Old Seers Corner

Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seers Corner

   Being that I'm causing to many threads to be hijacked I find it necessary to establish my own thread. I don't like the idea because in my world we don't engage much in self importance, a little but not much. And this seems to be getting into that area and I'm not comfortable with it.

   Another is- where do I start. so after a bit of deliberation it occurred to me, why not start it where we (our group) started in 1985, and that was with biblical creation.

 To us, as we learned over time, creation is not a material undertaking but rather spiritual. In 1985 we had no idea where this would lead. Personally I/we wasn't out to accomplish anything. It was a simple question given to a group of guys that were into various fields of life's work in which they made their monies for living as we all do, or at least in our case, did.  Having met one of them by a chance meeting as he passed through town we got into a conversation of various interest as people normally do. He informed me of his club/group and among then was a Physicist which peaked my interest as I am also a Physicist, at least to some degree (old school). At that time I was an Atheist considering JC to be a street magician making a living.

 I gave this "Smurf" several questions for The Physics Smurf (he referred to the group as a Smurfdom). The question was --creation doesn't match the laws of physics, things are out of order. And in giving my understanding of what it might be I gave a short list of my suspicions. The main suspicion was that it might be something spiritual because the bible mentions spirituals all over the place, and had no idea what it was all about.

 A few week later as he passed through town again he dropped of a packet at the place we met, a local eatery. I was informed they were going to take on an analysis of creation and that it was something they hadn't seen before, and the Physicist confirmed that it wasn't physics feasible---he sent it to the Psycho Smurfs, That's when it really took off in directions no one suspected.

 They determined it was something mental, and for whatever reason and how they saw it, it was a state of mind. Now here's the deal----IF, we are correct, this understanding of creation totally negates Christianity as is understood by the world. It literally destroys what is understood as Christianity. Because everything in the book is based and constructed and referred to from creation being the focal point. An Apostle refers to- those invisible things of creation which can be clearly seen, meaning- they recognize creation as a spiritual undertaking and that makes it a horse of a different color. As everything else in the book Christianity hinges on Creation, and Christianity is about spiritual things not material things. Then- there is no such thing as Christianity as an operating religion anywhere on planet earth.

Any questions are welcome. 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To us, as we learned

Quote:
To us, as we learned over time, creation is not a material undertaking but rather spiritual.

Hate to burst your bubble there Gomer Pile, but that is just what psychology and evolution call IMAGINATION.

If you want to believe that the sun is a god, you will, just like the Egyptians did for 3,000 years. If you want to believe in the creation story of Gilgamesh you will. If you want to believe the earth is flat, you will. If you want to believe that a fucking comet will swoop you away from this planet by mixing Vodka and barbituates and applesauce will get you to your utopia, you will.

But if you can accept that a hurricane does not need Posiden to occur, and you accept that Allah does NOT pick the sex of the baby based on "congealed blood". Then why would any evolutionary life or the universe need a magical inventor?

What frightens you so much that we are merely an outcome of nature, and not magic?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: ... ...

Old Seer wrote:

 ... ... ...

They determined it was something mental, and for whatever reason and how they saw it, it was a state of mind.

... ... ... 

 

This one sentence seems to point toward you advocating a "God in the Gaps" type explanation.  Again, this one sentence causes me many questions.  Sticking with this sentence the first and major one is, how did you/they determine it was something "mental"?  The "if, then' argument isn't good enough for me, niether is your deferring to unnamed physics or other professional authorities.  I reserve the right to verify how those professional derived their, "spiritual" conclusion.

 

 

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You didn't

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
To us, as we learned over time, creation is not a material undertaking but rather spiritual.

Hate to burst your bubble there Gomer Pile, but that is just what psychology and evolution call IMAGINATION.

If you want to believe that the sun is a god, you will, just like the Egyptians did for 3,000 years. If you want to believe in the creation story of Gilgamesh you will. If you want to believe the earth is flat, you will. If you want to believe that a fucking comet will swoop you away from this planet by mixing Vodka and barbituates and applesauce will get you to your utopia, you will.

But if you can accept that a hurricane does not need Posiden to occur, and you accept that Allah does NOT pick the sex of the baby based on "congealed blood". Then why would any evolutionary life or the universe need a magical inventor?

What frightens you so much that we are merely an outcome of nature, and not magic?

 

burst my bubble. And I'm not Gomer Pyle. Where this will go is clearly showing the animal/human entity. If you post as such you will only prove us right in the final tally. The book is about Man vs Animal. One can only post from the basis of those two, anything else is impossible unless it is a neutral. You Speaketh to soon.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Everyone

peto verum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 ... ... ...

They determined it was something mental, and for whatever reason and how they saw it, it was a state of mind.

... ... ... 

 

This one sentence seems to point toward you advocating a "God in the Gaps" type explanation.  Again, this one sentence causes me many questions.  Sticking with this sentence the first and major one is, how did you/they determine it was something "mental"?  The "if, then' argument isn't good enough for me, niether is your deferring to unnamed physics or other professional authorities.  I reserve the right to verify how those professional derived their, "spiritual" conclusion.

looks at things from their point of view or they make an effort to apply their profession or knowledge to a question. The psycho Smurfs determine that from the hint of "it may be something spiritual".    The spiritual also includes the mind. What they seen as leading them to that conclusion ,I don't know. But if it's not material then the only thing left is spiritual/mental and a working of the mind.

  We are forwarding our interpretation of the book. We don't expect one to believe our conclusions. We leave it to the recipient of the information to decide for themselves. We don't rely on professional authorities, one has to determine for one's self what is true and false. You need to look at biblical creation to decide for yourself. We merely give you our interpretation, one needn't be a professional to understand. Acceptance is in one,s own minds eye.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not frightened.

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
To us, as we learned over time, creation is not a material undertaking but rather spiritual.

Hate to burst your bubble there Gomer Pile, but that is just what psychology and evolution call IMAGINATION.

If you want to believe that the sun is a god, you will, just like the Egyptians did for 3,000 years. If you want to believe in the creation story of Gilgamesh you will. If you want to believe the earth is flat, you will. If you want to believe that a fucking comet will swoop you away from this planet by mixing Vodka and barbituates and applesauce will get you to your utopia, you will.

But if you can accept that a hurricane does not need Posiden to occur, and you accept that Allah does NOT pick the sex of the baby based on "congealed blood". Then why would any evolutionary life or the universe need a magical inventor?

What frightens you so much that we are merely an outcome of nature, and not magic?

 

We agree--we all are an outcome of nature. We see evolution as factual and agree. In our interpretation God does not create the material universe-it the other way-the material universe creates God/Us. The book sees people as God not some idiot out in space that cannot be explained. All existence comes out of the big bang. Be aware----we are not Christians, don't be trapping yourself.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:... ...

Old Seer wrote:
... ... ...

What they seen as leading them to that conclusion ,I don't know. But if it's not material then the only thing left is spiritual/mental and a working of the mind.

... ... ...

 

 

This begs the question.  Why do you believe "them"?   What evidence did they give you?  How do you know that they actually believe it themselves?  These questions must nag at you?

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No not at all

peto verum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
... ... ...

What they seen as leading them to that conclusion ,I don't know. But if it's not material then the only thing left is spiritual/mental and a working of the mind.

... ... ...

 

 

This begs the question.  Why do you believe "them"?   What evidence did they give you?  How do you know that they actually believe it themselves?  These questions must nag at you?

No nagging.

We are unanimous in this interpretation. All had a hand in it. Why believe them---the book ties together from beginning an ending. It's about one thing---the human and animal condition. One finding that we were surprised at is- psychology isn't new. Ancient people had the mind understood (at least the results of particular ways of thinking) from a standpoint of where a particular thought lines leads to a particular result which can be determined.

Being unanimous doesn't mean we totally agree on every item. There are some differences on several things. But the main result over all is understood.

Evidence--is one,s own self. All contain Animal and Human entities/components. Here's where one as to be careful. We don't know if one that uses an animal trait (competition being one) means that the animal trait is static (continuously present) or developes when called for. That means if one is being animalistic there's no human entity present. If one then turns to being human there may be no animal traits present. I'm one on the side of--there's no animal present until it's called for, and likewise human, which means they are present when the brain produces a need or use for them. There is a neutral state--- when neither is being present. That goes into how the brain works but to us that's is unknown. The evidence is--we all have animal and human entity regardless. And being that the book deals with these concepts, that produces proof, because it is self evident that all have or use these two sets of components. That means--each is their own evidence. Yourself is the evidence.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Old Soul

   Now I am going to admit I have not been paying close enough attention to all of your writings. So, Please feel free to correct me at any given point. What I have lazily been piecing together from the samples of your writing. Again correct me on any point if I am wrong, please. I cannot stress this enough to you. The Smurfdum are making a claim that is actually staggering in terms of its' scope. Your group is claiming to have run across a 'meta-key' that can be used in any area of the Scriptures. I could go on but I want to hear what you think I mean  by the term 'meta' and the term 'key' when it comes to meaning derived from words . . .


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The book is

Old Seer wrote:

The book is about Man vs Animal. One can only post from the basis of those two, anything else is impossible unless it is a neutral. You Speaketh to soon.

When you say that the book is about man vs. animal, are you speaking in a sense of literal and clearly defined terms ? Or are you referring to some sort of interpretation that has to be read in allegory and parable ? If it is rooted in interpretation, then where do you draw this conclusion from ? In other words, which passages do you feel set these standards for the overall book to be about man vs. animal ? Exactly what do you mean by that and how can one draw what you define as a neutral position from that ?

Perhaps I am asking too many questions.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:We are

Old Seer wrote:

We are unanimous in this interpretation. All had a hand in it. Why believe them---the book ties together from beginning an ending. It's about one thing---the human and animal condition. One finding that we were surprised at is- psychology isn't new. Ancient people had the mind understood (at least the results of particular ways of thinking) from a standpoint of where a particular thought lines leads to a particular result which can be determined.

Being unanimous doesn't mean we totally agree on every item. There are some differences on several things. But the main result over all is understood.

 

How is this based ? By vote or by a central authority ? How does one not agree and yet remain united ? Unless it is like the political party that I belong to. I don't agree with everything that it stands for, but I throw my support in their direction because they seem to be the one that best represents my views.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's based on curiosity and interest.

harleysportster wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

We are unanimous in this interpretation. All had a hand in it. Why believe them---the book ties together from beginning an ending. It's about one thing---the human and animal condition. One finding that we were surprised at is- psychology isn't new. Ancient people had the mind understood (at least the results of particular ways of thinking) from a standpoint of where a particular thought lines leads to a particular result which can be determined.

Being unanimous doesn't mean we totally agree on every item. There are some differences on several things. But the main result over all is understood.

 

How is this based ? By vote or by a central authority ? How does one not agree and yet remain united ? Unless it is like the political party that I belong to. I don't agree with everything that it stands for, but I throw my support in their direction because they seem to be the one that best represents my views.

At the moment all study is done. That was 20 years ago. Everyone (as I understand it) is retired and are where they are, most are in RVs traveling---north in summer---south in winter. Same with me. There's very little communication at this time as there's no more to discuss.

There is no central authority nor has there been that I know of. I'm the one that asked the questions-we all looked for answers. They have a way to get in touch but very seldom.

During the years of study I received everything by courier. In 85 I didn't have a phone, and even when I did it wasn't used much. I didn't have a computer until 97.  When there was something for me Sales Smurf would drop it off when going by. Everyone was spread over the mid west states. Some things did come by mail at times but not very often. There was no gatherings that I attended---I had little money for travel. When he would arrive once or twice a month we exchanged envelopes. I would look over the papers and add my comments. When a new question came up I would write it down and placed it in the envelope. After a while it all began to add itself together. Being I had bible experience I would bring up the prime Questions. In time plenty of questions were being looked at. everyone began correlating insights and ---there it was. The last question I posed was(we  knew that civilization was a problem from the insights). The question was. If the bible passes through the time of the institution of civilization-----why isn't it in the bible.  The reasoning was-something that relied on and of importance should have a mention. As far as I could see there wasn't anything in the book about it.

BUT- here it came---yes it's there.  The beginning of his Kingdom was called Babel, NImrod. It's the first kingdom in the line of the Hebrew ancestry starting with Adam. Nimrod institutes civilization for the middle east because all  Arabs and Hebrews are descendents of Adam. We find that the tower of Babylon was never built, it is symbolic of man contrived government where a few tower above the many.Engineer Smurf say's building such a tower was impossible---above the heights of the heavens?????? no way to even get it above Mt Everest. archeologists have never found that tower or any evidence that it ever existed, because it never did in material form. It symbolizes "government". This also, we found. ties into creation where there are waters "above" the firmament. Waters=state of mind. After this question was understood we had 95% of it. Then things began to taper down and---here we are today. There is no tight knit group. They're all doing what retired floks do, but all stay in touch or a few get together an a project, maybe prospecting.

  Last April I traveled to Oregon to see my Mother. I went my usual route, past Denver, through New Mexico, through Phoenix, out I-10 to Quartzite, and up I-5 through California. I signaled them that I would be camping for 3 days at Quartzsite AZ. 2 met me there. I wanted to know the reasons they requested me to be on this site and other info. It was only a 3 hour meeting and they left. I did find that several camp there in the winter. I've been there 3 winters but not last winter. I was here on the site because internet is only at the library in Quartzsite.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I'm sure you expected to get

I'm sure you expected to get question thrown at you from every angle.  I think you have taken the boos from others pretty well in the other threads.

My next question is short and simple.

Define 'spirit' if you would, without it being just as opposed to animalistic.

 

p.s.  it looks like you have allot of repetition ahead of you.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Spirit

tonyjeffers wrote:

I'm sure you expected to get question thrown at you from every angle.  I think you have taken the boos from others pretty well in the other threads.

My next question is short and simple.

Define 'spirit' if you would, without it being just as opposed to animalistic.

 

p.s.  it looks like you have allot of repetition ahead of you.

From our perspective. Spirit is the same as "person". That which makes up the contents of the self. The term spirit as used in the world is very contradictory. We had to figure what the bible would say it is from how it's used . The best we can do is -your personage, of which is invisible, meaning something not material, not the body or anything physical. The You. The spirit would then be a product or derivative of the brain but not the brain itself, or, that which the brain produces as a person. We don't claim to know "how" the brain produces a person or the spiritual, and, it may be something that is material. The universe may very well contain only material and the term spiritual may be an explanation of something not seen. But what is agreed upon is that the body is not the person, and the person resides in the brain, and what is in the brain is the person. Of course the brain contains more then a person, there may well be other things in the brain, but aren't person.

Repetition-yes, But I'm going to have to live with it.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:tonyjeffers

Old Seer wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I'm sure you expected to get question thrown at you from every angle.  I think you have taken the boos from others pretty well in the other threads.

My next question is short and simple.

Define 'spirit' if you would, without it being just as opposed to animalistic.

 

p.s.  it looks like you have allot of repetition ahead of you.

From our perspective. Spirit is the same as "person". That which makes up the contents of the self. The term spirit as used in the world is very contradictory. We had to figure what the bible would say it is from how it's used . The best we can do is -your personage, of which is invisible, meaning something not material, not the body or anything physical. The You. The spirit would then be a product or derivative of the brain but not the brain itself, or, that which the brain produces as a person. We don't claim to know "how" the brain produces a person or the spiritual, and, it may be something that is material. The universe may very well contain only material and the term spiritual may be an explanation of something not seen. But what is agreed upon is that the body is not the person, and the person resides in the brain, and what is in the brain is the person. Of course the brain contains more then a person, there may well be other things in the brain, but aren't person.

Repetition-yes, But I'm going to have to live with it.

You say "Spirit" is the same as "person".  I call this 'personality'.  And your definition shows no difference.

And any animal up on the evolutionary scale has a personality. From what I see by your definition they also would qualify to have a 'spirit'.

Also animals obviously have 'humanistic' traits. The most obvious would be a chimp.

So if my calculations are correct spirit/personality existed before any human or Adam.  You said you agree with evolution- right? Do you see where things don't add up here?

You said god did not create the universe, but the universe created god.

 I say the universe did not create god(not directly).  The universe created man. Man created god in his imagination which is part of his personality.

 

If you didn't notice Miss Dana was before me. Harley too.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Old Seer

 

Old Seer wrote:

Creation was "a spiritual undertaking"...

 

What does this actually mean - you know - in reality?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The spirit

Old Seer wrote:

The spirit would then be a product or derivative of the brain but not the brain itself, or, that which the brain produces as a person. We don't claim to know "how" the brain produces a person or the spiritual, and, it may be something that is material. The universe may very well contain only material and the term spiritual may be an explanation of something not seen. But what is agreed upon is that the body is not the person, and the person resides in the brain, and what is in the brain is the person. Of course the brain contains more then a person, there may well be other things in the brain, but aren't person.

I'm trying to understand the above.  The brain spawns off the person/spirit and once that happens it is no longer necessary to associate the person/spirit with that brain or body?    I think this article addresses my views fairly closely.   http://www.michaelshermer.com/2012/07/aunt-millies-mind/

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Thank you.

peto verum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The spirit would then be a product or derivative of the brain but not the brain itself, or, that which the brain produces as a person. We don't claim to know "how" the brain produces a person or the spiritual, and, it may be something that is material. The universe may very well contain only material and the term spiritual may be an explanation of something not seen. But what is agreed upon is that the body is not the person, and the person resides in the brain, and what is in the brain is the person. Of course the brain contains more then a person, there may well be other things in the brain, but aren't person.

I'm trying to understand the above.  The brain spawns off the person/spirit and once that happens it is no longer necessary to associate the person/spirit with that brain or body?    I think this article addresses my views fairly closely.   http://www.michaelshermer.com/2012/07/aunt-millies-mind/

This is the kind of thing the Psycho Smurfs are still dealing with. I it can be shown that the end product of the brain remains material we're good with that. The concern in the book is "will". We all have what we understand as "person". The personage is represented in two directs or forms, a Plus and a Minus. Will then chooses which to be. Will makes it possible to make a conscious choice to be + or -. But when one is rules over it is the ruler that dictates the central theme of being + or -. This is the essence of what the book is about. It promotes the + and willfully deny the -. When done one changes their personality, and if all do so it changes the world we created for ourselves.

While the ancients couldn't make a scan or understand how the brain works toward a result they did know the consequences of thinking in certain directions. If the worlds basic operations are extracted from the  minus , and, the answer to the problems is the plus, then ciaos will ensue. Prophesy works by knowing the results of the minus, and then the results from removing the minus and replacing it with the plus. This transition is referred to as the end times, which is nothing more then the removal of the minus.

The ancients couldn't have known or even suspect if the end product of the brain remains material, but being that it was something they couldn't physically see-they deemed it invisible, and is labeled spiritual.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It means

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Old Seer wrote:

Creation was "a spiritual undertaking"...

 

What does this actually mean - you know - in reality?

 

 

creation isn't material substances. It's the making of a particular personage, Adam. Water = mental or thoughts. Fowl= thoughts or ideas.  Dry land= solid foundation or placement as belief or religion. Greater light=knowledge of something. lessor light=knowledge of another thing but of less regard. Grass, being the lower of plants is humility. Trees= knowledge of life as in the tree of life vs the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It's about spiritual things nor material or physical things.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
personality

tonyjeffers wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I'm sure you expected to get question thrown at you from every angle.  I think you have taken the boos from others pretty well in the other threads.

My next question is short and simple.

Define 'spirit' if you would, without it being just as opposed to animalistic.

 

p.s.  it looks like you have allot of repetition ahead of you.

From our perspective. Spirit is the same as "person". That which makes up the contents of the self. The term spirit as used in the world is very contradictory. We had to figure what the bible would say it is from how it's used . The best we can do is -your personage, of which is invisible, meaning something not material, not the body or anything physical. The You. The spirit would then be a product or derivative of the brain but not the brain itself, or, that which the brain produces as a person. We don't claim to know "how" the brain produces a person or the spiritual, and, it may be something that is material. The universe may very well contain only material and the term spiritual may be an explanation of something not seen. But what is agreed upon is that the body is not the person, and the person resides in the brain, and what is in the brain is the person. Of course the brain contains more then a person, there may well be other things in the brain, but aren't person.

Repetition-yes, But I'm going to have to live with it.

You say "Spirit" is the same as "person".  I call this 'personality'.  And your definition shows no difference.

And any animal up on the evolutionary scale has a personality. From what I see by your definition they also would qualify to have a 'spirit'.

Also animals obviously have 'humanistic' traits. The most obvious would be a chimp.

So if my calculations are correct spirit/personality existed before any human or Adam.  You said you agree with evolution- right? Do you see where things don't add up here?

You said god did not create the universe, but the universe created god.

 I say the universe did not create god(not directly).  The universe created man. Man created god in his imagination which is part of his personality.

 

If you didn't notice Miss Dana was before me. Harley too.

Yes we agree

2- yes

3- Chimp-yes, dogs cats etc. reptiles or less human then mammals, a garden slug very likely has no human or animal.direction or even less then the reptile. All spiritual entities are the same, just not to the same degree.

4- Dog only describes a type of body that is designed to be a predator rather then a grazer. Cat=same etc

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The common denominator

danatemporary wrote:

   Now I am going to admit I have not been paying close enough attention to all of your writings. So, Please feel free to correct me at any given point. What I have lazily been piecing together from the samples of your writing. Again correct me on any point if I am wrong, please. I cannot stress this enough to you. The Smurfdum are making a claim that is actually staggering in terms of its' scope. Your group is claiming to have run across a 'meta-key' that can be used in any area of the Scriptures. I could go on but I want to hear what you think I mean  by the term 'meta' and the term 'key' when it comes to meaning derived from words . . .

is Animal vs Human. We find from the book that the world has a skewed concept of human and animal . The results show that the final tally we have is correct and cannot be denied. Everyone is self evidence--bar none. History shows that it cannot be any other way. History itself is evidence. That's why history repeats itself. Thinking in a particular way/direction will always produce the same results. God is a "way" of mind-which is all of us together. we see that the world cannot repair this current mess, it's  change or bust. That's why I'm here. The change/transition will still have drastic consequences.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
We are speaking literally

harleysportster wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The book is about Man vs Animal. One can only post from the basis of those two, anything else is impossible unless it is a neutral. You Speaketh to soon.

When you say that the book is about man vs. animal, are you speaking in a sense of literal and clearly defined terms ? Or are you referring to some sort of interpretation that has to be read in allegory and parable ? If it is rooted in interpretation, then where do you draw this conclusion from ? In other words, which passages do you feel set these standards for the overall book to be about man vs. animal ? Exactly what do you mean by that and how can one draw what you define as a neutral position from that ?

Perhaps I am asking too many questions.

Ask away-- I'll try to keep up.

The book does contain allegory. IE in the book of Rev. Sodom and Egypt. It means people are held captive in a system of evil, Egypt=captive. Sodom=evil. Evil can also be equal to hardship.

If you go to a bible search site look up where an Apostle mentions "four footed beasts" etc. It would be in the letters/epistles.

The man verses animal is the theme throughout the book. It's the main emphasis. It's where the book is heading to.

Neutral positions. Planting a garden as I do doesn't have to be of any animalistic or human intent. It can be a hobby. Everything we do or think for that matter is to serve one or the other of the 2 sides. Endeavores or thoughts that serve neither are neutral. All are made in the animal/human concept. It is what you are about as so with all others. it is the roots of you person. There is nothing that can be added or subtracted. Without them one is a vegetable. One's person cannot be without them. That is "what" we are. We can make a choice---which one can I be, or want to be. If one gains control of the self he is an individual of the self.  The animal/human concept (good and evil) is God. No one is Godless. This is what the book is about. It is not about Europeanism which is highly destructive. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Tony

tonyjeffers wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I'm sure you expected to get question thrown at you from every angle.  I think you have taken the boos from others pretty well in the other threads.

My next question is short and simple.

Define 'spirit' if you would, without it being just as opposed to animalistic.

 

p.s.  it looks like you have allot of repetition ahead of you.

From our perspective. Spirit is the same as "person". That which makes up the contents of the self. The term spirit as used in the world is very contradictory. We had to figure what the bible would say it is from how it's used . The best we can do is -your personage, of which is invisible, meaning something not material, not the body or anything physical. The You. The spirit would then be a product or derivative of the brain but not the brain itself, or, that which the brain produces as a person. We don't claim to know "how" the brain produces a person or the spiritual, and, it may be something that is material. The universe may very well contain only material and the term spiritual may be an explanation of something not seen. But what is agreed upon is that the body is not the person, and the person resides in the brain, and what is in the brain is the person. Of course the brain contains more then a person, there may well be other things in the brain, but aren't person.

Repetition-yes, But I'm going to have to live with it.

You say "Spirit" is the same as "person".  I call this 'personality'.  And your definition shows no difference.

And any animal up on the evolutionary scale has a personality. From what I see by your definition they also would qualify to have a 'spirit'.

Also animals obviously have 'humanistic' traits. The most obvious would be a chimp.

So if my calculations are correct spirit/personality existed before any human or Adam.  You said you agree with evolution- right? Do you see where things don't add up here?

You said god did not create the universe, but the universe created god.

 I say the universe did not create god(not directly).  The universe created man. Man created god in his imagination which is part of his personality.

 

If you didn't notice Miss Dana was before me. Harley too.

I inadvertently hit the post button. see- I;m not perfect---yet---yeah right.

An Apostle says. First there was the physical and then the spiritual. The physical, as material shows they understood the material universe to have existed first and means that ---instead of a Biblical God creating a universe the universe creates God---us. In order for a spiritual to exist there must be a brain to contain it, The brain is material and within is the person. In biblical terms (our interpretation) God is people. We are God. There is no external of ones self other then other beings within other bodies/physical. In evolution there came a time when the brain formed and then after, a person formed, that person in the biblical concept is ----God--a way of being. within the brain a person became. That person today is you me and everyone else--including the cat the dog the cow etc. of which all have the same inner being as man and animal. The + and the -

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for explaining Seer

Old Seer wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Old Seer wrote:

Creation was "a spiritual undertaking"...

 

What does this actually mean - you know - in reality?

 

 

creation isn't material substances. It's the making of a particular personage, Adam. Water = mental or thoughts. Fowl= thoughts or ideas.  Dry land= solid foundation or placement as belief or religion. Greater light=knowledge of something. lessor light=knowledge of another thing but of less regard. Grass, being the lower of plants is humility. Trees= knowledge of life as in the tree of life vs the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It's about spiritual things nor material or physical things.

 

You use material metaphors to embody the concepts you're discussing but what is the underlying spiritual process of the 'undertaking'. Can it exist outside of the head of the conceiver?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm taking it as

Atheistextremist wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Old Seer wrote:

Creation was "a spiritual undertaking"...

 

What does this actually mean - you know - in reality?

 

 

creation isn't material substances. It's the making of a particular personage, Adam. Water = mental or thoughts. Fowl= thoughts or ideas.  Dry land= solid foundation or placement as belief or religion. Greater light=knowledge of something. lessor light=knowledge of another thing but of less regard. Grass, being the lower of plants is humility. Trees= knowledge of life as in the tree of life vs the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It's about spiritual things nor material or physical things.

 

You use material metaphors to embody the concepts you're discussing but what is the underlying spiritual process of the 'undertaking'. Can it exist outside of the head of the conceiver?

you're referring to the metaphors used in creation. If that is the case then yes. we figure that the ancients who forware3d the narrative of creation didn't have words in their vocabulary to explain what they witness or observed or felt, so they would have to attach them to, or borrow from the materially natural surroundings. IE if the didn't have a word for "love" they labeled it whale or Leviathan. 8000 years ago they may have had a limited vocabulary. Now bear in mind the original inhabitants of the middle east were a band of African bushmen who later became Adamites and spoke in what is called clicks, or mere verbal sounds.  When they arrived in the middle east could have been a 1000 years or more prior to the time they became Adam. In that case, in time they would devise a minor alphabet system but wouldn't have had much of a vocabulary. That is a "assumption" we make. we don't present it as fact. How long they were in the middle east before the creation story is a guess. probably 30,000 years. The book doesn't cover anything before creation---about 7000 years ago by the time line in the book, which may also not be correct. Back then they may have use time differently.

Can a person be exit of the body (i think that's what you mean). That would be "out of body experience. ---- we've never agreed with that idea. The psycho Smurfs don't see how that can be. They attribute it to a lack of drugs that the brain produces causing hallucinations. As one is toward death the brain ceases to function properly causing defects. An emotion cannot be taken out of the brain--it would disappear. What the brain produces is dependent on continuous support of the brain. That's why when one is dead--they are dead. The physical ceases to support the brain. so the Brian dies, and so everything else dies or disappears. The person is no longer existent. That's as we see it. We've had long discussions on this at one time. I hope I remember it correctly.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
and also

Old Seer wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

   Now I am going to admit I have not been paying close enough attention to all of your writings. So, Please feel free to correct me at any given point. What I have lazily been piecing together from the samples of your writing. Again correct me on any point if I am wrong, please. I cannot stress this enough to you. The Smurfdum are making a claim that is actually staggering in terms of its' scope. Your group is claiming to have run across a 'meta-key' that can be used in any area of the Scriptures. I could go on but I want to hear what you think I mean  by the term 'meta' and the term 'key' when it comes to meaning derived from words . . .

is Animal vs Human. We find from the book that the world has a skewed concept of human and animal . The results show that the final tally we have is correct and cannot be denied. Everyone is self evidence--bar none. History shows that it cannot be any other way. History itself is evidence. That's why history repeats itself. Thinking in a particular way/direction will always produce the same results. God is a "way" of mind-which is all of us together. we see that the world cannot repair this current mess, it's  change or bust. That's why I'm here. The change/transition will still have drastic consequences.

Creation itself is a key. everything is due to creation. You'll find it's reference used throughout the book. The book of Ezrkial- the vision that includes the lion, eagle/vulture, calf, face. The lion in creation = creeping thing,cat,predator. The eagle,=fowls of the air/firmament, status. The calf=innocent party/people/worker/ox. The face= nimrod, phoney/liar/false front, false image, looking human but working the animal behind, the ruling class. This whole vision is symbolic of civilization. Namely, a class system run by liars.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
The good book

 OK, so I think I see what your group of smurfs was working on, and where you were going with it. The Book is a metaphor, containing a 'hidden' meaning for how to live a better, more human life.

 

However, the important question must then be this: Who wrote the book, and why do you consider it to have more importance than any other comparable literature? 

 

I have other questions around this, but I'll keep it to this one for now as you're already getting swamped!


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Goooooood morning

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 OK, so I think I see what your group of smurfs was working on, and where you were going with it. The Book is a metaphor, containing a 'hidden' meaning for how to live a better, more human life.

 

However, the important question must then be this: Who wrote the book, and why do you consider it to have more importance than any other comparable literature? 

 

I have other questions around this, but I'll keep it to this one for now as you're already getting swamped!

All you Tee juices, truck drivers. telephone janglers, waitresses, Gear jammin peddle pushin buddies, and engineers, all up and messin around this morning along with the paper carriers, cooks and grease monkeys---gooood morning.

Who wrote the book? Genesis is attributed to Moses who dictated it to the Hebrew scribes. I don't know where Moses (Off Hand) leaves off and others take over. The Prophets were the ones that dictated to the scribes after Moses. Where did he get it?---We think that being raised in the house of Pharaoh he may have gotten the info from the Egyptian library. Then there was a people ( forget who there were) that Moses lived with after being exiled from Egypt, and this could be their rendition of creation. The Jewish people could clear that up I'm sure.

Comparable to?---Well it's the most common (bible) that is in usage in the world of western peoples. And even at that it's a more complete work of an ancient people right up to the last book of the old testament. Looking back on things I would say it was more to our familiarity as we all grew up with it. However, one of the biggest flaws in it's interpretation is-- it's not English or western literature and cannot be read as such. IE- the Adamites are a people that span the book from creation to Nimrod. All those in that portion of the book "are" the
Adamites. That means that Noah was an Adamite and so was Nimrod. Be understanding that just because they did great evils does not negate them as Adamites. Adam is their mental condition rather then their genetics. When it come to being Adam it's the mind that is important not the physical. There is a difference between Adan the 1st and Adam the 2nd. The 2nd is JC.

Hidden things---yea. As JC points to- the hidden things from the foundation of the world. It doesn't mean that someone deliberatly did the hiding. It's just that the info became lost as in -lost the knowledge of God. Note- the foundation of the world, that's creation. The question then is--- is it the foundation of the middle eastern world or the whole world. We would say the middle eastern world as the entire world wasn't known to the middle easterners at that time. Note also, that it's not the foundation of the planet as "world" it's the world of people rather then  directly geographic.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Ok, so Ancient people

 Ok, so Ancient people wrote the book.

The ancient book has hidden meanings in it.

 

However, why do you think this hidden meaning is worth anything in today's society? If I came to you and claimed that I'd found a hidden meaning in 'War & Peace', all this would actually mean is that Tolstoy may have embedded something in his work.. it does not signify that this hidden meaning should be granted any greater significance in terms of our current views on the world.

 

In order to take greater significance from the book than one normally would if a bunch of ancient people wrote it, you must assume that the writers possessed a knowledge greater than their time in history would allow - i.e. prophesy. The problem is that all you have to back this up is the book, and your assumptions on what the hidden meaning is. This is a shaky foundation, because you are assuming a great deal that has absolutely nothing to back it up other than your own interpretations.

 

In order to expect anyone to give you any credence, please back up why you think this book can possibly have this greater knowledge - and why Tolstoy couldn't.

 

Thanks


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Ok, so Ancient people wrote the book.

The ancient book has hidden meanings in it.

 

However, why do you think this hidden meaning is worth anything in today's society? If I came to you and claimed that I'd found a hidden meaning in 'War & Peace', all this would actually mean is that Tolstoy may have embedded something in his work.. it does not signify that this hidden meaning should be granted any greater significance in terms of our current views on the world.

 

In order to take greater significance from the book than one normally would if a bunch of ancient people wrote it, you must assume that the writers possessed a knowledge greater than their time in history would allow - i.e. prophesy. The problem is that all you have to back this up is the book, and your assumptions on what the hidden meaning is. This is a shaky foundation, because you are assuming a great deal that has absolutely nothing to back it up other than your own interpretations.

 

In order to expect anyone to give you any credence, please back up why you think this book can possibly have this greater knowledge - and why Tolstoy couldn't.

 

Thanks

There's no hidden meanings anymore-we understand it. It did have hidden meanings.

All societies are based on the same inner elements. what goes for ancients still goes today, no difference. Social structures are fairly constant

If you found a hidden meaning in any book I would take a look at it---if it's subject is something I'm interested in.

Greater significance. That would depend upon the subject matter. If the book is to be spread through out the world then the propagators think it would be significant

They were advanced for their time. Our Psycho Smurfs confirm that. It's not that they understood "how" the brain worked, they understood the consequences of a particular line of thinking. They could predict the result. Some form of psychology still does today. I think that's what a psychoanalyst is partially about.

There's nothing to back up the book except evidence of ones self. The evidence is ones own person. That's what the book is about. You yourself would be the evidence.

Yes--our interpretation. It's up to the recipient to find the interpretation within the book and decide for them self if it's true. The other only alternative is to find documents from the other Arab countries to corroborate the information. Other then that there's nothing. There's only two directions anything can be interpreted, from a material standpoint , or from a spiritual stand point. If the Pope has the material. and we have the spiritual, then only one can be right. But, one need not make any determination if it's right for them self. In that case one subscribes it to jibberish on all counts. We don't have the idea that if you don't accept our interpretation you're condemned---far from it. Be aware--we're not Christians.

I've never read Tolstoy. But if he were correct on whatever he didn't save the world. OK--Save the world from what (I'd better explain that). The ancients knew or could see that the mental path man was on would lead to destruction, which in this case-save the world from self destruction. In other cases such as Christianity it would be--saved from death. which is equal to immortality. We don't know how that's suppose to work, but that,s our interpretation without knowing how that comes about, it's what we see from the information. If that is true or not is for the self to determine.

Here,s the problem you are having--I think. Let;s take the history of England. If there's no other countries on the planet how does one decipher the history. There's no one else to go to for verification. So, the only way to find if the history is true one has to go to England and read the history. In this case England's history has to be understood from within England itself, there's no other place to go. so it is with the book. There's no outside source to go to. One could ask the Israelis--but if they lost the knowledge of God, how would they know. The knowledge of God is extracted from the book but the owners don't know themselves how it can be there. It is. Knowledge of God is one and the same as the knowledge of yourself. There;s for if it's in the book you need to find it---that's where we come in. Over time you'll see it as we post the info. It can take a while. Some find it faster and easier them others. You need to be patient and learn more. It will piece together in time.  Thank you    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Do everyone a favor and fill this out further . . . .

 

 

  Why not do everybody a favor and fill out this Nomenclature much  further . .

 The Void = not man-animalistic

 Waters = Mind thoughts/mental

  Air = Spirit/Heavenly

  Fowl = Ideas / thoughts

  Earth = Soul (literally Mother Earth)

  Adam = Personage . .

  God = The Spiritual entity (of the person housed in the brain)

  . .

 

:
 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Alrighty

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

  Why not do everybody a favor and fill out this Nomenclature much  further . .

 The Void = not man-animalistic

 Waters = Mind thoughts/mental

  Air = Spirit/Heavenly

  Fowl = Ideas / thoughts

  Earth = Soul (literally Mother Earth)

  Adam = Personage . .

  God = The Spiritual entity (of the person housed in the brain)

  . .

 

I'm going to have to do some bible searching/studying. 20 years is a long time.

But for the time being lets deal with the waters. By the way, the fish symbol when logging on in Hebrew is symbolic of "soul". It is also a letter and number in their numeric alphabet.

Lets correlate waters, then you'll see how the book tie together. This will show how it means mentality or mind. Notice that in creation there is waters "above" and "below" the firmament. Ok hold onto that thought. Now go to the time of Noah, again there is waters. Lets go to JC, I will baptize you with fire and "water". Now lets go to the book of Rev.  a star fell upon the 3rd part of the river etc.

Rev--- what does it mean. The common interpretation is that 1/3 of the rivers on the planet will be destroyed ??? that'll be a neat trick. How about this -How many parts does a river have. It depends upon how John sees a river-right. There is the source , the stream,  the banks,  the mouth or exit. "What" happens if you destroy the banks, you get a flood. Now, go back to Noah, what do you have, a flood. What happened at the time of Noah, they became so evil they couldn't sustain their social bonds and flooded over with hate and killed each other off. Now, lets go to JC. It will be as in the days of Noah, eating and drinking, marrying and given in marriage (going about life normally) and the "flood" came and took them all away.

I will baptize you with fire and water. Fire---destruction. your present person will be destroyed and then reborn, new person. Waters--a changing of the mind, think in a new way, new values. Not H2/O.

Creation water above the firmament,. some common interpretations, water in orbit around the planet---that came down a caused the flood of Noah. Where did all the water go. well the oceans were smaller at that time and that's where the water went. "absurd".

The waters above is the animal state of mind under which one considers the self to be better and above others. Notice creation deals with the waters only "under" the firmament. A state of mind of greatness over/above others. Civilization operates on this concept, a class system.

One more Item--The 3rd part of the ships were destroyed. Nope, not 1/3 of the ships on the planet. What is the 3rd part of the ship. It has a hull, mast, sails, rudder. But, how does John see a ship. He could see a keel, a hull, a deck. a mast, the sails, the rudder. In the Navy and USMC there's a water head. But john wasn't in the Navy or Marines, right, so, no water head.    what happens if you destroy the sails---no go, loose power. Think ship of state. No sails no go. If its the rudder--no direction, confused, loose course.

Understand at one point the Smurfs were satisfied with the findings and didn't get into exact details. After the main was understood things tapered  and everyone lost interest. No one was interested in all the exactitudes.

I would have to consult with the Smurfs and see if any have worked on things over the years. That would take months. The general concept is understood and clearly seen.

Void and without form- a person void of understanding, lacking enlightenment. (Notice darkness). equal to ignorance.

Ill run a short one

 

In the beginning God created the spirit and soul, and the soul was without form (no direction-maybe) and empty and ignorance was upon the surface of the mind. and God sad, let them be enlightened, and they became understanding.   In that order of things.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I wait and do look forward to a larger list from U :)

  Just a suggestion ..  From what I have seen I think it could help us all, you and me and everyone when I suggested it ... (dont read too much into the lack of emoticons)  Sometimes people were finding it hard to see these connections, my suggestion was meant as a supportive aid and I know I need an exhaustive  list, even if for no other reason to help follow the many "=" equal signs . . . Please consider it some more then . . .  ^-^

 In a simplified manner as I indicated in the example, please  That is all.

 


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Now I am wondering if Brand A has spent any time focusing on any other ancient religions, mysteries, and wonders.

We may have already touched on this but our discussions have gotten too lengthy for me to review.

How about the pyramids of Egypt? I have done some reading long ago of christian interpretations of the secrets of the great pyramids where they even went as far as fitting the dates and life of jesus into the measurements and structural layout of the many corridors, chambers, and coffers. They more or less claim and use the whole structure and it's orientation with the earth and stars as a "primmer" to answer, map out, and even predict the history and future events of the world.  

Mayans?

Nasca lines in Peru?

ET?

 I think Dana already asked you about Atlantis.

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes we did

tonyjeffers wrote:

Now I am wondering if Brand A has spent any time focusing on any other ancient religions, mysteries, and wonders.

We may have already touched on this but our discussions have gotten too lengthy for me to review.

How about the pyramids of Egypt? I have done some reading long ago of christian interpretations of the secrets of the great pyramids where they even went as far as fitting the dates and life of jesus into the measurements and structural layout of the many corridors, chambers, and coffers. They more or less claim and use the whole structure and it's orientation with the earth and stars as a "primmer" to answer, map out, and even predict the history and future events of the world.  

Mayans?

Nasca lines in Peru?

ET?

 I think Dana already asked you about Atlantis.

 

Christianity has nothing to do with Pyramids,etc. what you are referring to is other religion that JC isn't connected. Any religious study out side Christianty would be fairly confined to Hebrew history, and/or connected to surrounding Arab tribes.

If leaders can control what people believe they can get the people to do anything. The same is true today. If the many allow the few to decide the many will do as the few say.  Leaders know that belief is a very strong compelling force. If they can get them to believe any thing they can get them to do anything. All civilizations work the same way for the same idea and all end up in the same place---nada.

We don't see how any man made structure can predict anything. Why not do it the easy way and put it in writing. But now then---that takes us back to the book---that's what's going in there. In the 70s I read Erick Von Donikans book---Chariots of the Gods and found it compelling, but in the end---a no go. It doesn't add up. The pyramids were built as a tomb and a monument of a particuaalr King. It doesn't make any difference which way rocks get piled up --they won't produce any powers of sorts or magic. Engineer Smurf has no problem with how the pyramids were built. If you need to put a 1 ton rock on top all you need to do is---have 20 guys weighing 150 pounds each at the top with a rope attached going over the top and have then all walk down the other side holding on the the rope. 100 teams equals a lot of rocks. Pyramid-done. I personally find all these puzzles interesting ( IE-Atlantis) but alot of research is still needed. Thanks Tony--be back later

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:tonyjeffers

Old Seer wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

Now I am wondering if Brand A has spent any time focusing on any other ancient religions, mysteries, and wonders.

We may have already touched on this but our discussions have gotten too lengthy for me to review.

How about the pyramids of Egypt? I have done some reading long ago of christian interpretations of the secrets of the great pyramids where they even went as far as fitting the dates and life of jesus into the measurements and structural layout of the many corridors, chambers, and coffers. They more or less claim and use the whole structure and it's orientation with the earth and stars as a "primmer" to answer, map out, and even predict the history and future events of the world.  

Mayans?

Nasca lines in Peru?

ET?

 I think Dana already asked you about Atlantis.

 

Christianity has nothing to do with Pyramids,etc. what you are referring to is other religion that JC isn't connected. Any religious study out side Christianty would be fairly confined to Hebrew history, and/or connected to surrounding Arab tribes.

If leaders can control what people believe they can get the people to do anything. The same is true today. If the many allow the few to decide the many will do as the few say.  Leaders know that belief is a very strong compelling force. If they can get them to believe any thing they can get them to do anything. All civilizations work the same way for the same idea and all end up in the same place---nada.

We don't see how any man made structure can predict anything. Why not do it the easy way and put it in writing. But now then---that takes us back to the book---that's what's going in there. In the 70s I read Erick Von Donikans book---Chariots of the Gods and found it compelling, but in the end---a no go. It doesn't add up. The pyramids were built as a tomb and a monument of a particuaalr King. It doesn't make any difference which way rocks get piled up --they won't produce any powers of sorts or magic. Engineer Smurf has no problem with how the pyramids were built. If you need to put a 1 ton rock on top all you need to do is---have 20 guys weighing 150 pounds each at the top with a rope attached going over the top and have then all walk down the other side holding on the the rope. 100 teams equals a lot of rocks. Pyramid-done. I personally find all these puzzles interesting ( IE-Atlantis) but alot of research is still needed. Thanks Tony--be back later

By the way--- If you're not familiar with USMC General Smedly Butler, google'em. also have a look at the Butler coup. It's an mind opener.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well Dana- Good afternoon.

Old Seer wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

  Why not do everybody a favor and fill out this Nomenclature much  further . .

 The Void = not man-animalistic

 Waters = Mind thoughts/mental

  Air = Spirit/Heavenly

  Fowl = Ideas / thoughts

  Earth = Soul (literally Mother Earth)

  Adam = Personage . .

  God = The Spiritual entity (of the person housed in the brain)

  . .

 

I'm going to have to do some bible searching/studying. 20 years is a long time.

But for the time being lets deal with the waters. By the way, the fish symbol when logging on in Hebrew is symbolic of "soul". It is also a letter and number in their numeric alphabet.

Lets correlate waters, then you'll see how the book tie together. This will show how it means mentality or mind. Notice that in creation there is waters "above" and "below" the firmament. Ok hold onto that thought. Now go to the time of Noah, again there is waters. Lets go to JC, I will baptize you with fire and "water". Now lets go to the book of Rev.  a star fell upon the 3rd part of the river etc.

Rev--- what does it mean. The common interpretation is that 1/3 of the rivers on the planet will be destroyed ??? that'll be a neat trick. How about this -How many parts does a river have. It depends upon how John sees a river-right. There is the source , the stream,  the banks,  the mouth or exit. "What" happens if you destroy the banks, you get a flood. Now, go back to Noah, what do you have, a flood. What happened at the time of Noah, they became so evil they couldn't sustain their social bonds and flooded over with hate and killed each other off. Now, lets go to JC. It will be as in the days of Noah, eating and drinking, marrying and given in marriage (going about life normally) and the "flood" came and took them all away.

I will baptize you with fire and water. Fire---destruction. your present person will be destroyed and then reborn, new person. Waters--a changing of the mind, think in a new way, new values. Not H2/O.

Creation water above the firmament,. some common interpretations, water in orbit around the planet---that came down a caused the flood of Noah. Where did all the water go. well the oceans were smaller at that time and that's where the water went. "absurd".

The waters above is the animal state of mind under which one considers the self to be better and above others. Notice creation deals with the waters only "under" the firmament. A state of mind of greatness over/above others. Civilization operates on this concept, a class system.

One more Item--The 3rd part of the ships were destroyed. Nope, not 1/3 of the ships on the planet. What is the 3rd part of the ship. It has a hull, mast, sails, rudder. But, how does John see a ship. He could see a keel, a hull, a deck. a mast, the sails, the rudder. In the Navy and USMC there's a water head. But john wasn't in the Navy or Marines, right, so, no water head.    what happens if you destroy the sails---no go, loose power. Think ship of state. No sails no go. If its the rudder--no direction, confused, loose course.

Understand at one point the Smurfs were satisfied with the findings and didn't get into exact details. After the main was understood things tapered  and everyone lost interest. No one was interested in all the exactitude's.

I would have to consult with the Smurfs and see if any have worked on things over the years. That would take months. The general concept is understood and clearly seen.

Void and without form- a person void of understanding, lacking enlightenment. (Notice darkness). equal to ignorance.

Ill run a short one

 

In the beginning God created the spirit and soul, and the soul was without form (no direction-maybe) and empty and ignorance was upon the surface of the mind. and God sad, let them be enlightened, and they became understanding.   In that order of things.


 really can't do to much better then I already have. It seems the equal signs may be confusing to you.

 The = sign means "the same as"

The void-- Is a condition of absence. Non-understanding. Not made. Empty. Not present. Not present within the mind or person. The absence of something. 

Waters-- The flow of ideas. Thinking, Cognitive. Intellect. Things relative to the mind or thinking process. The thinking process itself. The mental.

Spirit-- The person. One's own person. The contents in totality of a complete person. The invisible, as the self is not material. The other of which the universe contains that is not the material or physical. That which resides in the brain but is not the brain but what is produced in the brain. A result of the brain. Yourself. The "other' selfs in the world, people. Spirit is both mind and soul.

Fowl- (notice they comes out of the waters)(which means connected to thinking) Thinking produces thoughts. Ideas. a result of thinking. a solution to a problem brought about by cognitive process.

Earth- the same as soul. Not the planet. Another result of the brain and another part of the person, as emotions. (The emoticons that are used on the Internet are expressions of soul)  (IE  Smiling  Feelings. Eve is not physically female. Eve is mother earth where from the inner feeling and emotions are formed.  Ref: The women that brings forth the new man child in Rev.

Adam- The finished product of the brain caused by knowledge of the self. Creation produces Adam. Sometimes referred to as "spirit". As in , the man is the head of the woman. (this does not mean that the male is master of the female) man is same as spirit, woman is the soul. (None of this refers to anything physical).

Grass of the field---Grass is lower in form then trees, thusly then it would mean humility, as in a "humble" person. One of the traits Christianity relies on.

God- The Hebrews have no reference to any such word or term. The term is strictly European. God in European context is used in place of phenomenon not understood. Yahweh is a reference to something not material and cannot be duplicated in pictures as it doesn't exist materially. That's why they weren't permitted to make statues or pictures, one cannot make a statue of something spiritual. It can be represented by a symbol in which case the "fish" is a symbol of "soul", person. Notice the link between soul and person that in turn is also spiritual.. That,s what the Hebrew religion was/is about, the belief in person. That also means that "the person" turns out to be ---people. The Messiah then can only be a person representing , person, of spiritual intent. He/it cannot be someone physical coming out of the clouds with a physical army to kill every enemy of the Israelite  state. The beliefs of their religion won't permit such. Therefore the San Hadrian didn't understand their own religion. If their religion is of the spiritual then the Messiah must also be the spiritual entity itself. That of course, can only inhabit a physical body and be within the brain. Their very religion type shows their concept of the Messiah to be wrong. 

I don't know how Old Seer got labeled theist, I'm not.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The concept of good and evil

Old Seer wrote:

   Being that I'm causing to many threads to be hijacked I find it necessary to establish my own thread. I don't like the idea because in my world we don't engage much in self importance, a little but not much. And this seems to be getting into that area and I'm not comfortable with it.

   Another is- where do I start. so after a bit of deliberation it occurred to me, why not start it where we (our group) started in 1985, and that was with biblical creation.

 To us, as we learned over time, creation is not a material undertaking but rather spiritual. In 1985 we had no idea where this would lead. Personally I/we wasn't out to accomplish anything. It was a simple question given to a group of guys that were into various fields of life's work in which they made their monies for living as we all do, or at least in our case, did.  Having met one of them by a chance meeting as he passed through town we got into a conversation of various interest as people normally do. He informed me of his club/group and among then was a Physicist which peaked my interest as I am also a Physicist, at least to some degree (old school). At that time I was an Atheist considering JC to be a street magician making a living.

 I gave this "Smurf" several questions for The Physics Smurf (he referred to the group as a Smurfdom). The question was --creation doesn't match the laws of physics, things are out of order. And in giving my understanding of what it might be I gave a short list of my suspicions. The main suspicion was that it might be something spiritual because the bible mentions spirituals all over the place, and had no idea what it was all about.

 A few week later as he passed through town again he dropped of a packet at the place we met, a local eatery. I was informed they were going to take on an analysis of creation and that it was something they hadn't seen before, and the Physicist confirmed that it wasn't physics feasible---he sent it to the Psycho Smurfs, That's when it really took off in directions no one suspected.

 They determined it was something mental, and for whatever reason and how they saw it, it was a state of mind. Now here's the deal----IF, we are correct, this understanding of creation totally negates Christianity as is understood by the world. It literally destroys what is understood as Christianity. Because everything in the book is based and constructed and referred to from creation being the focal point. An Apostle refers to- those invisible things of creation which can be clearly seen, meaning- they recognize creation as a spiritual undertaking and that makes it a horse of a different color. As everything else in the book Christianity hinges on Creation, and Christianity is about spiritual things not material things. Then- there is no such thing as Christianity as an operating religion anywhere on planet earth.

Any questions are welcome. 

 

Proper Christianity is a religion that mimics the universe. It recognizes that which is natural and lives within it's forces and boundaries. The universe exists on cause and affect. There is no right and wrong. Cause and affect can only be termed as "good and evil". There is no right or wrong in evil and there is no right or wrong in good. Good and evil can only be the affects of existence, in terms of help or harm.  Help is constructive, harm is destructive, but yet neither is right or wrong. Good can bring about evil and evil can bring about good. If evil can bring about good then it cannot be wrong as good itself cannot be wrong, then if good is not wrong then there is no such thing as right or wrong. Evil can develope from good, and if so, again, evil cannot be wrong. If the source of evil can be the good then how can evil be wrong. Evil is that which brings about harm. In order for evil to exist there must be good, and for good to exist there must be evil. Good and evil are facts of existence, universal construction. In the beginning Adam wasn't right or wrong, but only good and evil. Being that Christianity is the same as Adam then Christianity is a matter of good and evil rather then right or wrong.

A person is constructed by the brain within the brain, and in proper Christianity "person" is understood to be God.  The "person" is the spiritual not the physical, and it is the spiritual that is God. Person is divided into two directions, sets of components- the Humane and the inhumane, and neither is right or wrong, but each has it's consequences of evil and/or good. The Humane and Inhumane is what societies are existent upon. They are what social values are formed from.  The Humane and Inhumane can only be attached to "person". If the body follows the brain and it's contents  then the body is only a means, the tools of the person. The humane and Inhumane are the only prospects that one can relate to others by. It is impossible for the universe to produce any other prospects to relate to others from. All are a result of universal construction.

If a society constructs itself on the Inhumane it is considered, animal. If a society constructs itself on the Humane it is considered Human, and then each as an individual is, Man. "Man" is neither male nor female, but rather a " mentality". Any society merely experiences the consequences of which is chosen as it core values. The Inhumane has it's consequences, and the Humane has it's. If a Humane society exists it will also encounter evil naturally, as good and evil are consequences of existence. Good and evil being natural forces of existence are unavoidable, and all life must exist within it's limits. These natural inward personal forces are (in proper Christianity/Adam) understood to be,  God. That means then that God is nothing more then what we, or one,s self are. Without people good and evil cannot exist, as good and evil must be comprehended in order to have value. And, if good and evil can be comprehended then it is the good and evil of ourselves that is God, as in society good and evil must occur, as comprehension cannot exist without a brain.

 It's glorious thing, that the Universe constructs a thing that is material (the brain) to form within it, the ability to comprehend the universe itself, from which all construction "is", and the construction of the thing that comprehends the thing that does the comprehension. How can it not be, God.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Ok, so Ancient people wrote the book.

The ancient book has hidden meanings in it.

 

However, why do you think this hidden meaning is worth anything in today's society? If I came to you and claimed that I'd found a hidden meaning in 'War & Peace', all this would actually mean is that Tolstoy may have embedded something in his work.. it does not signify that this hidden meaning should be granted any greater significance in terms of our current views on the world.

 

In order to take greater significance from the book than one normally would if a bunch of ancient people wrote it, you must assume that the writers possessed a knowledge greater than their time in history would allow - i.e. prophesy. The problem is that all you have to back this up is the book, and your assumptions on what the hidden meaning is. This is a shaky foundation, because you are assuming a great deal that has absolutely nothing to back it up other than your own interpretations.

 

In order to expect anyone to give you any credence, please back up why you think this book can possibly have this greater knowledge - and why Tolstoy couldn't.

 

Thanks

There's no hidden meanings anymore-we understand it. It did have hidden meanings.

All societies are based on the same inner elements. what goes for ancients still goes today, no difference. Social structures are fairly constant

If you found a hidden meaning in any book I would take a look at it---if it's subject is something I'm interested in.

Greater significance. That would depend upon the subject matter. If the book is to be spread through out the world then the propagators think it would be significant

They were advanced for their time. Our Psycho Smurfs confirm that. It's not that they understood "how" the brain worked, they understood the consequences of a particular line of thinking. They could predict the result. Some form of psychology still does today. I think that's what a psychoanalyst is partially about.

There's nothing to back up the book except evidence of ones self. The evidence is ones own person. That's what the book is about. You yourself would be the evidence.

Yes--our interpretation. It's up to the recipient to find the interpretation within the book and decide for them self if it's true. The other only alternative is to find documents from the other Arab countries to corroborate the information. Other then that there's nothing. There's only two directions anything can be interpreted, from a material standpoint , or from a spiritual stand point. If the Pope has the material. and we have the spiritual, then only one can be right. But, one need not make any determination if it's right for them self. In that case one subscribes it to jibberish on all counts. We don't have the idea that if you don't accept our interpretation you're condemned---far from it. Be aware--we're not Christians.

I've never read Tolstoy. But if he were correct on whatever he didn't save the world. OK--Save the world from what (I'd better explain that). The ancients knew or could see that the mental path man was on would lead to destruction, which in this case-save the world from self destruction. In other cases such as Christianity it would be--saved from death. which is equal to immortality. We don't know how that's suppose to work, but that,s our interpretation without knowing how that comes about, it's what we see from the information. If that is true or not is for the self to determine.

Here,s the problem you are having--I think. Let;s take the history of England. If there's no other countries on the planet how does one decipher the history. There's no one else to go to for verification. So, the only way to find if the history is true one has to go to England and read the history. In this case England's history has to be understood from within England itself, there's no other place to go. so it is with the book. There's no outside source to go to. One could ask the Israelis--but if they lost the knowledge of God, how would they know. The knowledge of God is extracted from the book but the owners don't know themselves how it can be there. It is. Knowledge of God is one and the same as the knowledge of yourself. There;s for if it's in the book you need to find it---that's where we come in. Over time you'll see it as we post the info. It can take a while. Some find it faster and easier them others. You need to be patient and learn more. It will piece together in time.  Thank you    Smiling

None of this seems to have anything to do with god. So do you attribute this book to have connections to god, or is it all just about psychology?

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
On this one

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Ok, so Ancient people wrote the book.

The ancient book has hidden meanings in it.

 

However, why do you think this hidden meaning is worth anything in today's society? If I came to you and claimed that I'd found a hidden meaning in 'War & Peace', all this would actually mean is that Tolstoy may have embedded something in his work.. it does not signify that this hidden meaning should be granted any greater significance in terms of our current views on the world.

 

In order to take greater significance from the book than one normally would if a bunch of ancient people wrote it, you must assume that the writers possessed a knowledge greater than their time in history would allow - i.e. prophesy. The problem is that all you have to back this up is the book, and your assumptions on what the hidden meaning is. This is a shaky foundation, because you are assuming a great deal that has absolutely nothing to back it up other than your own interpretations.

 

In order to expect anyone to give you any credence, please back up why you think this book can possibly have this greater knowledge - and why Tolstoy couldn't.

 

Thanks

There's no hidden meanings anymore-we understand it. It did have hidden meanings.

All societies are based on the same inner elements. what goes for ancients still goes today, no difference. Social structures are fairly constant

If you found a hidden meaning in any book I would take a look at it---if it's subject is something I'm interested in.

Greater significance. That would depend upon the subject matter. If the book is to be spread through out the world then the propagators think it would be significant

They were advanced for their time. Our Psycho Smurfs confirm that. It's not that they understood "how" the brain worked, they understood the consequences of a particular line of thinking. They could predict the result. Some form of psychology still does today. I think that's what a psychoanalyst is partially about.

There's nothing to back up the book except evidence of ones self. The evidence is ones own person. That's what the book is about. You yourself would be the evidence.

Yes--our interpretation. It's up to the recipient to find the interpretation within the book and decide for them self if it's true. The other only alternative is to find documents from the other Arab countries to corroborate the information. Other then that there's nothing. There's only two directions anything can be interpreted, from a material standpoint , or from a spiritual stand point. If the Pope has the material. and we have the spiritual, then only one can be right. But, one need not make any determination if it's right for them self. In that case one subscribes it to jibberish on all counts. We don't have the idea that if you don't accept our interpretation you're condemned---far from it. Be aware--we're not Christians.

I've never read Tolstoy. But if he were correct on whatever he didn't save the world. OK--Save the world from what (I'd better explain that). The ancients knew or could see that the mental path man was on would lead to destruction, which in this case-save the world from self destruction. In other cases such as Christianity it would be--saved from death. which is equal to immortality. We don't know how that's suppose to work, but that,s our interpretation without knowing how that comes about, it's what we see from the information. If that is true or not is for the self to determine.

Here,s the problem you are having--I think. Let;s take the history of England. If there's no other countries on the planet how does one decipher the history. There's no one else to go to for verification. So, the only way to find if the history is true one has to go to England and read the history. In this case England's history has to be understood from within England itself, there's no other place to go. so it is with the book. There's no outside source to go to. One could ask the Israelis--but if they lost the knowledge of God, how would they know. The knowledge of God is extracted from the book but the owners don't know themselves how it can be there. It is. Knowledge of God is one and the same as the knowledge of yourself. There;s for if it's in the book you need to find it---that's where we come in. Over time you'll see it as we post the info. It can take a while. Some find it faster and easier them others. You need to be patient and learn more. It will piece together in time.  Thank you    Smiling

None of this seems to have anything to do with god. So do you attribute this book to have connections to god, or is it all just about psychology?

 

I'm only answering someone's question as to how the book is interpreted. There's not much proof of anything outside the book that proves the book but we find the book to be self explanatory within it,s self. There is no other way. It,s a writing about people, and the only way a person can explain one's self is from one,s self. The book works the same. People cannot be explained except by people.

Yes, It's Psychology. As people are psychology. In our interpretation people are God, that in turn makes God a matter of Psychology, If the book is about people then the book can only interpret itself, as people can only interpret people. That's what our Psycho Smurfs have encountered ---if you study the mind you study God, They were amazed when they realized it. Your Psycho Dudes have yet to find that out. They are still caught in the "human animal" concept.  That's the basis that the Smurfs added another Psycho Smurf  last winter---he couldn't get around it when he understood it.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: In our

Old Seer wrote:

 In our interpretation people are God, that in turn makes God a matter of Psychology,

 

In that case you are a humanist atheist, not a theist and your badge should be changed...


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No badges

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 In our interpretation people are God, that in turn makes God a matter of Psychology,

 

In that case you are a humanist atheist, not a theist and your badge should be changed...

plagues, trophies or rewards, That' not our world anymore. We are just plain us. We have no ladders of success, or heights to climb. Straight across, straight forward- ride with the tide,  No tricks, pranks or lies. Go with he flow, fast or slow--nowhere to go. We are where we are, not going far. How far away is far, or how far is far away.

We aren't Atheist. I got in and argument with a Humanist several years ago trying to explain that Humanism is the same as Christianity in most respects. He couldn't see it. But it is.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No badges

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 In our interpretation people are God, that in turn makes God a matter of Psychology,

 

In that case you are a humanist atheist, not a theist and your badge should be changed...

plagues, trophies or rewards, That' not our world anymore. We are just plain us. We have no ladders of success, or heights to climb. Straight across, straight forward- ride with the tide,  No tricks, pranks or lies. Go with he flow, fast or slow--nowhere to go. We are where we are, not going far. How far away is far, or how far is far away.

We aren't Atheist. I got in and argument with a Humanist several years ago trying to explain that Humanism is the same as Christianity in most respects. He couldn't see it. But it is.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
The philosophy or life

The philosophy or life stance secular humanism (alternatively known by adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms ofhumanism) embraces human reasonethicssocial justicephilosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogmasupernaturalismpseudoscience orsuperstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

(wikipedia)

 

So actually not like Christianity at all..

 

Obviously that will depend on your definition of Humanism..

 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
we understand

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

The philosophy or life stance secular humanism (alternatively known by adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms ofhumanism) embraces human reasonethicssocial justicephilosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogmasupernaturalismpseudoscience orsuperstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

(wikipedia)

 

So actually not like Christianity at all..

 

Obviously that will depend on your definition of Humanism..

 

Christianity as what is Human, opposite animal. Our Christianity is opposite the Pope's . We don't regard the Pope or Europeanism as Christianity. Real Christianity has no Pope or leaders, only teachers. Proper Christianity has no status levels or authorities above others. There's no church buildings or special parafernalia, rituals etc. Christianity is just plain people. JC is the same as -that which is Human in our interpretation. .

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: They

Old Seer wrote:

 They determined it was something mental, and for whatever reason and how they saw it, it was a state of mind. Now here's the deal----IF, we are correct, this understanding of creation totally negates Christianity as is understood by the world. It literally destroys what is understood as Christianity. Because everything in the book is based and constructed and referred to from creation being the focal point. An Apostle refers to- those invisible things of creation which can be clearly seen, meaning- they recognize creation as a spiritual undertaking and that makes it a horse of a different color. As everything else in the book Christianity hinges on Creation, and Christianity is about spiritual things not material things. Then- there is no such thing as Christianity as an operating religion anywhere on planet earth.

I don't disagree, but, it seems to me that your group of Smurfs was trying to reinvent the wheel. My books of Alice Bailey go along similar lines, only I dare to say, better. Also, it seems you used a purely philosophic method, while I can't be without an element of experience.

What difference does this philosophy make in one's life?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: It's

Old Seer wrote:

 It's glorious thing, that the Universe constructs a thing that is material (the brain) to form within it, the ability to comprehend the universe itself, from which all construction "is", and the construction of the thing that comprehends the thing that does the comprehension. How can it not be, God.

 

How can it not be a Mobius strip?

 

To clarify my thought - this has to be a prime example of circular reasoning - literally going in circles.  Making no sense, either. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's what you

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 It's glorious thing, that the Universe constructs a thing that is material (the brain) to form within it, the ability to comprehend the universe itself, from which all construction "is", and the construction of the thing that comprehends the thing that does the comprehension. How can it not be, God.

 

How can it not be a Mobius strip?

 

To clarify my thought - this has to be a prime example of circular reasoning - literally going in circles.  Making no sense, either. 

 

need to understand---it does go in circles. Civilization works the same way. Anything to do with people works that way. Thought is only another part of the universe. The Universe is going nowhere--it just is. Even Einstein says--if you start one place in the universe and travel long enough you'll arrive where you started. If you explain yourself you'll find it goes in circles. Going in circles isn't hypocritical, if so a circle itself is hypocritical . What would be hypocritical about a circle. The ancients say--the more you want to be on the outside the more you find yourself in the middle. It's the universe CJ. We have to live with it. If the universe is going nowhere then we are going nowhere, and the more we try to get somewhere the more we stand still. Getting somewhere is only an illusion. It's merely a trick we play on ourselves. That,s one part of our problem----we're fighting reality and loosing by creating our own.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:cj wrote:Old

Old Seer wrote:

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 It's glorious thing, that the Universe constructs a thing that is material (the brain) to form within it, the ability to comprehend the universe itself, from which all construction "is", and the construction of the thing that comprehends the thing that does the comprehension. How can it not be, God.

How can it not be a Mobius strip?

 

To clarify my thought - this has to be a prime example of circular reasoning - literally going in circles.  Making no sense, either. 

need to understand---it does go in circles. Civilization works the same way. Anything to do with people works that way. Thought is only another part of the universe. The Universe is going nowhere--it just is. Even Einstein says--if you start one place in the universe and travel long enough you'll arrive where you started. If you explain yourself you'll find it goes in circles. Going in circles isn't hypocritical, if so a circle itself is hypocritical . What would be hypocritical about a circle. The ancients say--the more you want to be on the outside the more you find yourself in the middle. It's the universe CJ. We have to live with it. If the universe is going nowhere then we are going nowhere, and the more we try to get somewhere the more we stand still. Getting somewhere is only an illusion. It's merely a trick we play on ourselves. That,s one part of our problem----we're fighting reality and loosing by creating our own.

 

You need to review this idea with your "psycho smurfs."  We ALL create an internal story to deal with reality.  Our perceptions are digital - that is, we take snapshots of our environment, then our brains stitch them together to form a continuous whole.  We do not fight reality, we compose - create - our internal reality.  It's not a problem - it is the result of the way our sense organs and our brains are constructed. 

Humans are goal directed.  We have to be.  Dinner will not come to the neolithic human, s/he must go out and get it.  Those who were not goal directed did not reproduce - since even sex has a goal.  We all have to get somewhere, do something, achieve something.  The trick is to make it a reasonable something somewhere we can reach.  So most of us do get somewhere.  It is not illusory - even if your goal is to nuke a frozen dinner - goal accomplished, dinner is served.

I'm a pragmatic realist.  You have goals and are getting somewhere - Quartzsite AZ by October.  It doesn't matter if the earth is in the arm of a spiral galaxy that is drifting out from the center of the universe.  Your goal will likely be accomplished barring accident or natural disaster.  Compared to the movement of our spiral galaxy, is your trip ultimately significant?  Probably not.  So what?  It is significant to you and that is all that is important to you.

If you want to sit in a corner and play with your toes, contemplating the circular nature of time, the universe, and everything, fine.  But you won't get to Quartzsite by October at that rate. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the thread.

Luminon wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 They determined it was something mental, and for whatever reason and how they saw it, it was a state of mind. Now here's the deal----IF, we are correct, this understanding of creation totally negates Christianity as is understood by the world. It literally destroys what is understood as Christianity. Because everything in the book is based and constructed and referred to from creation being the focal point. An Apostle refers to- those invisible things of creation which can be clearly seen, meaning- they recognize creation as a spiritual undertaking and that makes it a horse of a different color. As everything else in the book Christianity hinges on Creation, and Christianity is about spiritual things not material things. Then- there is no such thing as Christianity as an operating religion anywhere on planet earth.

I don't disagree, but, it seems to me that your group of Smurfs was trying to reinvent the wheel. My books of Alice Bailey go along similar lines, only I dare to say, better. Also, it seems you used a purely philosophic method, while I can't be without an element of experience.

What difference does this philosophy make in one's life?

No, as far as I can see we aren't inventing. We're merely giving out interpretation of a book/document. The difference it makes in one's life is it leads to an understand of one's own self. From that then one can be directed toward a peaceful life. Everyone has a peaceful side but is of little value if the world we live in has standard of enmity or war/competition. In essence we see that it will change the world course, or direction. Another term for Christianity would be , Adamism. But, Adamism wouldn't be a true definition of JC as they are simular but not the same. We would prefer a different term then Christianity. We have no idea what it could be changed to.  If the greater number change their life then the world changes. What does it change?---- To us the book is about changing from a human animal idea to separating out the human from the animal. Remove the animal as the values of relations and you have a different world. So the book has no such thing as a human animal, it's about being one or the other, and this means a mentality rather then a physical. That means that animal and human are states of mind not the body itself. Change the basis for thinking and the world is changed. What it does for the individual is---with understanding one can make the choice them self or at least understand what the worlds problems are caused by. That's all Christianity is about---extract the animal (or make it inert) and you have a different person, and then the greater number that make the change the world is changed.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
CJ it

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 It's glorious thing, that the Universe constructs a thing that is material (the brain) to form within it, the ability to comprehend the universe itself, from which all construction "is", and the construction of the thing that comprehends the thing that does the comprehension. How can it not be, God.

How can it not be a Mobius strip?

 

To clarify my thought - this has to be a prime example of circular reasoning - literally going in circles.  Making no sense, either. 

need to understand---it does go in circles. Civilization works the same way. Anything to do with people works that way. Thought is only another part of the universe. The Universe is going nowhere--it just is. Even Einstein says--if you start one place in the universe and travel long enough you'll arrive where you started. If you explain yourself you'll find it goes in circles. Going in circles isn't hypocritical, if so a circle itself is hypocritical . What would be hypocritical about a circle. The ancients say--the more you want to be on the outside the more you find yourself in the middle. It's the universe CJ. We have to live with it. If the universe is going nowhere then we are going nowhere, and the more we try to get somewhere the more we stand still. Getting somewhere is only an illusion. It's merely a trick we play on ourselves. That,s one part of our problem----we're fighting reality and loosing by creating our own.

 

You need to review this idea with your "psycho smurfs."  We ALL create an internal story to deal with reality.  Our perceptions are digital - that is, we take snapshots of our environment, then our brains stitch them together to form a continuous whole.  We do not fight reality, we compose - create - our internal reality.  It's not a problem - it is the result of the way our sense organs and our brains are constructed. 

Humans are goal directed.  We have to be.  Dinner will not come to the neolithic human, s/he must go out and get it.  Those who were not goal directed did not reproduce - since even sex has a goal.  We all have to get somewhere, do something, achieve something.  The trick is to make it a reasonable something somewhere we can reach.  So most of us do get somewhere.  It is not illusory - even if your goal is to nuke a frozen dinner - goal accomplished, dinner is served.

I'm a pragmatic realist.  You have goals and are getting somewhere - Quartzsite AZ by October.  It doesn't matter if the earth is in the arm of a spiral galaxy that is drifting out from the center of the universe.  Your goal will likely be accomplished barring accident or natural disaster.  Compared to the movement of our spiral galaxy, is your trip ultimately significant?  Probably not.  So what?  It is significant to you and that is all that is important to you.

If you want to sit in a corner and play with your toes, contemplating the circular nature of time, the universe, and everything, fine.  But you won't get to Quartzsite by October at that rate. 

 

 

It will take you a while to understand. Hang in there.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.