The Crucifixion

[Ouroboros]

Quantum Entanglement is a know fact, tested and observed.

 

But I haven't heard anyone using the QE and BB as an argument that there is a connection between quarks spanning the whole universe. Basically, maybe I have a paired quark with an alien in a galaxy far, far away.

[mwc]

MWC, I don't think "god" "should" be anything. It is what it is.

...

I can agree with that. It is part of what is meant to be, perhaps repercussions to our actions sometimes. Such as smoking or being exposed to asbestos, and I wonder if our emotions don't often assist many diseases. Many doctors will say they think many illnesses have psychosomatic origins. When we are happy and at peace, we tend to feel more energy, and more energy may help us stay healthy. Maybe we have subconsciously suppressed issues that fester at a level below conscious awareness...

Okay. But if we accept that all things are "god" then "smoke" is "god" and "asbestos" is "god" too. All "disease" is "god." Is "god" harmful to itself? The perspective keeps shifting between a grand vision (the universe that would be "god") and the localized view that is simply us. On a localized scale, perhaps we are doing harm to ourselves, but on a grand scale, truly nothing is happening because of "smoke."

 

The concession must be made that if this planet were to simply cease to exist the universe ("god") wouldn't really even notice it's absence. Any "cosmic" energy we generate (and I'm simply allowing this for the sake of conversation...we cannot give off more energy than we take in) is insignificant compared to what energy the universe bandies about in the mere blink of an eye.

 

If we're talking sentient energy then it's quite egotistic to assume that we're the dreamer of all this. We could be the dream and nothing more. The universe and all that is could be the dream as well. We cannot say. But if the dreamer does reside within the dream then we have no evidence that we are the ones doing the dreaming. The sentience could lie elsewhere. Again, our "loss" not truly being a loss at all. Just as the OT stories build up Israel as the apple of their god's eye we are taking and building up our own self-importance in this universe when really we may not matter at all.

 

But I will agree with you that if you can get yourself into a better mental state then you have a better chance at have a better physical state. It's most certainly not a guarantee of anything, but a rotten mental state will usually hinder any progress toward recovery.

 

I think a layer in our atmostphere (ozone) protects us and/or by virtue of evolution we have evolved to have safegaurds to this, didn't we?

Right. We've adapted to hide from the defenses of the host. Otherwise it would have obliterated us long ago.

 

I don't think "god" is an outside entity. IF we are more or less the mind of this body, hopefully we learn to respect the rest of our body. It seems many people today, spend a lot of time on what their mind wants to do and avoid the welfare of the rest of their body (literally). Yet it is the mind that is responsible to assure the heart/circulatory, kidney, liver, and the rest receive care and attention they deserve also. Perhaps we have been given dominion of this planet, not to use it up for what we want, not for it to serve us, but for us to serve it. Maybe we are to take care of it, as our mind is to be oriented to take care of the rest of our own body?

I'm sure that if viruses could talk they'd tell a similar story. They just want to get along with the host and leech off of it. After all...what makes a virus truly different from the host? They're basically the same. Cells and all. Replication of some sort. Nourishment. And so on. Like I've said before...it's just no fun to think we're viruses or parasites. It's "nicer" to think we're more a "unit" that is worker to the (eventual) betterment of the whole ("god"). This is the one reason I can see that there seems to be that "shift" in perspective I mentioned earlier. We need to reconcile that localized version of "self" with that "potential" or "idealized" version of "self." The "Grand Unified Theory" of "self" doesn't seem to exist that allows for a "god" that's more than a "thing" that's mostly irrelevant (that I can see...but I'm still very much a novice at this).

 

Good and evil subjective? IDK, except perhaps if one considers the ultimate outcome. If it leads to the demise of life, could that be considered bad? If we pollute our planet so that nothng survives, that seems to be a tragedy to me. Yet, I also think there is a stream of consciousness that connects all things. I suppose the only thing that separates how I think than the Atheist is that I think it is important to acknowledge a reverence for life.

See above.

 

It's only "good" or "bad" to us. But to anything beyond us...does it matter? A star went supernova a few million years ago. We just saw it (well, I think a year or so ago). Did it matter? How many lives were lost? Zero? Billions? Trillions? We can't say. To us it was something that grew bright for a short time and now is dark. Neat. It wasn't close enough to harm us. So the answer to whether it is "good" or "bad" is? If I had my vote? Neither (on a moral level). I simply don't have enough information. But if death is part of life and supernova's happen then, it's a tragedy, but it's not "evil" but it's not "good" either. It's still remains morally "neutral." If they brought it on themselves then it's regrettable but is it immoral? Maybe...but then I'm imposing my standards on them. Maybe by their morals it was a great thing. Now we're back to not having enough information.

 

So why all the blathering about the supernova? Because if everything is "god" then we're to the point that "god's" morals are somehow transfered into us. This is like those in religions that tell us that their god, by "grace" or some other mechanism, send its morals (even to "sinners") to everyone and if we're not living a certain way then we're simply not listening (to their "god"). This is a dangerous position to get into from my point of view. It sounds "nice" but it is so easily misused that it makes me very nervous (not to say you're planning anything ). If I were to only listen to the "god" that is in everything, then I could tap into this fundamental source of morality. But I resist. What is currently an "inclusive" group quickly becomes an "exclusive" group. See? This is why I think that non-theist groups like the Buddhist's have been far more successful that any theist groups. Sadly, the word "god" eventually becomes like pointing a loaded gun at someone's head. But I have digressed from the point. I must be in a mood.

 

I don't think there is really good and evil, as all things probably work towards the enrichment of an underlying consciousness in all things. I would only say "god" is good in that we collectively are inclined towards what we determine is ultimately a pleasing outcome for all things. "God" would be that "spirit of reverence" for all life, just like there is a "patriotic spirit"... not a ghost-like figure. I suppose if the dream comes to an end, does the dreamer also end? I don't think so, as a dreamer must dream if that is all it knows or has to do. Even in our own dreams, we wake up before we die... only to dream another night.

...

How can we be categorized as evil if all are just doing the best they know? Maybe there are more appropriate coping skills, which accountability for our actions lead us?

...

Perhaps through the concept of evolution, we are created to overcome challenges, and in doing so we become stronger. Perhaps through being accountable for our actions by the mere repercussions of our actions, we are then guided into better skills. Perhaps through learning and knowing is better for self empowerment and a progressive sense of maturity, instead of remaining as an infant. How much free will do we actually have if we find that if we do this, the distasteful repercussions is that. If we continue to do this, these unwanted repercussions becomes more intense until we say we're not going to do that anymore. I don't think we are the virus intentionally, but through ignorance, till eventually we see the detrimental effects and then we want to change. Sometimes we don't know how to do so, but it seems our evolutinary drive to survive... we eventually seem to figure something out to save ourself. Now we are finally realizing, to save ourself, we must take care of the rest of our body too.

I'm going to combine these last three things because it seems they can help show my points easier that way.

 

The universe, as we estimate it is roughly 14 billion light years across (assuming it doesn't seem loop back onto itself or anything like that). If you obliterated our little solar system we wouldn't be missed. We're not even a spec of dust in something so vast. My issue is that we seem to assign much more important to ourselves than we really deserve. Okay. We could destroy ourselves. But if the universe is "god" and we're in the "body" of "god" (by virtue of being in the universe) then to totally erase our planet, and all those around us, would have no impact on the "body." It would be like if you lost a cell in your body. Tragic for the cell perhaps but the body didn't even care. It's business as usual because the body is designed for cells to come and go. At least our bodies are and we only have our bodies to use as analogues. So, we can also show that our cells are little energy "machines" and likely have little "auras" but that doesn't mean I'm in a "mental" link with them nor they with one another. They are all parts of me (their "god") but they do what they do and I do what I do. I could care less about them until they "break" and then they need to be "fixed" or taken out before they kill me. I feed them because I have to (I get hungry and they get fed as a result) but I make no conscious effort on behalf of my cells. No one I know does. Maybe they're sentient but who cares? (They're not...I'm just saying that since we're the "cells" in all this). I have no desire to "commune" with cells. The only possible reason I'd have to communicate with them is so that they'd "heal" me. A purely selfish reason if I do say so myself. But to be their friends? Forget it. They're cells.

 

So assuming the universe is anything at all how would it be, should it be, any different from what I describe above? Why should the universe ("god") want/need/desire anything from us and vice-versa? We're cells (a single cell at that) and it's the host. We can't even make relationships work across a supposed "generation gap" much less the cell-host gap.

 

Thanks for the laugh MWC! I always appreciate your classy diplomacy! All I'm saying, is that once we are like-minded, we may then know pretty much what the other person is thinking, and not have to speak so much. Not that it is a supernatural event, but that like-mindedness could bring a subconcious level of symbiotic understanding of each other, with less words. How this could evolve, I do not know. It seems we do give off "energy" and perhaps we subconsciously become more aware of this as well as our body language.

To "borrow" from Star Trek again, I really have no desire to become Borg...no matter the method we use to achieve this end. I know, I know..."Resistance is futile" but I'll hold out as long as I can. I've never been one for group think (I guess that's how I knew everyone else wasn't a "True Christian" and I was ).

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Okay. But if we accept that all things are "god" then "smoke" is "god" and "asbestos" is "god" too. All "disease" is "god." Is "god" harmful to itself? The perspective keeps shifting between a grand vision (the universe that would be "god") and the localized view that is simply us. On a localized scale, perhaps we are doing harm to ourselves, but on a grand scale, truly nothing is happening because of "smoke."

MWC... I agree entirely, it is ALL parts of god, because that is all there is. I'm not sure I understand the "smoke" reference above, unless you are referring to our obscured perspective. Perhaps the disease, asbestos, and smoke are driving us to a specific conclusion, in its own timing, designed by the original laws set forth by the nature of our universe. Taking your approach , maybe we see it as "harm" when it really is not... I think it all is probably part of the journey to an outcome. However, our own perceptions of what we have labeled good and bad are what drive us in a specific direction.

The concession must be made that if this planet were to simply cease to exist the universe ("god") wouldn't really even notice it's absence.

I agree, yet, IMO, life is still a wonderful phenomenal experience to have for the time it endured... that is if time really exists.

---But if the dreamer does reside within the dream then we have no evidence that we are the ones doing the dreaming. The sentience could lie elsewhere. Again, our "loss" not truly being a loss at all. Just as the OT stories build up Israel as the apple of their god's eye we are taking and building up our own self-importance in this universe when really we may not matter at all.

Amit Goswami is a famous physicist that suggests "a" consciousness created everything, including matter. There's something about a quantum wave of multiple possibilities collapsing to form one of them. What causes this collapse to form the one outcome of many? It can't be our brain, because it too was made by the collapsing quantum wave, so it can't make itself. There seems to be an underlying consciousness that does this. I think the sentience does lie elsewhere, and that it is our own is an illusion... albeit, a very persistent one.

I'm sure that if viruses could talk they'd tell a similar story. They just want to get along with the host and leech off of it. After all...what makes a virus truly different from the host? They're basically the same. Cells and all. Replication of some sort. Nourishment. And so on. Like I've said before...it's just no fun to think we're viruses or parasites. It's "nicer" to think we're more a "unit" that is worker to the (eventual) betterment of the whole ("god"). This is the one reason I can see that there seems to be that "shift" in perspective I mentioned earlier. We need to reconcile that localized version of "self" with that "potential" or "idealized" version of "self." The "Grand Unified Theory" of "self" doesn't seem to exist that allows for a "god" that's more than a "thing" that's mostly irrelevant (that I can see...but I'm still very much a novice at this).

I don't think god is outside of ourself. All things are it. Maybe we are like the erupting wave out of the cosmic sea, just to go back into it. It would then seem silly to fight or distroy the other waves, wouldn't it? What purpose could we have but to enjoy the time we are here. I agree with NBBTB, that our joy must come from within us, to give for the joy of giving, to find material things are not what determines our worth, although we each may be part of the "Grand Unified Theory," our independent experiences are also of value, just as the eye is to the rest of the body. Why shouldn't the eye be all it can be? Yet, what I have found, is not having the eye perfect is not so bad, nor the ear, or arm, and what seems to find "grief" in this, is how the rest of the body (other people) respond to this. It is this elitist mentality towards those that are not considered "perfect" in their perceptions, that makes life difficult for the physically challenged. If one can overcome the condescending attitudes of the majority of the population, seeing it as a reflection of who they are instead of them self, I think a much stronger and more insightful person is developed... such as Helen Keller and Stephen Hawkins. If our body anguishes and rejects a part of itself it deems not perfect, does it then deny the benfits it may have in strengthening other aspects in overcoming or compensating for this condition? Maybe nurturing our seemingly compromised body instead of rejecting it, facilitates an enhanced appreciation of touch, of compassion, of monumental internal fortitude, of many things, maybe making it serve a better purpose. I think we need to appreciate the trade offs, and the wealth of benefits from the physically challenged go wasted right now, IMO, is a great tragedy. I think the "god" within us, not of the worldly concerns, knows this; but we that are into the worldly aspects seem to not want to put forth the effort to make it happen.

So why all the blathering about the supernova? Because if everything is "god" then we're to the point that "god's" morals are somehow transfered into us.

Maybe not transferred to us, but determined from out of each of us? Morals should be determined by each individual. Rights of others are the government's position, but choosing one's own morals are hopefully an individual's right.

This is like those in religions that tell us that their god, by "grace" or some other mechanism, send its morals (even to "sinners") to everyone and if we're not living a certain way then we're simply not listening (to their "god"). This is a dangerous position to get into from my point of view.

Spirituality is an individual journey, IMO. I can see how one can become lazy and just follow the flock of endoctrination... not thinking for themself... then they don't come to terms with who they really are. You're right, it can be dangerous and I find all the time on here how I got sucked into a cultural belief without using critical thought. It's not only in religion, BTW, IMO, but politically done as well. Anything that sets themselves up as an exclusive group is a red flag to me.

 

 

So assuming the universe is anything at all how would it be, should it be, any different from what I describe above? Why should the universe ("god") want/need/desire anything from us and vice-versa? We're cells (a single cell at that) and it's the host. We can't even make relationships work across a supposed "generation gap" much less the cell-host gap.

Each cell serves a purpose while it is there, right? Perhaps there is more connection and influence going on at a subconscious, even unconscious level of which we are totally unaware. Maybe there is more of a symgiotic relationship at some level? HanSolo also mentioned a theory of entanglement of which I am not that well informed, yet it seems to me to show a scientific correlation amongst all things.

 

However, you are right in that we are only an electron, at best, in the whole scheme of things.

 

To "borrow" from Star Trek again, I really have no desire to become Borg...no matter the method we use to achieve this end. I know, I know..."Resistance is futile" but I'll hold out as long as I can. I've never been one for group think (I guess that's how I knew everyone else wasn't a "True Christian" and I was ).

 

mwc

Hey, I like right where I am also... as I've heard Wayne Dyer say... there is no way to happiness, happiness is the way. I do think the journey is probably the most fun part... and maybe this is a journey without end?

 

Heck, I came on here thinking I was a true Christian, then once on here I've discovered I am not a "Christian" in what it truly means in today's society.

 

So hopefully when people come on here and say I was never a true Christian anyway... I will say "thank you."

 

I've always liked the people here more than any church...

[Amanda]

Quantum Entanglement is a know fact, tested and observed.

 

But I haven't heard anyone using the QE and BB as an argument that there is a connection between quarks spanning the whole universe. Basically, maybe I have a paired quark with an alien in a galaxy far, far away.

HanSolo, you are so well informed in EVERYTHING! Your mind must be like a sponge that just soaks it all in the first time! You really contribute so much...

 

The reason I suggested we are all one by means of a galatic blender in response to your post, is because of what I've more recently read about the BB. I had this hunch it was so, as another forum's discussion was on BBs happeining within BBs. The theory I suspected and later read was that black holes sucking everything within itself gets monumentally very, very heavy! There it sits on the space-time fabric, becoming so heavy that it breaks through... causing a BB on the other side. Maybe that's the blender effect.

 

Now that you say there is an entanglement amongst all things, that can be tested and observed, does that mean as a black hole culminates its explosive outburst on the other side, it is also happening somewhere else just like that? Does that mean there is someone else, just like me, typing on a computer to someone just like you, somewhere else? Maybe there is just an effect on another particle out there, but not a mirror effect? ---

[Ouroboros]

Maybe there is another you, somewhere and sometime else... different time, different space. Maybe it's cyclical. We'll meet again, on Ex-Christian.net, in the next Universe and next cycle of time...

 

Me (sponge bob square hans), well informed? Hardly...

 

I just think some stuff are so intriguing, and I love sci-fi. So when science start sounding like sci-fi, I'm all over it. Besides I usually don't have a problem to create abstract images of these ideas in my head (as long as I kind of get the feeling for what they really say), the big problem is usually to put words to them.

 

But many times I also get the theories all backwards and I'm convinced it's the way I understood them and later (to my shame) I discover how awfully wrong I was.

[Taaliba22]

There is no type of Nail That They Could Have used to Support A Man Like Jesus' Size , Without Ripping Through His , Plams Or Shattering His Bones. Again Jesus was Not Crucified . It's A Myth . A Play Created By Joseph Flavius. But The kind of Nailsused by Romans Which Measure 8 To 10 Inches . It was Hammered Through The Hands And Feet Of The Accused Victimes Sentenced To Death . In Order For The Weight Of The Body To Be Supported . Shroudist State That The Nail Had To Pass Through The Wrist In What Is Called The Despot's Space , A Nail This Size WouldShatter Someone's Wrist Bones , Then What Suport Do You Think They Would Have Had Then ? Jesus Should Have Been Dead Within An Hour, Because His Diaphram Would Have Collapes DueTo His Dead Weight Body . His Diaphram Could Have Not Supported His Body Weight . Note The Cruxifixion Lasted For Three Hours Before He Dies .

[Robbobrob]

Um, people can last for many hours cruxified. They hold themselves up. Very painful, yes, but even at that time of complete hopelessness, most people fight.

 

This is why the Romans had hammers, to break the legs and quicken the death, because the people could not hold themselves up any longer. But Jesus died before the hammers, which is something the Gospels a re quick to point out.

 

He died much quicker than most. Not slower.

[Taaliba22]

Um, people can last for many hours cruxified. They hold themselves up. Very painful, yes, but even at that time of complete hopelessness, most people fight.

 

This is why the Romans had hammers, to break the legs and quicken the death, because the people could not hold themselves up any longer. But Jesus died before the hammers, which is something the Gospels a re quick to point out.

 

He died much quicker than most. Not slower.

 

 

 

 

 

Sure He Did LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL