14
   

Am i the only one?

 
 
MWal
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 06:03 pm
@Smileyrius,
Lack of virtue. Evil, the making of nothingness. Don't speak of it.
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 06:10 pm
@Smileyrius,
Everything in the book is a metaphor for the Universe and the nature therein.
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 06:12 pm
@Smileyrius,
There cannot be "evil".

There is light; there is darkness.

There is form; there is the unformed.

There is the born; there is the unborn.

There is intelligence; there is ignorance.

Ignorance leads to what you call "evil" based on misrepresentation of ignorance.

Ignorance is not "evil". Ignorance simply allows people to do stupid things without having a conscious understanding of the consequences.
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 06:14 pm
@MWal,
Always speak of ignorance. Ignorant people do not realize they are ignorant - speaking of ignorance allows them to question themselves.
Smileyrius
 
  2  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:29 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
The paradox you create therefore is that the credited authors of the bible write their own experiences, if they are part of an allegory, then they never existed to write their scriptures.

Smileyrius
 
  2  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:48 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
You make an assumption that I call evil what you are accustomed to people calling evil.

I notice you seek balance in your statements but not all of the words you select are counter opposites.

Born vs unborn, you cannot be less born, you either are, or you are not, this is an opposite.

Formed vs Unformed, you cannot be less formed, therefore this also is an opposite.

Light vs Darkness, Light is measured whereas darkness is not, darkness is a human perception, and has no fixed place on the scale of light. It cannot therefore be considered the opposite of light.

Intelligence vs ignorance, intelligence is measurable albeit not accurately by a number of different systems, however ignorance is the name we give to the perception of being less intelligent, oft according to our own cultures.

Applying this principle you can identify that Evil is not a thing but a lack of a thing

Good vs Evil, Goodness has a measure, Evil however is the word we give to what we perceive as a lack of goodness albeit each according to our own cultures. Your explanation does not allow for those that do stupid things while having a conscious understanding of the consequences
MWal
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:56 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
Ignorance is headed for anhialation. All you need is time, and all will known. Ignorance is not possible in the light.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 09:42 pm
@Smileyrius,
In addition many assume one who is ignorant to be incapable of learning. That may be true for some, but precalculus Newton was certainly more than capable.
0 Replies
 
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 09:48 pm
@Smileyrius,
There's no paradox. The stories are based on symbols that do not exist in this reality. There is only one explanation that is sane - it's an allegory; a poetic message using everyday objects as personifications to express an idea that shares the elements of those objects.
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 09:52 pm
@Smileyrius,
You know when the Universe sat in a state for billions of years before expanding and evolving? That's ignorance - that's death - that's the unborn. The Universe was ignorant for billions of years, drunk on cosmic particles until it finally did something.

So yes, us people harbor the Universe's "death" experience as much as we harbor the "life" experience. It is why we can experience both.

Babies don't know better, we don't call them "evil". They are ignorant.

When people do things that they can't truly make sense out of, but are consumed by it anyways, are ignorant, but nobody in life is truly "evil" - anger, madness and distortion trick people into believing they are good - nobody can admit to being "evil". That's because nobody wants to be "evil"; everyone just makes up nonsense to rationalize their ignorance.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 09:55 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
Before I can believe your argument to be serious, I would have to see your specific references to scriptures. Prove you have actually read it.
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:00 pm
@neologist,
I am basing this on my profound understanding of the Universe and Us.

I don't have to read a book, to understand what a book is about, when everyone is talking about it in some form. I've come across verses. I've come across the ideas that it's been edited. That not all verses people say are in the book exist, but are made up nonsense. So yes, it's not hard to establish the real message behind the book, when you piece it all together.

The OT is representing the nature's animosity. The NT is representing the nature's humanity.

The books evolved one after the other in the same way humans evolved from their inner animals. This is not a coincidence. These books are truly allegorical, hence the stories contain creatures and events that are not possible in this reality, therefore it's non-fiction as a story, but the message behind that story is very factual, provided you don't twist its message. People should have realized the two books were representing a powerful relationship when one of the characters were chided by god in the verse, which said "without me, you would not be", then the character said to god, "without me, you would not be known". This should have been the point where people realize the book is talking about the Universe - and the reason why this god in the book has given its wrath via fire, water, lightning and wind, is because this god is an allegory of nature through itself and through ourselves.
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 23 Sep, 2014 06:31 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
One Eyed Mind wrote:
I am basing this on my profound understanding of the Universe and Us.

I don't have to read a book, to understand what a book is about, when everyone is talking about it in some form. . .
Yeah, but you don't understand the Bible. If you had taken the time to read carefully; you would know the dead are not conscious; you would know we were created to live on earth; you would know there is no such thing as eternal torment; you would understand that, since the rebellion in Eden, control of world affairs has been consigned to Satan; and you would understand this control to be temporary.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 24 Sep, 2014 03:48 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

One Eyed Mind wrote:
I am basing this on my profound understanding of the Universe and Us.

I don't have to read a book, to understand what a book is about, when everyone is talking about it in some form. . .
Yeah, but you don't understand the Bible. If you had taken the time to read carefully; you would know the dead are not conscious; you would know we were created to live on earth; you would know there is no such thing as eternal torment; you would understand that, since the rebellion in Eden, control of world affairs has been consigned to Satan; and you would understand this control to be temporary.


One...I have no idea of why you are trying to reason with this guy...who obviously has serious narcissistic problems...and seems incapable of understanding reason.

Two...if a person takes the time to read the Bible carefully...that person comes away KNOWING just what some superstitious ancient Hebrews thought and guessed about the REALITY of existence. They more than likely would not know anything about the REALITY...other than those guesses.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Wed 24 Sep, 2014 07:31 am
@neologist,
Quote:
You have simply demonstrated your refusal to learn.

Irony is a dish best served cold? How is repeatedly engaging with someone who spews nonsense a productive activity?
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 24 Sep, 2014 08:19 am
It's long past time this silly and boring thread had a soundtrack . . .

0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 24 Sep, 2014 09:00 am
@Ragman,
Point taken
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Wed 24 Sep, 2014 04:53 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
It interests me that you point out that a) peoples claims about the bible are unreliable, and b) the bible is edited and therefore also unreliable, you claim profound universal understanding based on what you yourself identify as unreliable data.

Personally I find it much better to a) don't let people tell you what it says, seek citation and read it for yourself and b) cross reference everything, use a concordance and never consider that any one translation is perfect, and c) never think you have it licked.

You might find reading the book will change everything you think you know about it... but what do I know. I'm a simple minded kind of guy Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Am i the only one?
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 01:04:23