Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wildone
climber
Isolated in El Portal and loving it
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 01:00pm PT
|
For once, something we agree upon.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 01:44pm PT
|
Hey Healyje
So, am I to take it from the blow by that all this god talk and business is only for humans - no other species need apply or qualify? No other species has a "soul"?
There are lots of different discussions going on in this thread. Its hard to follow each of them. I will attempt to explain my view point.
I believe that Werner thinks that everything has a soul.
I disagree with him in part. It is a matter of degreees. To me, a soul is an extension of our higher self that has been sent into the world to Be more of God. Some would call this to shine the light into the darkness. As an extension, the soul has an identity, a mind and the power to create. There is more but for the purposes of this argument, thats all we need to discuss. I think Werner would add something called the lesser or lower ego. In my understanding the lower or lesser ego is a creation of our soul. What I describe as the higher self I believe that Werner calls the super ego.
Early in our creation, we had direct and easy access to our higher self which resides in the spiritual realm, what some call heaven. As we made choices against the will of our higher self, we eventually created a seperation. This seperation could be called a fall in consciousness or a veil of illusion. It doesn't matter. What matter is that it was our choices that created it and it is our choices that can uncreate it. We, as humans do have more power then things like animals and rocks and trees. We have the power to destroy and to create. Much like a parent does with a child. The parent has more power. This isn't good or bad, it just is. It becomes good or bad based on how we use that power.
So Humans have more power then rocks or trees or animals. Part of that power is the option to follow God's will and become more. Part is the option to become less. We choose our path. Plants, animals and minerals do not have this choice. It doesn't make them less, they just do not have the consciosness to make this kind of choice.
What do animals and plants and minerals have? That are all made out of the energy of God and when they die, or are destroyed they go back into the allness of God from where they came. This is explained by the law of conservation of energy. The only difference between science and spiritualist is the understanding that behind all of these scientific laws is a creator of those laws. There is a bad history behind science and spirituality because of the attacks the church did on scientist back in the dark ages. But at one point in history, most scientist had a deep connection to a belief in a creator. Most scientist don't belief in coincidence, yet they are willing to accept the incredible number of coincidences that it would take for a theory like the big bang to work. Yes there are laws, its just that the spiritualist ask what created those laws and what upholds them. They also usually are more concerned with why.
So back to plants, animals and minerals. Do they have a consciousness. On one level they do as they are part of the total consciousness of God. Where I make a distinction is that they do not have enough of their own consciousness to make free will decisions. On this planet only humans do.
I hope that this helps you understand more of where I am coming from. It is not meant as a final or absolute discussion of creation. That would require books and books of knowledge. I have just made an attempt to give the broad strokes. I may very well have screwed up some of it as I am a neophyte.
John
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 02:50pm PT
|
Moosie
I don't "THINK" all living entities have soul.
All LIVING entities HAVE soul. There's absolutely no doubt. It is a fact that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with religion.
You eat, plants animals eat, etc.
Look at dog it eats sleeps mates, defends, loves, etc just like you do.
Anyone can see the symptoms of the soul, both atheists and theists. Consciousness is the symptom of the soul!
If Christianity preaches that only humans have soul, it's not Christianity anymore but a rascaldom.
Pure rascaldom!
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 03:56pm PT
|
I don't consider myself to be a "Christian" Werner. I consider my self to be someone who seeks the Truth.
Perhaps I am a Rascal. haha...At least the name of this religion should appeal to climbers. Rascaligist. Rascalism.
Are you a Christian? "No sir, I am a Rascal" Oh, what do Rascals believe? "We believe in Pirates. Arrrrrrgh...Give me your money." oooh, that sounds like a Democrat. haha..." No sir, I am a Rascal".
Someone else will have to add to that list. I am still working out what it is that I believe. haha.....
Perhaps you would be willing to reread my post. I point out that I think it is a matter of degree. Would you be willing to agree that Humans have more power to control their destiny? Even if they don't recognize or consciously wield that power. Where as things like rocks have virtually no power or not even any power to shape their future. Perhaps consciousness is not the correct word. Perhaps the idea is "Free will". Do rocks have "Free will" to shape their future? Or is it Humans who have dominion and therefore the responsibilty to shape this planet.
If you mean that consciousness is the underlying energy of God, then you are correct. If consciousness is the ability to shape ones future. Then it becomes one of degree. Even an animal has little if no ability to change how it thinks or what it thinks. It is a bundle of preprograming. And yes, from life to life Humans beings bring in their programs from previous lifes. yet those programs are based on free will choice from previous lives. Something that is different from that of an animal. This doesn't make animals less then.
And no, I do not believe that human souls can devolve enough to end up reincarnating as an animal. Just don't. I think that as humans devolve we become like animals, with fewer and fewer options, but mostly we just create a more difficult and more difficult hell as a consequence of our actions until we either change course or run out of time and are sent to the second death, where everything that is created in illusion is uncreated and sent back to the allness of God. God has no desire to see any part of itself suffer for eternity. And everything is made out of God. It is only humans who create suffering. Well, and some angels. OH boy,,,,,another can of worms. haha....( To the Christians, yes I am well aware that Rev 20:10 seems to say that the devil will suffer for eternity, I just have a different understaning of "Satan". In this instance, "satan" is the symbol for the belief that it is possible to seperate from God. ugh...this could go on forever....hmmm..maybe because everything is One.)
Rascal
hee hee...
oh eee oh..off to Rascalism we go...oh eeee oh....
Were off to see the Rascal, the wonderful Rascal of Oz.
we're off we're off were off we're off we're ooooofff
because of the wonderful things we're off. ( and boy are we off.. ta dum )
Just another goofy day in Oz.....
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 04:14pm PT
|
Thanks, Frodolf - I couldn't have said it better.
Ed - Nice clarification on what you meant about percieving truth and subjective vs objective.
Social Climber - It's not that uncommon for people to work on the weekends, even on Mother's Day. For instance, I work retail, and the weekend is king in that world; so I have to be at work, and the closest I can get to climbing is to peruse the web in between customers. I climb mid-week, away from the crowds that are there on the weekends, and I suspect that the experience is better for it. Meanwhile, I have to say that chastising others for not climbing while you yourself only climbed contrived routes at the gym is somewhat less than cool.
Others:
Frankly, when posters begin just insulting one another and/or in claiming that none of us are real (Descartes-style) I rapidly lose interest and start lurking - but I feel like the debate still has a couple of sparks left.
Weschrist's argument - though I'm not sure where he's weighing in on the God/No God debate, and I don't think he knows either - seems to be that my point (God isn't proveable - technically, not reality) is inconclusive because we can't prove that we, ourselves, are real.
He's incorrect, though - the distinction is that I can percieve him (weschrist) and his actions (however "unreal" he claims them to be) and I (along with the rest of the world) can't actually percieve God or prove that any "percieved" actions were God's. There has to be - even in his belief system - a category for percieving actions like those of his fellow man, with his own eyes, and a different category for God and God's actions, which aren't perceived in the same way.
Meanwhile,
Note that still, despite all cries for any sort of evidence to the contrary, there isn't a shred of evidence that a higher being exists. In fact, often the language used when referring to God reveals an inherent wishful tone - something to the effect of:
I believe that there is something higher than man OR
I just can't imagine that we're here just by chance OR
If not designed by a higher being, then we're just a virus on the earth, etc.
But things aren't provided by wishing, and a negation isn't a proof. And to answer what I hope is Crowley's troll, something doesn't exist simply because you can conceive of it.
Further, note that all definitions of God, from any denomination, are fantastic concepts that all have at root a single defining characteristic: that the mind of man cannot conceive of how great God is. Whatever God is, he's simply bigger than the small human brain can grasp - he's literally, by a believer's definition - the unknowable.
Honestly, even Christians must focus like a laser on this concept - for if it holds true, then what's keeping me from inventing any idea at all and *making* you believe it - simply by telling you that if you can't grasp the concept, it's because no man can, it's too big/comples for a human brain to grasp, and further, if you don't believe it anyway, you're going to hell! For eternity!
Even Christians (open-minded, educated, intelligent ones, at least) must admit that this is at least a possibility for how Judeo/Christianity was born.
Christians and Atheists agree on one thing: God is the unknowable. Becasue of that, Christians blindly believe, Atheists don't.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 04:52pm PT
|
"Christians and Atheists agree on one thing: God is the unknowable"
God is unknowable, You made that up in your own tiny brain.
"Christians blindly believe, Atheists don't."
More poor logic. Atheists blindly believe God doesn't exist also.
God is easily provable if one follows that bona fide prescribed method the he gave to reveal himself. Since you don't know the method, therefore you are blind and come up with this poor mundane logic.
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 06:21pm PT
|
As I mentioned, I'm not particularly interested in throwing insults back and forth Werner, though in fact I don't find it that classy or wise of you to resort to it.
I'll cave to the idea that some Atheists "blindly" don't believe in God.
As far as tiny brain and mundane, poor logic - prove either objectively - using more accurate logic and YOUR brain - rather than "I know the method and you don't" transcendental concepts that aren't provably valid or existent.
When you find that you can't, you just might have to face the facts that your belief system is formed from some other man's words, and his persuasion consists of saying:
"It's more than you can know, so you must believe. And if you don't know or believe, then you must not be enlightened.
The Supreme Lord himself said so. (Or, at least, that's what this other, super-wise seeming guy told me, and I'm pretty sure he got it from this old-looking book written by some other super wise dudes who heard it from God.)"
I respect your reputation immensely, Werner, and many of the ST'ers who've met you have really nice things to say about you on the forum - particularly about your rescue and climbing skills - but if insults is the best you can offer to a pretty interesting debate, well, that's ... an insightful observation into your character - and religion.
-A
Edit: Could you outline the bona fide method you mentioned above, please?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 06:31pm PT
|
We will all know what is up about a couple of minutes after your heart stops.
Untill then, it's all guess work.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 06:33pm PT
|
I believe Werner is using strong language to try and break through the reluctance in your own mind. I might be wrong.
"Could you outline the bona fide method you mentioned above, please? "
Its difficult to outline. Maybe impossible. You can start by truly wanting to know the purpose of Life. Or trying to answer "who am I ?" Maybe Werner has a better answer.
A good book to read is " A Christ is Born in You" by Kim MIchaels.
My 2 cents.....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 06:38pm PT
|
The names of the lord are non different from him, They are the transcendental sound vibration coming down from the spiritual stratum.
The prescribed method for this age is the chanting of the holy names without offenses in servitude.
You made that up in your own tiny brain is not an insult. I have a tiny brain too. The Supreme Lord has the complete brain, full of knowledge.
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 07:47pm PT
|
Moosie - Could you tell me where Kim M's information comes from?
Werner - Can you tell me what name to chant, for how long, who to serve, and most importantly, what reward or proof will result of that process? (Even if the "reward" is knowledge.)
Also, can you give me some insight as to how certain names became "holy?" And how did you learn this information? And what steps did you take to ascertain that it's the truth?
(Seriously, not meant to be sarcastic)
Note that just as the definition of God is "anything but that which you can conceive" because human's brains are too limited by being *merely human,* the following behavioral characteristic always arises: a religious man must spend his life in some way "serving."
Who?
In the same way - anyone (or thing) but yourself is whom you must serve.
-Aaron
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 08:09pm PT
|
"Could you tell me where Kim M's information comes from?"
Are you just trying to trip me up with circular arguments or are you truly interested in what he has to say? I will take a pass on the circular word mincing but if you are truly interested, then he is found here.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/
Go there, do a search on his name in the search option and read up on him.
The wholeness of God might be unknowable but whether these teachings work or not can be tested. Its just that to test these teachings then you have to make a concerted effort to understand them and practice them. Few do. I have just begun.
Peace
|
|
frodolf
climber
Sweden
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 08:43pm PT
|
Weschrist.
First off: Good to hear you weren't offended. I really did sound grumpy though, didn't I?
Secondly. The whole concept of the "we can't really know anything for sure"-thing is based, IMHO, on a supernatural idea. The whole concept of Descartes demands something supernatural. Here's why. To say, as Descartes, that we can't know anything for sure except our own mind and thoughts, demands that thoughts comes from somewhere else than our brain. It explicitly state that we can't be sure of our brains existence. I'm a materialist (aka atheist) and I don't believe that our thoughts comes from elsewhere than our brain. We are ONLY our bodies, yet these are more complex (especially the brain) than we have even begun to understand.
In my world view, and in any true atheist's view, thoughts CAN'T come from anywhere else than our brain. Of course, this is pathetically easy rebuked, because you can simply say: "What say that your brain exists?" My answer is: "I'm thinking, aren't I? That must have a physical explaination." If you don't agree, you stepping into supernatural ground.
We have a tendency to believe that thoughts, feelings and consciousness aren't physical. They are. They are only electric/chemical reactions in the brain and body. To say that thoughts are "more" than that, is bogus.
What it boils down to is: you believe in something supernatural. A lot of people do, without feeling ashamed, so I guess you can too :-).
Interresting with the experiments, and I fully believe you, I don't see anything strange with that. I think we're missing each other's points a little bit. You talking of psychological experiments, which by it's nature is subjective, and I'm talking about natural science. You know, the age of the earth stuff, the ice is lighter than water stuff. Math stuff. 1+1 can't be 3 stuff. That is separate from subjectivity, as I see it, for it is math based.
I'm into humanistic science myself, and I love the subjective world. Without subjectivity, life would suck. Stalin tried to erase subjectivity, and was that fun? Well, I guess that's subjective too :-). It's rather a question of where the line between subjectivity and objectivity is drawn. I think both has physical explainations in the end, but as far as I know, we haven't proven that, hence this semi-moronic dabate.
You should check out something called Linguistic Relativity. It is right down there with your psychology example. Or up there, I'm not sure. It kind of says we can't experience the same things since we don't have the same language. Pretty rad.
Bajs
(bajs is poop in swedish)
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 09:44pm PT
|
Moosie - not trying word games, just asking if Kim M's source of information is personal inspiration, the Bible, other written materials, other men and their research, or God himself. I'm at work, and will have to wait until I get home to check your link - I don't know anything about Kim, so was just curious, but WebSense won't let me visit the site at work.
Wes - Though it's true that I don't know you, I have seen you - even if it was just on a bike, in passing.
But I haven't seen God. Nor, I might add, has anyone else, IMO.
There is a disrepancy - as you mention - between the sample set (experience) and the universe. But I'm saying God isn't a part of either. And that it can't be proven otherwise.
And that's the root of it.
Meanwhile, the reason people are often vague about the mystics can be because they doesn't have first hand knowledge - or personal experience, if you will - with the actual beings they're referring to. Neither do I.
And while you're right in that no one in their right mind can actually know (quantify) everything in the entire universe, there's a HUGE difference between (out of that NON-knowledge) saying "God exists" and saying "I just don't see any evidence of God - show me." In other words, there's a difference between labeling the unknown as "God" and labeling it - the "unknown."
Meanwhile, it's hard for me to worship or honor and respect (or hate or love or apply any action at all to) something that is "unknowable" - or, by definition, out of our grasp of conception.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 10:23pm PT
|
This means you are a masquerading impersonalist.
|
|
Jello
Social climber
No Ut
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 01:58am PT
|
"I intend to explore the fuzzy boundaries to the best of my ability while I can"
Love those fuzzy boundaries, Wes. I find the excitement there, too. Who knows what might be stumbled across?
|
|
frodolf
climber
Sweden
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 07:58am PT
|
"Isn't that the solution Descarte came up with? Weren't you dismissing Descarte's approach?"
Good point. As I understand Descartes approach, what he came up with was that his MIND must exist, not a physical thingie thinking, like I'm saying. Maybe I've misread him. Please tell me if I'm wrong, and if I am, I'll take back what bad I sad about his ideas.
"The bounds of reality will change... some will continue to search, others will continue to attribute the unknown to the hand of God."
I agree. Though I don't think it's a sound approach to say we can never know more than we do now, which is (to some degree) what the "hand of God" folks are saying.
"BTW, disagreeing with the physical explanation part only means you are stepping into "super-physical" ground, not necessarily supernatural ground. "
I'm sorry if I used the wrong word, English isn't my native tungue. But, I still don't understand. Do you mean that with "super-physical" that it is physical, but beyond our current knowledge? In that case we're on the same level. No idea arguing if we agree, eh?
"A thought cannot be traced back to the electrical stimulation of a particular region of the brain, it requires the experiences of that brain and the resulting pattern of neurons to produce the thought."
I disagree, in theory. I think thoughts have only got a physical (or super-physical?) explanation, so in theory we should be able to read thoughts with the right knowledge of how thoughts work, physically. But for now, we don't have that kind of knowledge (we're not even close, as I said). So, for now, you're right :-).
"To say we understand everything there is to understand about thoughts, feelings, and consciousness is silly."
Yes, it is. And I don't. I'm merely saying that we probably will, if a free science can work at it for a couple of thousand (or million) years.
"Some of which may never be explained by physics"
How do you know THAT?
"Just because it cannot currently be explained does not mean it is "super" natural."
What? Did I write that, or did you? I surely could have written it, cause that is the core of my beliefs. There are still a lot of "magic" in the world, that lends itself to be interpreted as the Hand of God. But it's getting less by the hour. But I don't think science will ever be enough. I think that even if scientists would discover the nature of consciousness - what it really is - a lot of people would simply not care and continue with there beliefs.
But back to the issue. You know, I may be leaning towards agreeing with you, against my will. Because, as I'm starting to realise, I have not PROVED anything.
BUT, as an atheist, I make the claim that God is so improbable, that he probably doesn't exist (and I absolutely lack belief in Him, as well). And in the some way, I can argue here. I would say it's so unbelievably improbable that the external world doesn't exist (and is the same for ALL) that I subscribe to the idea that it does exist. In my opinion, the chances that the external, physical world is not there (or isn't the same for all), are so slim that you (I) practically can't believe it. But, still, I can't prove anything, and I give cred for that.
Peace, out.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 08:40am PT
|
I'm merely saying that we probably will, if a free science can work at it for a couple of thousand (or million) years.
That's assuming that science is able to explain feelings and emotions.
You have a lot of faith in science.
|
|
frodolf
climber
Sweden
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 10:53am PT
|
I said "probably", Blight. But, yes, I do BELIEVE science will explain feelings and emotions, because I also believe that they're only caused ultimately by physical "stuff". You know, "eat chocolate and fall in love"-stuff.
Science, as we think of it, has not really existed for that long. Science is a process, and it takes time. How 'bout giving it some slack, eh?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 11:46am PT
|
Science, as we think of it, has not really existed for that long.
Where's the we?
It's Science, as YOU think of it, ....
Science, has been around for billions of years
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!