be perfectly frank it only contains one royal pain in the ass. I know you probably won't like to guess based on inferences or have something not spelled out to you in its entirety. But you know what: just for shits and giggles; who do you think I'm inferring the forum's resident pain in the ass is?

You think I'm a pain in the ass? Neat. Who gives a shit?

You think I'm a pain in the ass? Neat. Who gives a shit?

You did answer him... obviously you do.

You did answer him... obviously you do.

Answering someone means you give a shit what they think of you? No, it does not.

It might mean I care enough about answering someone else's question (which is not the same as his opinion of me) to respond; which is to say not much at all since that reply took me less than 4 seconds to make.

Another great thread suffocating due to squabbling!

Arms the number seven is usually interpreted as representative of perfection. Obviously the universe is infinite and any description of divinity would also be infinite, why then does the human mind need to 'see' a face? What is it that drives one to know?

BP I was illustrating the point that the Greek could also be read as reason. Not suggesting the xian god is logic, rather that the precursors of xianity saw reason as the highest principle. Ignore the supernatural external for a moment and think of what is the highest or controlling principle of your mind, what is it?

Answering someone means you give a shit what they think of you? No, it does not.

It might mean I care enough about answering someone else's question (which is not the same as his opinion of me) to respond; which is to say not much at all since that reply took me less than 4 seconds to make.

But now you're defending your self as if there is something wrong about caring what people think of you in the first place, and that's certainly not grounded in logic.

Except I wasn't defending myself because I think there is something wrong about caring what people think of me in the first place.

"if you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't perceive God." -- anonymous third-century Christian heretic

It has been noted here numerous times that we have different perceptions of God. We create our own reality--as the Veda puts it, "We are not in the world, the world is in us." Same thing with God.

Deepak Chopra posits that there are seven faces, or levels of God. If your God is first-level, you will not communicate well with someone whose God is seventh-level, for instance. Since God is infinite, he/she/it/them/whatever can manifest to us with equal validity at any level, depending on our own level of spiritual development--no one is any "better' than any other.

Level one -- God the protector --this is best recognized as the God of the Old Testament, the God which AF ( I think) and I both reject. This god is vengeful, capricious, quick to anger, jealous, judgemental, unfathomable and (sometimes) merciful.

Level two -- God the almighty --this is, I think, the God of Catholicism in general and the Jesuits in particular, being soverign, omnipotent, just, the answerer of prayers, impartial, rational, organized into rules.

Level three -- God of Peace -- This God is maybe a little more Hindu than Christian--as an Indian guru once said "You believe that you were created to serve God, but in the end you may discover tha God was created to serve you." This god is detached, calm, offering consolation, undemanding, conciliatory, silent, meditative.

Level four -- God the redeemer -- this God leans more toward the pagan conception of Goddess, having strong qualities we typically associate with the feminine. This God is understanding, tolerant, forgiving, nonjudgemental, inclusive and accepting.

Level five -- God the creator --One finds this god when intuition becomes so powerful that it must manifest physically. This is the level at which shamans and psychics typically work. This god is of unlimited creative potential, has control over space and time, abundant, open, generous, willing to be known, and
inspired.

Level six -- god of miracles -- This is the level of some saints, among the dozens of whom who could levitate, be in two places at once, emit light from their bodies at prayer, and do healings. This god is transformative, mystical, enlightened, beyond all causes, existing, magical, healing--an alchemist. Words can only convey a hint of this Being.

Level seven -- the god of pure being. This is the god who can only be experienced by going beyond experience. This God is unborn, undying, unchanging, umoving, unmanifest, immeasurable, invisible, intangible and infinite. This is the god spoken of by Sufi and Hindu sages. As Rumi wrote "There is someone who looks after us/ From behind the curtain./In truth we are not here/This is our shadow."
After knocking this thread off topic I've decided to do my duty and re-topicize it (that's right I just made that word up).
I suppose the ideas behind these beliefs show the link between the Dharmic and the Abrahamic religions, with the "level sevens" best described as the enlightened people and boddhisatvas and whatnot. That's my two pence.

Why couldn't your God be a collection of all seven, just at different times in your walk of faith?

I think we too often try to humanize God or put him in a box. I'm quite sure that God is above human logic and classification, and ultimately above our ability to understand him completely.

I disagree.
I don't feel like god would want to imperceptible.
Or create a being that can't understand its (god's) role in the creature's life.
No, god wants us to see it in everything we do, I enjoy a relationship with the god that I hope to meet in the afterlife.
The only thing that angers me is that it's a one way relationship.
I'm sure it has a reason, but I would really like to know why it won't speak to me.

I disagree.
I don't feel like god would want to imperceptible.
Or create a being that can't understand its (god's) role in the creature's life.
No, god wants us to see it in everything we do, I enjoy a relationship with the god that I hope to meet in the afterlife.
The only thing that angers me is that it's a one way relationship.
I'm sure it has a reason, but I would really like to know why it won't speak to me.

See that's not a relationship. I've heard God speak to me before, but not verbally.

I don't believe that God desires a personal relationship sometimes because it sometimes feels like he's only helping us b/c the nagging gets irritating. Others I know say they talk to God all the time and he listens.

I think when you pray, your subconscious is telling you what it wants you to hear, not God saying "go down this road" but your gut feeling either A. Putting Logic first or B. Putting Emotion first.

But then at other times it feels like God is there every step of the way... it's confusing. But it really all boils back to the tenant of faith.

If God really wanted us to rely on faith, then possibly he doesn't speak to us because he wants us to REALLY use faith to believe that the actions corresponding to your prayers are his way of saying yes or no or maybe later.

It sounds like a cop-out to some, but maybe they're just over-thinking the situation. Sometimes we let Logic rule our lives far too much and it ends up putting us in this wretched closed up box that really doesn't allow us any freedom of choice. Alternatively, some people over-use emotion too much to do the exact same thing. We need to find a happy balance.

Disclaimer: I don't look to Deepak Chopra for spiritual wisdom.

You say, "Level one -- God the protector --this is best recognized as the God of the Old Testament,". I don't deny that I consider Him to be a protector, but your statement tells me that you've never the book of Job.