God's "message" to humans?

[Antlerman]

The "emotionalism" you see here is people who have been hurt, betrayed, disillusioned, etc by religion. What is wrong with that? There is growth that takes place here, but it's through emotional healing through community and encouragement of like minded people with similar experiences.

First, I very much agree with giving hope where it has been lost. I very much agree with encouraging life and strength. I agree also that like minded people have a good opportunity to pull together and become stronger both together and individually.

 

<snip>

 

Now and then an SCC will wonder in here and present a challenge to prove their ideas. Immediately members gather in activity to throw questions and conundrums at them. A feeling of commorodery builds as the members laugh in agreement of how foolish the foe is. They grow stronger together and feel more confidence and hope.

 

But how often do those challengers really come by? I noticed long ago that it isn't really very often. If none of them ever came by, if no challenge was ever presented to these people, this sight, would slowly die out. The friendship factor doesn't last forever. People have to have something to do besides say "Goodmorning again. How are you today. Tell me about your day. My day was okay..." When do they get to feel that they are actually making progress toward something again? Granted, new people would come with their new hopes. But they would also be drifting away.

Respectfully, do you think there is only one answer? Do you not think there are many roads that lead upward, so to speak?

 

I'm going to try to be as honest and respectful as I can in the spirit of humility: It appears you are so focused on the grandness of what you perceive as enlightenment that you can't relate to what is really going on with many of the people, myself included, in this community. You are failing at every opportunity to just be one of us! This is what people need, not some high and lofty guru in the Himalayas, standing in the place of a symbol of epiphany! Feed them first, show you are compassionate -- on their level -- before you try to transcend them into mystic enlightenment! We are all ahead of each other is some areas, and all behind each other in others. We all have something to offer one another in the spirit of humility. Yet from what I sense, and a great my others on this site are also picking up on Ssel, is that you through your words and actions somehow place yourself in position beyond us at all times.

 

Why is this Ssel? I really can't judge this myself, but would offer this morsel for consideration: Do you use religious concepts as away to escape or bypass the reality of emotional pain, both that of yourself and others? I really don't know what motivates you, but for myself I could see that's what it might be for me. I guess I believe that the best thing to do is deal with ourselves and others real and immediate needs first, and then challenge each other in the sprit of friendship and humility to grow together.

 

You say when there are not villains here for us to attack; we have nothing to say to one another. That's awfully presumptive and unobservant to say this. Quite the contrary, without the distraction of idiots like Daniel, drawing everyone to him into attack mode, I have been able to speak with others much more freely in this community and have grown tremendously lately! Which by the way, is why I have asked you respectfully to please not derail the subjects talking about you and your ideas. I accept you recent apology and consider it a good starting place in a relationship of respect and humility.

 

It sounds like you compare your ideas as innovative and revolutionary as that of Einstein and Darwin. I have to confess, if you were on that level you wouldn't be here.

Yes, and if Jesus was REALLY imporant He would never have been talking to the poor and diseased either. I use comparisons of people who you could hardly disagree with. You don't have to be a great honored man to have a great idea, do you?

 

You are assuming far more about me than you know. You only want to know so as to judge my words before I speak them. As long as a man views everything through his ego, then he can never see anyway. If you can think of me as an arrogant man but still hear the truth of what I might say, then you have answered the challenge of humility.

 

Respectfully, I don't know any other way to take this than you have a far greater opinion of your own thoughts and ideas that I would consider healthy. Humility. "There is nothing new under the sun." When I was young and arrogant, I used to think my ideas were incredibly insightful also, until I came to see how I'm not all that special above everyone else. I am special in that I am unique, but I do not believe "my thoughts are above your thoughts, my ways above your ways."

 

We each have our own insights, both profound, and at times misguided, but I will avoid the temptation of arrogance to presume until you understand the world though my enlightenment, you are lacking true hope! This works for me, whatever you have seems to work for you. That's great, but it is in fact very arrogant to presume what works for us works for everyone. That is the consistent theme I am seeing everyone keying in on here in. I am quite capable of examining my reasons for disagreeing with you and others, and you are not qualified to judge me or others that way. Don't dismiss this as us just not getting your way of perceiving things. That would be doing yourself a disservice and showing disrespect to us. Personally I think this is probably at the heart of most of the objections I see.

[Ssel]

Just curious here. I agree with nivek that these are some very long and wordy posts and not comfortable to read. I appologize for that. I have to use what little talent I have. But have you actually read all of what I have said in this thread?

 

And I don't mean that in a sacastic way.

[crazy-tiger]

Very often, people have assumed that I am angry or whatever when I wasn't even close. They read into the words what their hearts sees instead of what their mind sees. But their heart is not very accurate and they don't bother to simply ask "Ssel, are you angry?"

All too often, you've assumed that some here are emotionalists when they aren't... You read into their words what your heart sees instead of what your mind sees. But your heart is not very accurate and you don't bother to ask "are you running on emotion?"

Nooo..they assume and take offense and react. This tells me that they are not "thinkers" really. Some one has to very gingerly teach them things. And frankly, that's fine, there is plenty of room in the world for everyone. But why should I pursue attempting to explain things to someone who is so easy to presume and not bother to try to verify their presumptions but attack instead?

And why should we attempt to explain things to you? You who is also very quick to assume and not bother to verify your presumption? You who is very quick to attack instead?

 

Pot, Kettle, Black...

I am civil to those who are civil to me, and if I don't know yet, I assume they are going to be civil until I find otherwise. But when reading text, it is very easy to assume emotion where it wasn't. When someone assumes such, I give a little so as to not presume too much. But I refuse to bow to over emotionalism simply because nothing will be gained in the long run except some over emotional associates.

And how can you be certain that you're reading it right? You can't... only the person who wrote it can be certain.

 

You have been assuming emotion in people's posts almost from the start, you've lacked civility in your responces based on your assumptions, you've been trying to attack people as being emotionalists and you've been unable to practise what you preach...

 

 

 

By the way Ssel... I'm STILL waiting for your proof that I redefined "scientist" to mean something that it didn't. How much longer do I have to wait for your proof or your admittance that you were wrong?

[Ssel]

Respectfully, do you think there is only one answer? Do you not think there are many roads that lead upward, so to speak?

I think this is an over simplification of something and I'm not sure what you are refeing to.

 

I'm going to try to be as honest and respectful as I can in the spirit of humility: It appears you are so focused on the grandness of what you perceive as enlightenment ..

I have talked almost exclusively about what the Bible was really trying to tell you. What are you referring to with this "enlightenment" comment?

 

I need to go for a while, I'll get back to the rest of your post soon.

 

[Antlerman]

I have talked almost exclusively about what the Bible was really trying to tell you. What are you referring to with this "enlightenment" comment?

Your perception=what you pecieve the Bible is really trying to tell me. That is your perception. Is your's the right perception and all others wrong? Isn't that fundamentalism in a different package?

[Antlerman]

Yes, the essence, the rules of the game. But also remember that the exact position of things is also a part of what affects you and thus has a degree of control over you, so in that regard, that aspect of "God" does change and allows for you to alter your future. The real God is not merely the rules, but also where you happen to be standing with respect to other things.

 

You can't change the rules, but you CAN change your position on the board.

 

As far as the exchange of words; Merely read some of the Bible again but place one of 2 phrases in place of the words "God", "Lord", or any of the names given for God.

 

Read it again and substitute either "Reality" for those or "All of that shit out there that I don't really understand"

 

Your perspective of the Bible will change drastically and become far more accurate to what was intended.

I am not in total disagreement with some of what you are saying. These concepts are a part of philosophy and not anything terribly unique or innovative to yourself (just trying to keep you down here with us ). There is some value in these things, though I disagree with your conclusion that there is some absolute rule out there. Nor can I make the leap you appear to be doing by stating your view that there is some intended meaning in the Bible. I think there is good to be extracted, but no mystical, hidden "real" meaning.

 

The North Star: A very good analogy. You are describing the role of mythology. Have you ever seen the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers? Briefly he is a simple minded, innocent who worked as a gardener in a mansion and grew up in total isolation. After the death of the owner, others outside his isolated world encounter him. His responses are non-responses to them, talking about his garden saying, "In the spring, it is time to plant the seeds". Others take this to be metaphors, and conclude he is a profound thinker. Soon by chance, he makes his way all the way up to the White House as a Political Advisor to the President. The whole nation views him as deeply profound, yet he has never said anything to them.

 

They took the obscurity of his responses and found their own answers by using him as a symbol, believing he held some profound insights! In the end of the movie, it shows him walking off over the surface of a pond of water. The point was not that he was divine, but that he was a sort of religious symbol. People create their own truths, and seem to need an object to hang it on, to help them believe in themselves! Having a focus to something higher than ourselves can be helpful, but I believe we must be profoundly on guard against thinking that ours is the only true symbol. Everything is relative, including the object or "the rule."

[NotBlinded]

And one more thing to add to it, if the Bible would be "the word from God", why does it say the Gospel is simple and that you should be like a child to receive it? (i.e. it should not have to be embedded in difficult concepts that would take years to understand. It is supposed to be easy and simple to understand according to the Bible.)

Just my .02,

 

I think that when it says being like a child, it means to be in the state of openness that children are. They have not developed an ego that happens over the life of the individual. They are in a state of wonderment. So in this respect, it is much harder for an adult to understand the meanings because they have to move beyond the ego to get it. A child is in a pre-thought state about everything whereas we must work to rise above the very thoughts that trap us in order to achieve that state again. Much, much harder to do.

[MQTA]

anyone got a secret magic decoder ring? I seem to have lost mine somewhere

[Antlerman]

anyone got a secret magic decoder ring? I seem to have lost mine somewhere

Yes, your magic ring is in metaphorland.

[NotBlinded]

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

He didn't say to go out and seek the truth. Where in the hell do you get that? He said that if they held to his teachings, then they would know the truth.

Here is how Eckhart Tolle presents that scripture:

 

"The Unmanifested does not liberate you until you enter it consciously. That's why Jesus did not say: the truth will make you free, but rather: "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." This is not a conceptual truth. It is the truth of eternal life beyond form, which is known directly or not at all."

 

The individual must be the one to 'seek' the truth, or enter it consciously, in order to know it. Only then will the truth make you free.

[Guest JPD]

Wow. Let's see now. To pray means to beg,

And just where did you get that one, Super-genius?

 

A mysterious tome known to the ancients as a "dictionary".

 

the common understanding of to pray is to "commune". But what good is it to tell an all knowing God what He already knows?

 

If your not telling, then the other part of communing is listening. And if your listening with all of your senses and mind, then how is that different than seeking?

 

Praying has nothing to do with begging except in the same way that seeking would.

 

 

It's all well and good for you to make up your own definitions for words. However, when communicating with other humans who use the established definitions for words, you're going to get lost and say stupid sounding things, like the tripe quoted above. I offer for your edification:

 

pray

 

v 1: address God; say a prayer 2: call upon in supplication; entreat; "I beg you to stop!"

 

And just in case you still somehow think that Jesus meant to listen to reality when we pray, and not to petition an already all-knowing god, then I offer you his own words:

 

Luke 11: 1One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."

 

2He said to them, "When you pray, say:

" 'Father,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come.

3Give us each day our daily bread.

4Forgive us our sins,

for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.

And lead us not into temptation. "

 

I don't see any even thickly veiled references to a tacit observance of reality. It's clear that Jesus meant that we should always be begging his invisible all-knowing all-powerful god for the things we need.

[NotBlinded]

anyone got a secret magic decoder ring? I seem to have lost mine somewhere

Yes, your magic ring is in metaphorland.

This one is for MQTA:

 

And this one is for you:

 

[Amethyst]

Can you tell us exactly what this "something new" is? Many of us are open to new ideas, as I've already stated.

 

I am open to new ideas, as long as there is scientific evidence. There has not yet been any scientific evidence proving the existence of a god or godlike being, or even just a Star Wars-like force (which I think Lucas got from ancient Asian religions). But I will not just blindly accept what someone else says without proof. I made that mistake with Christianity, and I learned from it. I'm not going to make it again.

 

these horses dont drink water they drink beer

 

LOL, Willy!

 

[Amethyst]

Think about the logic of that question. "What existed before anything existed?"

 

You have only 2 choices.

 

1) There was no "before existence" meaning that time has been infinite.

2) There is an existence which is irrespective of time as we know it.

 

I have a hypothesis, but it's my own personal one. I can offer no proof, only a philosophical guess, so take it or leave it as you want to.

 

I think time is sort of an infinite loop. I think that time sort of is like the pheonix that keeps being reborn again and again. Just like the universe. This is why it seems like there must have been an outside influence, but there probably isn't one. I'm not saying there can't be, but I don't think it's likely.

[Amethyst]

People create their own truths, and seem to need an object to hang it on, to help them believe in themselves! Having a focus to something higher than ourselves can be helpful, but I believe we must be profoundly on guard against thinking that ours is the only true symbol. Everything is relative, including the object or "the rule."

 

I totally agree. Hence my reasoning that religion is the ultimate self-insert (for those who are unfamiliar with the term "Mary/Marty Stu"). People need a focus for their wishes, dreams, desires, goals, etc. And they will use whatever is convenient, be it a star, a human being, or a mythical figure like Jesus. In America, Jesus is the most convenient figure to use. In other countries, it might be Buddha or someone else. But it's all a way for people to idealize something they might not otherwise achieve.

 

The problem comes when you try to tell people that that's the only way to achieve your dreams & that you have to believe in one symbol over another, or even that you can't believe in yourself.

 

People (at least in my experience) tend to lose confidence in themselves because all of their confidence is focused on a symbolic figure, and they also tend to get complacent and not do anything, so they become overly accepting of their circumstances and don't work to improve them. That isn't a good thing, IMHO.

 

If people stopped relying on symbols, and relied on themselves instead, who knows what humanity might achieve?

[Ssel]

I really can't judge this myself, .. I really don't know what motivates you, ..

Personally I think this is probably at the heart of most of the objections I see.

I realize that this is over clipping your post. But with this clipping, it reflects something more true.

 

From the instant I showed up at this site, and possibly even before., I was misjudged very seriously. Those misjudgments were replaced with other misjudgments and again and again.

 

What it is that YOU are not seeing, is that you are judging every thing I say with some precept as to my motivations for saying it. Then you attempt conclusion based on these unnecessary presumptions of motivation which you then use to apply to the context.

 

Why can't you just read the context of something and leave out all of the drama?

 

Btw, I finally realized why it was that I had such a hard time tracking what you considered "on topic". I had to do much as you are doing. I had to analyze you from a distance. It took some doing, but now that I understand, it isn't a problem.

 

We each at times must look past the words to speculate why the writer is saying something. But when we do that, we run the risk of speculating based on our own prejudice. Thus to do it with any accuracy we must be very, very careful to not leave out possibilities that might lean in direction that we wouldn't favor and to not jump to conclusions toward what we would favor.

 

Yes, one of the possibilities to consider when judging my motives is that I am simply so impressed with myself that I am blind to being humble to the preferences of others. This conclusion would satisfy the ego of others rather well.

 

Since judging motives seems to be such a high priority rather than just discussing the context, what are some of the other possibilities that you might not like to be real? By answering that, you help to adjust yourself away from prejudice.

 

If you actually look at what I've said and stop caring so much who is saying it or what motives might be lurking in dark corners, you can see that my motives have already been expressed in words time and time again.

 

You appear to me as the men in a cave guessing at what the shadow really is rather than simply turn and look. "It's an elephant" "Its a giraffe"...

 

When have I been the one saying "Your full of shit..", "You don't know crap..","Your just an arrogant asshole.." while someone else was trying to explain something? And yet those people are not told that they are arrogant and judgmental. Instead the one who does no more than express a contrary opinion "outside the group" is the one accused of arrogance rather than simple confidence.

 

Stop looking at me so much, look at yourself for a moment. Consider who it really is doing the arrogant judging and posting so as to spur even more arrogant judging.

[Mythra]

I am open to new ideas, as long as there is scientific evidence. There has not yet been any scientific evidence proving the existence of a god or godlike being, or even just a Star Wars-like force (which I think Lucas got from ancient Asian religions). But I will not just blindly accept what someone else says without proof.

 

Contrary to the closed-minded front that I put up, I too would be open to different ways of thinking. But I'm not gonna change the way I think about anything just because of someone else's ideas that are based on silly anecdotal evidence. Just like when christians come on here and say that God has shown himself to me. I would have said the same thing just one year ago. But, now I know for sure that it's the result of subjective self-deception derived from a wishful and "faithful" heart.

 

I don't even need proof of a God or god-like being. It would completely transform my current view if someone could show evidence beyond dispute that a thought exists independently of a physical structure (such as a brain) producing such a thought.

[Asuryan]

 

From the instant I showed up at this site, and possibly even before., I was misjudged very seriously. Those misjudgments were replaced with other misjudgments and again and again.

 

And why do you think that happens?

From what you're saying it seems that these misjudgements have happened a LOT of times on this forum alone. My question to you is: why? Do you think that all of us have done something wrong, or have read something wrong in your words and actions?

Let's consider two possibilities.

A) Everybody here, just everybody you talked with (maybe with a couple exception, but you didn't explicitly mention those), misjudged you. Obviously there must be some kind of mental illness on this website, very contagious, that brings people to understand what it's told to them the wrong way; or maybe this website is a magnet for people that are already mentally ill and that cannot help but misjudging other people?

But then again, why does it seem that YOU are the only one misjudged, here? If that was some kind of illness, everybody here should manifest it towards everybody else. Not everybody toward you alone.

So this brings us to....

People judge you on the basis of what you say. Your words come out arrogant and pompous guru-like without you even noticing it. That is why a lot of people here seem to care very little for you and your pindaric flights. It could be that our doubts, in your mind, are somehow tarnishing the perfect greatness of the philosophical revelation you just had, so you bite the head off anybody doubting or questioning your conclusions.

We can't read your mind. We can only judge you by your words, on the internet. If your words are arrogant, we will treat you accordingly, even if you didn't even notice your own tone or if you are the very best person in the whole world. If your words (but, your attitude would be a better way to say it) are kind and humble, we will treat you accordingly again.

[Ssel]

By the way Ssel... I'm STILL waiting for your proof that I redefined "scientist" to mean something that it didn't. How much longer do I have to wait for your proof or your admittance that you were wrong?

CT, when you displayed to me that you were willing to argue at length about an issue of thermodynamics yet didn't even know the relationship between kinetic energy and thermal energy, I gave up even making any attempt to debate any issue with you.

 

You seem to enjoy leaving out fundamental concepts of an issue just so you can try to prove someone else wrong. Then try to reverse the reasoning apparently thinking that your errors will not be noticed.

 

The very first post I ever saw of yours was something like..

"We have proof that the Earth is a cuboid. Does that make it true? HELL NOooo..."

 

This ranks right up there with;

"You can't define something if it doesn't exist."

 

I could go through the psychological analysis as to probably why you do this kind of thing, but it would be irrelevant since mere posting would not get past the problem.

 

Arguing or debating with you is, in my mind, totally futile. So you can wait as long as you care to, I have no intention of attempting to debate or prove anything to you at all.

 

But have you actually read all of what I have said in this thread?

 

Yes. Why?

Because I was trying to decide if you were not reading them or just not understanding them. And I don't mean that to imply that you're at fault. If I can't come up with the words to convey a thought, then I have to accept at least some of the responsibility for that.

[Antlerman]

From the instant I showed up at this site, and possibly even before., I was misjudged very seriously. Those misjudgments were replaced with other misjudgments and again and again.

 

What it is that YOU are not seeing, is that you are judging every thing I say with some precept as to my motivations for saying it. Then you attempt conclusion based on these unnecessary presumptions of motivation which you then use to apply to the context.

 

Why can't you just read the context of something and leave out all of the drama?

Ok stop right there. Do you not see the offensive nature of your tone? I appealed to you to talk to us and myself with emotional understanding, and I am convinced by each and every one of your responses to them that you have a disconnect with your emotions. You use religion to by pass your humanity. You cannot be comfortable with people disagreeing with your views because you use it as a shield against others and yourself.

 

Now I will judge: You are in fact extremely arrogant and insensitive! I have tried to give your ideas due consideration as I do all others. What you are refusing to see is how so many, many, people on this site are saying what I now am with great force: you are disrespectful, uncompassionate, arrogant, and now I will add most likely suffering from delusional grandeur (perhaps even clinically), with a possible messiah/persecution complex.

 

I would ask anyone else on this site if my actions fit what you say? I show a great deal of respect to most people and most ideas. It takes a very special pea to get on the list you now are. You are the first and only person to go onto my ignore list. You alone take this disreputable honor. Not even Daniel made it there! So much for the fruits of your brand of spriturality. "Ye shall know them by their fruits" Good luck to you, and I would suggest rethinking your actions to the good people of this forum.

[Ssel]

Your perception=what you pecieve the Bible is really trying to tell me. That is your perception. Is your's the right perception and all others wrong? Isn't that fundamentalism in a different package?

What I see as "understanding the Bible" has nothing to do with anything I see as enlightenment.

 

The understandings that I present are well know by many people, I have said this before. It is not merely MY personal revelation. It is well known to people who simply can't and won't say these things to you. As I said before, the people running great organizations are not the simpletons that you seem to think they are by thinking that they follow such a Santa Claus vision of the Bible.

 

You are looking at 3 basic groups

 

1) those who actually understand what was intended (more or less)

2) those who use what was written as a belief system so as to govern

3) those who take it as magical and worship it

 

The third group are the fundamentalists.

 

What I would consider to be enlightenment goes beyond the Bible. I consider the Bible to be the "old news", but not incorrect. As was pointed out on the UNholiness thread, ignoring the accuracies of the past doesn't lead to advancing, but merely replacing.

 

OR as you quoted "There is nothing new under the sun." That is an old quote. How many new things have there been since it was first stated? Trying to find something new without understanding the old first, is indeed a very low probability.

 

I have stated many times, "to see what I would LIKE to present, you have to get past the confusions of Biblical issues. They are not really that hard to understand by most people today if they try. But they don't want to try and it does take a lot of time. They prefer to simply mark it up as fiction. This leads to some serious probable problems for tomorrow.

[Asimov]

Wow. Let's see now. To pray means to beg,

And just where did you get that one, Super-genius?

 

A mysterious tome known to the ancients as a "dictionary".

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pray

 

pray Audio pronunciation of "pray" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr)

v. prayed, pray·ing, prays

v. intr.

 

1. To utter or address a prayer or prayers to God, a god, or another object of worship.

2. To make a fervent request or entreaty.

 

 

v. tr.

 

1. To utter or say a prayer or prayers to; address by prayer.

2. To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: Pray be careful.

3. To make a devout or earnest request for: I pray your permission to speak.

4. To move or bring by prayer or entreaty.

[Ssel]

I am not in total disagreement with some of what you are saying. These concepts are a part of philosophy and not anything terribly unique or innovative to yourself (just trying to keep you down here with us ).

Yes, and again presuming that I think this is some revelation. IT is merely an explanation, nothing more. It was not an ego trip, not blaming anyone, not being angry, not being holier than thou... just attend to the context, please. (just keeping you down here with me )

 

There is some value in these things, though I disagree with your conclusion that there is some absolute rule out there.

By saying this you are in effect saying that all of the laws of science are mere fiction, that 2 +2 does not really always equal 4, and that we can't really depend on anything at all and thus are totally insecure and likely to always be wrong and fail.

 

Was that your intent?

 

Nor can I make the leap you appear to be doing by stating your view that there is some intended meaning in the Bible.

This was exactly my point from the beginning. It takes much more effort to see ALL of the metaphorical usages before anyone can be certain that any of them are right. That takes a lot of time and effort. During that time, many thoughts must be simply shelved as possible but uncertain. That makes it even more difficult. The only proof is made by covering the entire Bible with the proposed translation and showing

1) Consistency

2) Completeness

3) Relevance

 

I pointed this out in the attached document to that very first debate. (which no more than 12 people read)

 

I think there is good to be extracted, but no mystical, hidden "real" meaning.

Something is only mystical while it is unseen. metaphor must be examined or it remains unseen. But once seen, the mystical miracles become un-mystical. So which do you prefer, mystical language that can be resolved, or mystical miracles that must remain mystical and argued over? The "thinker" simply decides to unravel the old language or to not judge it.

 

 

They took the obscurity of his responses and found their own answers by using him as a symbol, believing he held some profound insights!

1) Consistency

2) Completeness

3) Relevance

 

With these that entire story becomes resolved, the characters within it, the inferred "truth" it attempts to cast into you, and the author himself.

 

Those 3 qualities take out the hypothesis that something is mere opinion and speculation. So as to the "You can't know" kind of thought, "YES, you CAN know."

 

But it DOES take effort and a desire to support that effort.

[NotBlinded]

I don't even need proof of a God or god-like being. It would completely transform my current view if someone could show evidence beyond dispute that a thought exists independently of a physical structure (such as a brain) producing such a thought.

But, does a brain think on its own? I don't think a brain thinks. I think a person thinks using their brain. I don't really think that a perfectly perserved brain would be capable of thought. I see the brain as a tool to be used by the thinker. We cannot see the thinker, but we cannot see any of the forces of nature either, but we know they are there by their effects.

 

Just some thoughts...

[Ssel]

Ok stop right there. ...

 

Now I will judge: ..

Certainly no emotionalsm in that.

 

 

I think that when it says being like a child, it means to be in the state of openness that children are. They have not developed an ego that happens over the life of the individual. They are in a state of wonderment. So in this respect, it is much harder for an adult to understand the meanings because they have to move beyond the ego to get it. A child is in a pre-thought state about everything whereas we must work to rise above the very thoughts that trap us in order to achieve that state again. Much, much harder to do.

Exactly true.

 

But in addition the gospel of Jesus is far simplier. Jesus doesn't make complex laws, he makes it easy to DO. But if, as an adult, you wish to understand the miracles, then that is going to take some work.

 

Once you become too skeptical, then the only resolve is to see beyond the simple and easy to the more exact precision.