Lignification

[Guest end3]

I think this process is a pretty good example of how science works as God does.

 

So in nature there is lignification:

 

lignification

the process of turning into wood or becoming woodlike.

 

The plant grows and through the process, green stems and leaves are formed and converted into wood and the plant structure gets stronger. The structure then us used to support the transference of the water and nutrients to subsequent new growth. Basically, I am also understanding that it from latin root word. I am also understanding latin goes back maybe 100 years BC.

 

And being a Christian, the process seems relevant comparatively.

 

So let's move it to a family scenario....we have a family "tree"....let's say the parents are the trunk and the children are the leaves that become limbs, and then parents/trunks themselves some day.

 

Per the fallen/broken world scenario presented in the Bible...the limbs perhaps get broken by a strong wind or storm or maybe they become too heavy for the trunk structure to support. So inevitably, leaves and branchs, or even the entire tree can be injured or broken and will die.

 

So it's not hard to move this to the family tree comparison. For whatever reason, we as limbs pretty much break from the family tree. Our own independence, fights, "storms" if you will. I think we can all attest to this. Or the trunk gets divorced from itself and the tree fails....for whatever reason. <Insert everyone's story here>.

 

So here's the key, the plan of reunification is in the Bible as well. Looking into the audience at church today, or ANYWHERE for that matter, we view a myriad of broken off leaves, broken branches, and spintered trunks in the form of family pieces separated from each other, again, for a myriad of reasons. So now we have a large quantity of broken off people.....limbs, leaves, and splintered trunks unhappy and disgruntled with life. Most, I would think, become part of another organization, but the Christian process is very close to the lignification process in many, many aspects. I will be happy to get the relevant scripture, but for expedience sake.....

 

We are swayed back and forth by the wind being new growth.

We get stronger in our position as older Christians.....becoming heartwood separate from the new growth.

In communion, we don't so much need the nutrients for ourselves (die to self in Christianeze), but are the chruch that is the support mechanism that move the nutrients/water to the new growth.

There is the armor of God as there is the bark of a tree.

The water and nutrients form the roots are similar to the life and Holy Spirit of Christ moving in the sap of the tree.

The process is done "in secret"

Christ hung on a cross (wood), much like the life of the tree is hanging on the exterior of the structure.

And the chemical process of lignification, based on a cursory look, reminds me of the church gathering the Spriit to help the new Christians as the process sequesters carbon to strengthen the cell walls.

 

I could go on.

 

The point is, here we have a natural, physical process that is described verbatim in the Bible, but happens to humanity.

 

And, we have a "re-lignin", or the process that unifies us again in the Tree of Life......broken tree parts that all meet to reform the tree that they were broken from.

 

Basically, Ex-C is a tree of life, but I think the root of the tree belongs to Christ.

 

What say ye.

 

Edit: I just don't see that this was observable to the people of that day in this type detail, yet matches wonderfully with the Biblical account.......which strengthens my belief.

[mymistake]

I think this process is a pretty good example of how science works as God does.

 

Science works through a healthy sense of skepticism to remove the observer's prejudice and then follow the evidence wherever it leads. God works by assuming what you want to prove and then justifying that through half truths, assumptions and fallacies. And by God I mean the scam created by humans.

 

So in nature there is lignification:

 

lignification

the process of turning into wood or becoming woodlike.

 

The plant grows and through the process, green stems and leaves are formed and converted into wood and the plant structure gets stronger. The structure then us used to support the transference of the water and nutrients to subsequent new growth. Basically, I am also understanding that it from latin root word. I am also understanding latin goes back maybe 100 years BC.

 

And being a Christian, the process seems relevant comparatively.

 

So let's move it to a family scenario....we have a family "tree"....let's say the parents are the trunk and the children are the leaves that become limbs, and then parents/trunks themselves some day.

 

Per the fallen/broken world scenario presented in the Bible...the limbs perhaps get broken by a strong wind or storm or maybe they become too heavy for the trunk structure to support. So inevitably, leaves and branchs, or even the entire tree can be injured or broken and will die.

 

So it's not hard to move this to the family tree comparison. For whatever reason, we as limbs pretty much break from the family tree. Our own independence, fights, "storms" if you will. I think we can all attest to this. Or the trunk gets divorced from itself and the tree fails....for whatever reason. <Insert everyone's story here>.

 

Humans are social creatures. We survive by depending on other humans. It's the result of millions of years of evolution.

 

So here's the key, the plan of reunification is in the Bible as well. Looking into the audience at church today, or ANYWHERE for that matter, we view a myriad of broken off leaves, broken branches, and spintered trunks in the form of family pieces separated from each other, again, for a myriad of reasons. So now we have a large quantity of broken off people.....limbs, leaves, and splintered trunks unhappy and disgruntled with life. Most, I would think, become part of another organization, but the Christian process is very close to the lignification process in many, many aspects. I will be happy to get the relevant scripture, but for expedience sake.....

 

How can any scripture be relevant? It's just opinion of editors and writers who lived long ago and we don't know.

 

We are swayed back and forth by the wind being new growth.

We get stronger in our position as older Christians.....becoming heartwood separate from the new growth.

In communion, we don't so much need the nutrients for ourselves (die to self in Christianeze), but are the chruch that is the support mechanism that move the nutrients/water to the new growth.

There is the armor of God as there is the bark of a tree.

The water and nutrients form the roots are similar to the life and Holy Spirit of Christ moving in the sap of the tree.

The process is done "in secret"

Christ hung on a cross (wood), much like the life of the tree is hanging on the exterior of the structure.

And the chemical process of lignification, based on a cursory look, reminds me of the church gathering the Spriit to help the new Christians as the process sequesters carbon to strengthen the cell walls.

 

I could go on.

 

Why? You are just presenting beliefs. Great, you have beliefs.

 

The point is, here we have a natural, physical process that is described verbatim in the Bible, but happens to humanity.

 

And, we have a "re-lignin", or the process that unifies us again in the Tree of Life......broken tree parts that all meet to reform the tree that they were broken from.

 

Basically, Ex-C is a tree of life, but I think the root of the tree belongs to Christ.

 

What say ye.

 

Edit: I just don't see that this was observable to the people of that day in this type detail, yet matches wonderfully with the Biblical account.......which strengthens my belief.

 

You must be self deluded to see such things in the Bible.

[jackbauer]

What... ???

 

I mean, I guess you can pick up some analogies and symbolism in the bible. I was in a lit class a couple years ago and people were always trying to apply current events to stories hundreds of years old. But if you look for it, you can find symbolism in anything. I can watch an episode of 24 or White Collar and find some way the characters situation applies to my life. It doesn't prove or disprove anything other than that some people can be quite imaginative (not that that's a bad thing of course!).

[Guest end3]

Science works through a healthy sense of skepticism to remove the observer's prejudice and then follow the evidence wherever it leads. God works by assuming what you want to prove and then justifying that through half truths, assumptions and fallacies. And by God I mean the scam created by humans.

The experienced analyst doesn't totally depend on what the instrument is telling him/her. So the relevant skepticism is in the decernment of the measurements.

 

Humans are social creatures. We survive by depending on other humans. It's the result of millions of years of evolution.

No problem, but you have a really old book decribing the science process in a specific analogy based on what we know today.

 

 

 

Why? You are just presenting beliefs. Great, you have beliefs.

Because if it is true, then it is darn worth discussing......nashing of teeth and all. Life seems to mostly suck as it is, but an another round doesn't sound fun.

 

 

 

You must be self deluded to see such things in the Bible.

I'll try to turn the other cheek MM, but you know I don't do very well with that.

[Guest end3]

What... ???

 

I mean, I guess you can pick up some analogies and symbolism in the bible. I was in a lit class a couple years ago and people were always trying to apply current events to stories hundreds of years old. But if you look for it, you can find symbolism in anything. I can watch an episode of 24 or White Collar and find some way the characters situation applies to my life. It doesn't prove or disprove anything other than that some people can be quite imaginative (not that that's a bad thing of course!).

 

Everyone here is always looking for physical evidence to support the Bible. To me this analogy gets pretty darn close JB. Just thought I would put it out there to discuss the finer points.

[florduh]

[mymistake]

No problem, but you have a really old book decribing the science process in a specific analogy based on what we know today.

 

What are you talking about? No such thing exists. Or by "really old" do you mean something written 100-200 years ago by a naturalist? I suspect you meant the Bible.

 

 

Because if it is true, then it is darn worth discussing.....

 

Feel free to establish that any of it is true.

 

 

I'll try to turn the other cheek MM, but you know I don't do very well with that.

 

Translation: Your ideas have immunity. You have the right to state your ideas in public and everybody else is obligated to respect and accept them. Anybody who points out the flaws in your ideas is harming you and that is wrong.

 

Reality check:

If your ideas are true then they should stand up against all critiques. These critiques are not something you should find offensive. They should demonstrate that you are right. If you were right that is exactly what they would do.

[Guest end3]

Reality check:

If your ideas are true then they should stand up against all critiques. These critiques are not something you should find offensive. They should demonstrate that you are right. If you were right that is exactly what they would do.

 

That is the idea.....lignification vs. the Christian doctrine.....waiting for critiques, not just monkey feces.

[mymistake]

Reality check:

If your ideas are true then they should stand up against all critiques. These critiques are not something you should find offensive. They should demonstrate that you are right. If you were right that is exactly what they would do.

 

That is the idea.....lignification vs. the Christian doctrine.....waiting for critiques, not just monkey feces.

 

See post #2 and #7. Critiques without monkey feces. I'm not the only one of course. Others have pointed out that you only presented what you imagine.

[Legion]

End I think you have a strange and interesting mind. But it somewhat pains me to see you try and unify two completely different and irreconcilable epistemologies. I mean, on the one hand it seems almost artistic to me, but on the other it seems to indicate an enormous internal struggle within you.

[Legion]

End, perhaps I'll start calling you Jacob. For surely you wrestle with God for his favor.

[Guest end3]

Reality check:

If your ideas are true then they should stand up against all critiques. These critiques are not something you should find offensive. They should demonstrate that you are right. If you were right that is exactly what they would do.

 

That is the idea.....lignification vs. the Christian doctrine.....waiting for critiques, not just monkey feces.

 

See post #2 and #7. Critiques without monkey feces. I'm not the only one of course. Others have pointed out that you only presented what you imagine.

 

You said nothing against the actual statement other than generalizations. Must I go through the similarites again? You've proclaimed to have studied the Bible. Do you not see that the the new Christian is the leaf of the tree getting blown back and forth., the more aged Christian is the limb a little stronger as a result of the process of being tied to the church, the tree, and the elder Christians are the structrue, the trunk of essentially dead-to-self wood that is part of the cross now? How sir, can you not see this kind of simple comparison.

 

Now, the lignification process, that of turning the leaves to wood is REMARKABLY similar to that I just regurgitated....again.....this being pronounced by proclaimed scholars as truth via facts per the scientific method.

 

And if certainty has anything to do with this, the spiritual certainty, a consensus regarding that have we been hurt through human relationships, and that we form spiritual relationships, aka, the Tree of Life in Chrisitianity, then I am UNAWARE of ANYONE that is not certain of the hurt humanity provides.

 

So there you have it. Blah, blah, science and spiritual are different, yet if there is no God, nature certainly has his signature written all over it.

[Legion]

God's hand in nature.

God in nature.

God as nature.

Transcendent nature.

 

I have one word for you End (a.k.a Jacob)...

 

Spinoza.

 

Many secular people might wish to take credit for intiating the Enlightenment. But those in the know, know it was Spinoza.

[Guest end3]

End, perhaps I'll start calling you Jacob. For surely you wrestle with God for his favor.

 

I appreciate the concern L. I'll have to think about what I may battle with internally. Disgust, contempt, hatred, atm.

[Guest end3]

God's hand in nature.

God in nature.

God as nature.

Transcendent nature.

 

I have one word for you End (a.k.a Jacob)...

 

Spinoza.

 

Many secular people might wish to take credit for intiating the Enlightenment. But those in the know, know it was Spinoza.

 

I'll actually try to look, Thank you.

[Legion]

End, perhaps I'll start calling you Jacob. For surely you wrestle with God for his favor.

 

I appreciate the concern L. I'll have to think about what I may battle with internally. Disgust, contempt, hatred, atm.

 

I think, contempt = anger + disgust.

 

I experienced contempt for the first time in my life at the tender age of 5 with my stepdad.

 

I think you and I have much in common End.

[Legion]

God's hand in nature.

God in nature.

God as nature.

Transcendent nature.

 

I have one word for you End (a.k.a Jacob)...

 

Spinoza.

 

Many secular people might wish to take credit for intiating the Enlightenment. But those in the know, know it was Spinoza.

 

I'll actually try to look, Thank you.

 

You're welcome End. If you look into it further, then I hope you will not be disappointed. I don't believe you will be.

[florduh]

Perhaps we model our gods and religions after the reality we are familiar with rather than the other way around. I know, not very imaginative, is it?

[Guest end3]

Perhaps we model our gods and religions after the reality we are familiar with rather than the other way around. I know, not very imaginative, is it?

 

My point is that I can't invision being able to place all the correllation that science provides now to the details of the Bible with regard to this particular comparison. I can't see that this is a result of observation alone.

[LivingLife]

First of all we have a false analogy. You talk of a plant then change to a tree and then make a comparison to a family tree and then lose the plot.

 

Here is how it really works.

 

Photosynthesis how it works (pick an link)

 

A plant or more specifically a tree, absorbs CO₂ and releases O₂, with nutrients leads to growth and will be evidenced by annual tree rings. This also works with say a rose bush but does not work with say grass or a daffodil.

 

Humans replace their cells regularly

 

Humans use oxygen and though we are carbon based, it is more complex than trees and plants. We actually exhale CO₂ that the plants need.

 

A fire will destroy a plant/tree but it can regrow if the root system remains intact, burn a human and the human ceases to exist.

 

Science explains all this and no god is involved.

 

Of course male humans get woodies but that is and entirely different story

[asanerman]

End,

 

One of the hard lessons the Intersubjectivists clearly brought to light was that by the time consciousness delivers an object to awareness, said consciousness has been molded, shaped, created, and constructed by a vast network of impersonal systems and structures, foremost among which are linguistic systems, cultural backgrounds, an structures of consciousness.

 

None of these can be seen by consciousness itself; none of these can be seen by subjectivity. Thus subjectivity is exactly what has to be called into question.

 

However you cut it, the fact remains that vast networks of intersubjectivity systems --from linguistic structures to value systems--are governing one's awareness and consciousness.

 

We keep dancing to the strings that these intersubjective networks are pulling. We are not creating meaning the networks are creating them for us. We are not speaking them they are speaking us. We co-create. ~Wilber

 

As Carl Jung observed, the most important problems of life cannot be solved, but only outgrown, and this outgrowing requires "a new level of consciousness."

 

I don't understand how your analogy is physical evidence nor "a new level of consciousness."

 

What I seek is an awareness that is in and of itself curative. A practice that allows my awareness to encounter or re-encounter facets of my human experience that are and were malformed, distorted or ignored.

 

An awareness that will allow me to genuinely acknowledge these elements of my human experience, to own them and thereby let go of them, differentiate from them, "de-embed" from them, go beyond them and integrate them into a more encompassing, compassionate embrace.

 

I'm seeking an integral practice the "Exercise the body, mind, soul, and spirit in self, culture, and nature." That is, a practice that exercises the full spectrum in the I, We, It and Its of this life.

 

I have no problem with the enduring truths of the great wisdom traditions, that is, if you leave off the metaphysics.

 

End, lean into Holy Week. Lean into and through the hard, steep dark and dying week looming large.

 

May you find you're own kenosis.

[Guest end3]

First of all we have a false analogy. You talk of a plant then change to a tree and then make a comparison to a family tree and then lose the plot.

 

Here is how it really works.

 

Photosynthesis how it works (pick an link)

 

A plant or more specifically a tree, absorbs CO₂ and releases O₂, with nutrients leads to growth and will be evidenced by annual tree rings. This also works with say a rose bush but does not work with say grass or a daffodil.

 

Humans replace their cells regularly

 

Humans use oxygen and though we are carbon based, it is more complex than trees and plants. We actually exhale CO₂ that the plants need.

 

A fire will destroy a plant/tree but it can regrow if the root system remains intact, burn a human and the human ceases to exist.

 

Science explains all this and no god is involved.

 

Of course male humans get woodies but that is and entirely different story

 

IMO, you're comparing the physical plant to the physical human. I am attempting to compare a physical to a spiritual process. I agree, the physical human is not the physical plant.

[LivingLife]

No end. you went from plant to tree to family tree and then body of christ to broken branches, I know the drill. It does not work. folk back then had no frigging clue how photosynthesis worked so whatever they said is not relevant. The analogy may have worked for them but here is a hint. If back then when texts were written, why analogies. If god/jesus were so truth apparent, it would have been easy to actually tell them the intricacies w/o the need for analogies.

 

Your god relies on people being ignorant of science to be able to still use these branch and vine analogies from 2000 years ago.

 

Imagine if somehow jesus actually had daily sessions of "how shit works" and say if he explained in detail how the human reproductive system works (not comparison to fucking seed as were are NOT plants) and that was preserved and when the microscope came along we could say, hey look, jesus was right. He could have used a chicken egg as a model. Even that would have been more believable than what was passed on.

 

As for spiritual process, that is all in the head.

 

But that is not what happened. If there was a jesus dude, he had no fucking clue either.

[mymistake]

Reality check:

If your ideas are true then they should stand up against all critiques. These critiques are not something you should find offensive. They should demonstrate that you are right. If you were right that is exactly what they would do.

 

That is the idea.....lignification vs. the Christian doctrine.....waiting for critiques, not just monkey feces.

 

See post #2 and #7. Critiques without monkey feces. I'm not the only one of course. Others have pointed out that you only presented what you imagine.

 

You said nothing against the actual statement other than generalizations.

 

I explained how and where you were wrong. You don't understand science. You take the Bible and imagine what isn't there. You use vague passages and assume they mean what you want them to mean. This is called wishful thinking. It's a fallacy. Because you used broken logic your argument is dead.

 

Pointing this out is all one can do.

 

Must I go through the similarites again?

 

Similarity is not enough.

 

You've proclaimed to have studied the Bible.

 

I've studied some parts extensively.

 

Do you not see that the the new Christian is the leaf of the tree getting blown back and forth., the more aged Christian is the limb a little stronger as a result of the process of being tied to the church, the tree, and the elder Christians are the structrue, the trunk of essentially dead-to-self wood that is part of the cross now? How sir, can you not see this kind of simple comparison.

 

It's not in the Bible. There is a grape vine comparison. There is a faith is a mustard seed - giant tree comparison. This other you are wishing the Bible included science that wasn't discovered for at least a thousand years after the Bible authors were dead.

 

Now, the lignification process, that of turning the leaves to wood is REMARKABLY similar to that I just regurgitated....again.....this being pronounced by proclaimed scholars as truth via facts per the scientific method.

 

And if certainty has anything to do with this, the spiritual certainty, a consensus regarding that have we been hurt through human relationships, and that we form spiritual relationships, aka, the Tree of Life in Chrisitianity, then I am UNAWARE of ANYONE that is not certain of the hurt humanity provides.

 

So there you have it. Blah, blah, science and spiritual are different, yet if there is no God, nature certainly has his signature written all over it.

 

I'm sure religion is fun for you. Maybe you should write poetry. Poetry doesn't need to make sense.

[Guest end3]

End,

 

One of the hard lessons the Intersubjectivists clearly brought to light was that by the time consciousness delivers an object to awareness, said consciousness has been molded, shaped, created, and constructed by a vast network of impersonal systems and structures, foremost among which are linguistic systems, cultural backgrounds, an structures of consciousness.

 

None of these can be seen by consciousness itself; none of these can be seen by subjectivity. Thus subjectivity is exactly what has to be called into question.

 

However you cut it, the fact remains that vast networks of intersubjectivity systems --from linguistic structures to value systems--are governing one's awareness and consciousness.

 

We keep dancing to the strings that these intersubjective networks are pulling. We are not creating meaning the networks are creating them for us. We are not speaking them they are speaking us. We co-create. ~Wilber

 

As Carl Jung observed, the most important problems of life cannot be solved, but only outgrown, and this outgrowing requires "a new level of consciousness."

 

I don't understand how your analogy is physical evidence nor "a new level of consciousness."

 

What I seek is an awareness that is in and of itself curative. A practice that allows my awareness to encounter or re-encounter facets of my human experience that are and were malformed, distorted or ignored.

 

An awareness that will allow me to genuinely acknowledge these elements of my human experience, to own them and thereby let go of them, differentiate from them, "de-embed" from them, go beyond them and integrate them into a more encompassing, compassionate embrace.

 

I'm seeking an integral practice the "Exercise the body, mind, soul, and spirit in self, culture, and nature." That is, a practice that exercises the full spectrum in the I, We, It

and Its of this life.

 

I have no problem with the enduring truths of the great wisdom traditions, that is, if you leave off the metaphysics.

 

End, lean into Holy Week. Lean into and through the hard, steep dark and dying week looming large.

 

May you find you're own kenosis.

 

My own kenosis is gone with my childhood. My inner self was reassigned by evangelicals at about age 28, thankfully in some regards. but I have no clue now how to pursue that consciousness by a non-Christian alternative at this point.....and I don't know that I would like to. I would think there is a "something" within this Christian mechanism that will satisfy both requirements, mine and others. I don't like the prospect of outgrowing this destructive stage. Perhaps if my father would pass away.. On a lighter note.....I like my metaphysics....lol.