The Problem of Self

Quote:

there is no reason to think that Bohr jettisoned the distinction between subject and object in his work as a physicist

True. But clearly bohr didn't insist on sticking with the distinctions. And that is point. Those insist on sticking with a position can remain blind to what falls beyond their visible spectrum.

0 Replies

BlueSky,

The utility of Joe's analysis of Bohr's metaphor should be evaluated
(1) With respect to my own leanings towards nonduality on reading Bohr
and
(2) With respect to the paradoxical data provided by QM which was the concern of the Copenhagen conference.

Vis-a-vis (1) Joe's analysis has no effect because even if I were to accept his case, I do not rely on this metaphor in particular to explain my leanings...indeed I was not even aware of it during my formative years, but I do think it has significant pedagogical value.

Vis-a-vis (2) the data (Complementarity, Non-locality etc) would still be paradoxical with respect to more traditional "laws of physics" even if this and all other metaphors were to be rejected by dissenters. In other words a question mark would still hang over traditional views of "objective reality".

Those interested in Joe's somewhat dated claims about "scientificism" should read the summaries of the Copenhagen Convention which deal with that very point. I seem to remember that Popper himself was obliged to modify his "falsifiability principle" as a result in order to allow for probabalistic data.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Hummm...so you have questioned how I know 2 + 2 = 4....and how I know what name is on my birth certificate...

...and now you are asking me if I am deluding myself when I say: "I do not know the nature of REALITY.

Well...allow me to respond with an acknowledgement.

I have been deluding myself.

I thought you were a serious poster attempting to deal reasonably with the issue being discussed.

It was a delusion.

You are simply a person engaged in sophistry.

Let me respond in a manner that I know you'll appreciate:

Cut the bullshit, Frank.

Yep...I was deluding myself to suppose you were being serious.

Quote:
You feel free to criticize others on their lack of any basis for their claims of knowledge, yet when questioned yourself you retreat into a familiar combination of pouting and insults.

Really!

I don't ever pout, Joe. And you are deluding yourself (or being galactically presumptuous) to suppose you could detect pouting in an Internet forum exchange of this kind.

In any case, I have the balls and character to put my "insults" out there as insults...rather than trying to disguise them as polite, intellectual observations...as you so often do...and as you did in this quoted sentence.

Quote:
It's almost enough to make one feel sympathy for fresco and the other non-dualists.

What is this nonsense even in here for?

Quote:
Really, Frank, at your age I would have thought that you'd have forsaken these silly playground tactics.

Joe...you are the one using those kinds of tactics...but it is understandable. You do it in so many threads, apparently it has become habit.

Quote:
You've claimed that you know your own name, yet you claim not to know the nature of reality.

This is pathetic.

Yes, Joe, I do know my own name and I do know that 2 + 2 = 4. But I do NOT know the nature of REALITY.

Are you telling me that everyone who knows their own name or who can do simple arithmatic...perforce knows the nature of REALITY?

Jeez...what some people will do to try to make other wrong!

Quote:
Well, either you know or you don't: you can't know a thing yet not know anything.

And just where the hell have I ever said...or even intimated...that I do not know anything???

Are you on drugs?

Quote:
You can't claim to know what you know if you base your claim on your bare assertion that you know.

Sonny, if I cannot assert that I know my own name or that I know 2 + 2 = 4 in a discussion with you...the problem is not with me.

It is with you.

Take a tranquilizer. Take two. You are really out of control.

Quote:
Now, I have a suspicion that your claims of knowledge are very similar to mine, but if you refuse to allow anyone to subject those beliefs to the same kind of scrutiny that you'd direct at others' claims, then you are admitting that you have no interest in a fair dialogue.

Please...if you are suggesting that in order for me to question the source of assertions about what REALITY is or is not...

...that I must go through a defense of how I know my own name or how I know that 2 + 2 = 4...

...then you have been spanking the monkey much too much, Joe.

Give it a rest. You'll wear it out.

In any case, you just told Fresco that you didn't want to play games.

So why in the hell are you playing this childish...silly...inane little game with me?

Quote:
And if that's the case, then, as with fresco, I'll simply ignore any further posts that you may submit, on the assumption that you are unwilling to enter into a reasonable discussion.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether you read my posts or ignore them, Joe. Frankly, lately you have not been adding much to any of the discussions in which you are participating.

Be that as it may...the best response I can give this "revelation" you just shared is to thank you for the huge laugh I got from you supposing I would care what you do.

Frank
This reply of yours was absolute crap... You dodged the questions and did not even give and explanation as to why 2+2=4 in you own estimation. The answer is logic that was all you had to say rather then to lash out your insults. It is only logical that if the sun sets day in day out for millions of years that it is going to continue to do so till the fuel that fires it's propulsion is exhausted.

This also relates to the self... the only way to rise above the self is to recognize something greater/higher than the self. Whether if this thing higher exists or not or if the self becomes deluded is not really the point... The point is that one sets aside the selfish needs of their own obsessions to accept a premise that they are not the only thing upon this earth (or in heaven) that has meaning and purpose.

The Bible says that one cannot know without the spirit... Spiritual things are known because of the spirit and it is impossible to know them unless the spirit is born within. So Frank, I am not going to perplex because of your inability to admit that you know God or spiritual things...

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Comment
I am just going to praise the validity of the scriptures in their wisdom as to why you "cannot" or do not appear to know. Perhaps, you know and you are unable to admit you know. That is also in the scriptures. So the scriptures make plain the reasons why you either do not know or refuse to admit that you know. They also reveal the reasons why I do know.

People escape from the self and or God for many reasons... Some are because of trauma, (the Roman Catholic Church) some are in search of a better world. Some find the nature of the self to be corrupt and seek a nature that can improve rather than constantly spiral into chaos. Some leave the self to seek out the light through meditation and the peace that can be found in the solace of prayer. Some find the self to be too self important and need to find a greater "person" to calibrate their own self into perspective.

These reasons for self improvement are all as simple as adding 2+2 and do not fall into the category of guessing. They fall into the category of logic and reason. It is only logical that if you have a "heavenly father" you will perceive that self as a product of this father and not a product of itself. The reason for escaping the self is also evident by looking at the world and seeing the wars and heinous crimes that have been committed by the people who have through self pride have usurped the position of God for their own glory. The Hitler's and Caligula's who devalue others human rights for their own deification.

This whole ascension/devaluation of the self is a basic form of logic. When the self is not valued enough to be even considered a whole self then we begin to act like wild beasts and type some of the digs from your last post Frank. Freud saw this simple logic as the id, the ego and the superego. This is the science of the mind. It is as reasonable as addition or substitution and more sure than the sun setting in the west.

The latest tests of the mind that trace the patterns of thinking through spectrography show these areas of the mind and that the mind is made to think in these spiritual patterns. Adolescents do not use the frontal lobes of the brain till they reach adulthood and the parts of the mind that are used for God are only used by the more learned individuals that have reached the reason and wisdom of the truth.

To ignore the superego/God is a personal choice. The result is a disproportionate and unbalanced psyche where the self is relegated to only the animalistic and the ego. With wisdom comes a humility and humbleness and peace within to respect and admire a vision of a perfected self, of love and responsibility to others both great and lesser.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

2 Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Comment:
Notice the word in the scripture above is throughly not thoroughly.
"through and through and throughly perfected".

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Hummm...so you have questioned how I know 2 + 2 = 4....and how I know what name is on my birth certificate...

...and now you are asking me if I am deluding myself when I say: "I do not know the nature of REALITY.

Well...allow me to respond with an acknowledgement.

I have been deluding myself.

I thought you were a serious poster attempting to deal reasonably with the issue being discussed.

It was a delusion.

You are simply a person engaged in sophistry.

Let me respond in a manner that I know you'll appreciate:

Cut the bullshit, Frank.

Yep...I was deluding myself to suppose you were being serious.

Quote:
You feel free to criticize others on their lack of any basis for their claims of knowledge, yet when questioned yourself you retreat into a familiar combination of pouting and insults.

Really!

I don't ever pout, Joe. And you are deluding yourself (or being galactically presumptuous) to suppose you could detect pouting in an Internet forum exchange of this kind.

In any case, I have the balls and character to put my "insults" out there as insults...rather than trying to disguise them as polite, intellectual observations...as you so often do...and as you did in this quoted sentence.

Quote:
It's almost enough to make one feel sympathy for fresco and the other non-dualists.

What is this nonsense even in here for?

Quote:
Really, Frank, at your age I would have thought that you'd have forsaken these silly playground tactics.

Joe...you are the one using those kinds of tactics...but it is understandable. You do it in so many threads, apparently it has become habit.

Quote:
You've claimed that you know your own name, yet you claim not to know the nature of reality.

This is pathetic.

Yes, Joe, I do know my own name and I do know that 2 + 2 = 4. But I do NOT know the nature of REALITY.

Are you telling me that everyone who knows their own name or who can do simple arithmatic...perforce knows the nature of REALITY?

Jeez...what some people will do to try to make other wrong!

Quote:
Well, either you know or you don't: you can't know a thing yet not know anything.

And just where the hell have I ever said...or even intimated...that I do not know anything???

Are you on drugs?

Quote:
You can't claim to know what you know if you base your claim on your bare assertion that you know.

Sonny, if I cannot assert that I know my own name or that I know 2 + 2 = 4 in a discussion with you...the problem is not with me.

It is with you.

Take a tranquilizer. Take two. You are really out of control.

Quote:
Now, I have a suspicion that your claims of knowledge are very similar to mine, but if you refuse to allow anyone to subject those beliefs to the same kind of scrutiny that you'd direct at others' claims, then you are admitting that you have no interest in a fair dialogue.

Please...if you are suggesting that in order for me to question the source of assertions about what REALITY is or is not...

...that I must go through a defense of how I know my own name or how I know that 2 + 2 = 4...

...then you have been spanking the monkey much too much, Joe.

Give it a rest. You'll wear it out.

In any case, you just told Fresco that you didn't want to play games.

So why in the hell are you playing this childish...silly...inane little game with me?

Quote:
And if that's the case, then, as with fresco, I'll simply ignore any further posts that you may submit, on the assumption that you are unwilling to enter into a reasonable discussion.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether you read my posts or ignore them, Joe. Frankly, lately you have not been adding much to any of the discussions in which you are participating.

Be that as it may...the best response I can give this "revelation" you just shared is to thank you for the huge laugh I got from you supposing I would care what you do.

Frank
This reply of yours was absolute crap... You dodged the questions and did not even give and explanation as to why 2+2=4 in you own estimation. The answer is logic that was all you had to say rather then to lash out your insults. It is only logical that if the sun sets day in day out for millions of years that it is going to continue to do so till the fuel that fires it's propulsion is exhausted.

This also relates to the self... the only way to rise above the self is to recognize something greater/higher than the self. Whether if this thing higher exists or not or if the self becomes deluded is not really the point... The point is that one sets aside the selfish needs of their own obsessions to accept a premise that they are not the only thing upon this earth (or in heaven) that has meaning and purpose.

The Bible says that one cannot know without the spirit... Spiritual things are known because of the spirit and it is impossible to know them unless the spirit is born within. So Frank, I am not going to perplex because of your inability to admit that you know God or spiritual things...

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Comment
I am just going to praise the validity of the scriptures in their wisdom as to why you "cannot" or do not appear to know. Perhaps, you know and you are unable to admit you know. That is also in the scriptures. So the scriptures make plain the reasons why you either do not know or refuse to admit that you know. They also reveal the reasons why I do know.

People escape from the self and or God for many reasons... Some are because of trauma, (the Roman Catholic Church) some are in search of a better world. Some find the nature of the self to be corrupt and seek a nature that can improve rather than constantly spiral into chaos. Some leave the self to seek out the light through meditation and the peace that can be found in the solace of prayer. Some find the self to be too self important and need to find a greater "person" to calibrate their own self into perspective.

These reasons for self improvement are all as simple as adding 2+2 and do not fall into the category of guessing. They fall into the category of logic and reason. It is only logical that if you have a "heavenly father" you will perceive that self as a product of this father and not a product of itself. The reason for escaping the self is also evident by looking at the world and seeing the wars and heinous crimes that have been committed by the people who have through self pride have usurped the position of God for their own glory. The Hitler's and Caligula's who devalue others human rights for their own deification.

This whole ascension/devaluation of the self is a basic form of logic. When the self is not valued enough to be even considered a whole self then we begin to act like wild beasts and type some of the digs from your last post Frank. Freud saw this simple logic as the id, the ego and the superego. This is the science of the mind. It is as reasonable as addition or substitution and more sure than the sun setting in the west.

The latest tests of the mind that trace the patterns of thinking through spectrography show these areas of the mind and that the mind is made to think in these spiritual patterns. Adolescents do not use the frontal lobes of the brain till they reach adulthood and the parts of the mind that are used for God are only used by the more learned individuals that have reached the reason and wisdom of the truth.

To ignore the superego/God is a personal choice. The result is a disproportionate and unbalanced psyche where the self is relegated to only the animalistic and the ego. With wisdom comes a humility and humbleness and peace within to respect and admire a vision of a perfected self, of love and responsibility to others both great and lesser.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

2 Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Comment:
Notice the word in the scripture above is throughly not thoroughly.
"through and through and throughly perfected".

I cannot tell you how happy I am that you are on their side!

0 Replies

Frank,

It would appear that this whole forum is against your basic premise... It is called Able2know and you disagree and claim we are unable2know... I think in times that you have chosen to be the devil's advocate for the simple reason of doing as I said in one of my last posts to provoke the unknown and see what comes out. To measure the energy and observe the patterns. For this reason I personally feel you are a good hearted person in your own search for "truth" as you know it. We can only go as far as we are taught. We all with careful concern come to the same conclusions in the end.

I just refuse to sit on the fence the rest of my life and be torn to shreds by my my own inability to make a decision. Thus I have long since ventured out into the field of faith and belief in God. I wander free out on the winds of the spirit and the wide open freedom of the heavenly breezes that flow. I spent many years on the fence and found only a tortured and torn battered old heart.

When I tried to run away from God I found the deepest darkness, unbridled sin and death. I was too ashamed to run into the pasture of God's field of dreams but when I made up my mind and left the fence and refused to let myself be ashamed but put it all in God's hands regardless of what state my walk was in, I suddenly was no longer torn and tormented by my own guilt and shame.

This was my only "way" to continue to live and find peace and love within myself and with the world around me. I have stayed with God ever since. Someday when I am taken up into the heavens God will purge me of the pain that has brought me so much confusion and I will no longer be reminded of this world and it's devices of sin and sadness. I know this because I have experienced it first hand I have survived to triumph and live another day.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank,

It would appear that this whole forum is against your basic premise... It is called Able2know and you disagree and claim we are unable2know...

In a sense...I appreciate the bit of humor you used here, Rex. It is a pleasant departure from your normal serious nature.

A slight disagreement if I may: I have never said we are unable to know...particularly with regard to theists. In fact, I have gone out of my way to acknowledge that IF there is a God...particularly a personal God that has expectations of humans...it CERTAINLY WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THAT GOD TO REVEAL ITSELF IN AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAY.

I do not think that has happened. But it could...and so...as far as theism goes...I would never say we are unable to know...just that from all indications, it seems to me that we do not know presently.

Quote:

I think in times that you have chosen to be the devil's advocate for the simple reason of doing as I said in one of my last posts to provoke the unknown and see what comes out. To measure the energy and observe the patterns. For this reason I personally feel you are a good hearted person in your own search for "truth" as you know it. We can only go as far as we are taught. We all with careful concern come to the same conclusions in the end.

Let me set you completely straight on this, Rex.

I offer the arguments I offer because I see agnosticism as the only reasonable way of dealing with the unknowns we face. I offer them because I see agnosticism as a sane alternative to both theism and atheism. And I especially offer them because agnosticism is short changed in these kinds of discussions all the time...and I acknowledge that is mostly because agnostics tend to simply tune out.

I don't.

I am not playing devil's advocate...I am deadly serious in wanting to present an agnostic take on every discussion in this particular forum.

Quote:

I just refuse to sit on the fence the rest of my life and be torn to shreds by my my own inability to make a decision.

I have no idea of why you think coming to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence upon which to make a reasonable guess about these things...is fence sitting.

It most assuredly is not. It a concrete position...and, since it essentially acknowledges that "I do not know"... it has the benefit of being ethically superior to both theism and atheism, which often attempt to disguise that fact.

Quote:

Thus I have long since ventured out into the field of faith and belief in God. I wander free out on the winds of the spirit and the wide open freedom of the heavenly breezes that flow. I spent many years on the fence and found only a tortured and torn battered old heart.

When I tried to run away from God I found the deepest darkness, unbridled sin and death. I was too ashamed to run into the pasture of God's field of dreams but when I made up my mind and left the fence and refused to let myself be ashamed but put it all in God's hands regardless of what state my walk was in, I suddenly was no longer torn and tormented by my own guilt and shame.

This was my only "way" to continue to live and find peace and love within myself and with the world around me. I have stayed with God ever since. Someday when I am taken up into the heavens God will purge me of the pain that has brought me so much confusion and I will no longer be reminded of this world and it's devices of sin and sadness. I know this because I have experienced it first hand I have survived to triumph and live another day.

Okay...you feel better guessing there is a God.

Fine!

I am happy for you...and I suspect most of the other agnostics and atheists in this forum are happy for you also.

But that is not what is being discussed.

0 Replies

Rex,

I think you have stuck to the thread topic "problem with self" and demonstrated the nature of your solution. But can you perhaps appreciate that what may be beneficial for "you" might be pernicious for "society"? As Frank has said, nobody would wish to detract from your personal happiness but there is abundant historical evidence that " belief " may have "a price".

Frank,

Your claim for "ethical superiority" for some reason reminds me of the Pope's "neutrality" during WW2 and I'm not sure why !

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

Your claim for "ethical superiority" for some reason reminds me of the Pope's "neutrality" during WW2 and I'm not sure why !

I often have those kinds of unusual immediate impulse reponses, Fresco.

In my own experience, I seem to have them when someone says something that strikes a chord I don't want struck. Perhaps it is some kind of defense mechanism.

What I try to do is to live with them for a while...and see if they disappear.

Be that as it may...I honestly think the agnostic position IS ethically superior to both atheism and theism. But I suspect a protracted discussion of it here in this thread would be an unwanted diversion. As you know (or at least, I think you know) I have discussed this issue in many threads over the years.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

A heap of popcorn is finite and its size is already known by amount the cash paid for it. Hence there is never dilemma about nature and the distinction between single popcorn and heap. Popcorn metaphor doesn't address the subtle issue of 'what is not known' to begin with as addressed by bohr

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

blueSky wrote:

Quote:
there is no reason to think that Bohr jettisoned the distinction between subject and object in his work as a physicist

True. But clearly bohr didn't insist on sticking with the distinctions. And that is point. Those insist on sticking with a position can remain blind to what falls beyond their visible spectrum.

Bohr stuck with the distinction in the only way that mattered: as a scientist. If he ventured into nondualism as a matter of faith or metaphysics, he did it on his own time.

By the way, I believe this is the longest that any thread has gone that has discussed both quantum physics and philosophy and that has not mentioned Heisenberg. Congratulations everyone, it's a new record!

0 Replies

Frank

I think a good discussion is the tendency for some to confuse the "ability to know", with "willingness to know". Is everyone able to know? Even if God were to provide a personal witness... many people do not even have a firm belief in reality then to doubt a meeting between them and God and later decide by their free will that said meeting was a mirage or a figment of their imagination.

The atheist is unwilling to believe and the agnostic is possibly unable to believe. I look at the universe and see divine fingerprints all over it. I am willing to conceive in this where you are unable to see for a contrived preconceived idea that this is not enough.

How much would be enough? Does God need to come down and scare the heck out of you? Is that what you are waiting for? God does not scare people... that is why his angels have always said "fear not" when they have encountered people. The devil is the one who counterfeits truth and leads us to fear. Do you deny the existence of fear too?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank

I think a good discussion is the tendency for some to confuse the "ability to know", with "willingness to know". Is everyone able to know? Even if God were to provide a personal witness... many people do not even have a firm belief in reality then to doubt a meeting between them and God and later decide by their free will that said meeting was a mirage or a figment of their imagination.

The atheist is unwilling to believe and the agnostic is possibly unable to believe. I look at the universe and see divine fingerprints all over it. I am willing to conceive in this where you are unable to see for a contrived preconceived idea that this is not enough.

How much would be enough?

Look, Rex...your god supposedly created our planet and the solar system in which it exists. The god also supposedly created the 200+ billions of other suns in our galaxy...and the 200+ billions of other galaxies we know about.

It is absurd to suppose that kind of god cannot reveal itself, should it choose to do so, in a way that is absolutely impossible to reject.

If there is a God...that God could, if it wished, provide absolute evidence of its existence...in a way that no human could reject.

Quote:

Does God need to come down and scare the heck out of you? Is that what you are waiting for?

I'm not waiting for anything. I am totally willing to say that I do not know what the nature of REALITY is...whether there is a God involved or if there are no gods.

If your god actually exists and wanted me to know that it exists...it would do so.

Quote:

God does not scare people...

Well...if you are talking about the god of the Bible...you are wrong!

Quote:

...that is why his angels have always said "fear not" when they have encountered people.

How many quotes of your god saying that you must fear "him" would I have to produce for you to realize this is an absurd claim that you are making?

Quote:

The devil is the one who counterfeits truth and leads us to fear. Do you deny the existence of fear too?

Rex, do all the "believing" you want to do. But please do not try to make it seem reasonable...because it isn't.

0 Replies

"Bohr stuck with the distinction in the only way that mattered: as a scientist. If he ventured into nondualism as a matter of faith or metaphysics, he did it on his own time. "

Agumentum ad desperandum et ad nauseam

0 Replies

Frank

By intensive Biblical study one learns that in Elizabethan English, with which the Bible was translated into, the word "fear" is not the word "fear" that we use today but it was commonly understood in Shakespeare's time that the word meant alternatively to "reverence and respect" God. All of the people of the time knew it was not the kind of "fear" like being "afraid"... the word afraid is in the Bible too and had God wanted people to be afraid he would have used the word afraid.

The Hebrew words behind the word translated as "fear" in the Bible for the most part mean to "reverence and respect" God and have nothing to do with today's meaning of the word "fear". This partly is perhaps why you have the opinion of God as this tyrannical God of fear... (along with other misinterpretations that you hold) a knowledge of old Elizabethan English clears up this misunderstanding.

To reverence and respect someone is much different than to "fear" them. Do you "respect" and "reverence" people because you are afraid of them or because they are deserving of such praise? Do you respect everyone you fear? Do you reverence everyone you fear?

The Bible calls women "silly"... this does not mean they are "silly" like our word "silly" today... in Elizabethan English the word "silly" meant "harmless". To mean that they are the gentler of the two sexes.

The meaning of the Biblical words need to be understood in light of the language of the times with which they were translated. They need to be understood in light of customs, plagues, savage neighbors, and the threat of sexually transmitted diseases wiping out an entire tribe and so on. You cannot interpret it solely from a modern viewpoint. This leads to a wrong unintended interpretation of the Bible and error regarding the intention meant by it's authors.

One should pause to wonder why the angels, the emissaries of God, always said "fear not" but that one should "fear" God? Thus the meaning of fear had two meanings In Shakespear's day. The angels were not telling people not to respect or revere them but this was the Greek/Aramaic word behind it to "not" be afraid.

In major translations of the Bible other than the King James Version the word fear in the Old Testament is substituted for the words respect or reverence God instead.

Romans 8:15
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Comment:
So God has not given us the spirit of "fear"... so either Timothy and Paul were wrong or you are Frank. I might also mention that the word "adoption" is not the word adoption but should have been translated "sonship". There are many translation "errors" that need to be studied to uncover their true meaning but once they are revealed the truth is likewise also uncovered.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank

By intensive Biblical study one learns that in Elizabethan English, with which the Bible was translated into, the word "fear" is not the word "fear" that we use today but it was commonly understood in Shakespeare's time that the word meant alternatively to "reverence and respect" God. All of the people of the time knew it was not the kind of "fear" like being "afraid"... the word afraid is in the Bible too and had God wanted people to be afraid he would have used the word afraid.

The Hebrew words behind the word translated as "fear" in the Bible for the most part mean to "reverence and respect" God and have nothing to do with today's meaning of the word "fear". This partly is perhaps why you have the opinion of God as this tyrannical God of fear... (along with other misinterpretations that you hold) a knowledge of old Elizabethan English clears up this misunderstanding.

To reverence and respect someone is much different than to "fear" them. Do you "respect" and "reverence" people because you are afraid of them or because they are deserving of such praise? Do you respect everyone you fear? Do you reverence everyone you fear?

The Bible calls women "silly"... this does not mean they are "silly" like our word "silly" today... in Elizabethan English the word "silly" meant "harmless". To mean that they are the gentler of the two sexes.

The meaning of the Biblical words need to be understood in light of the language of the times with which they were translated. They need to be understood in light of customs, plagues, savage neighbors, and the threat of sexually transmitted diseases wiping out an entire tribe and so on. You cannot interpret it solely from a modern viewpoint. This leads to a wrong unintended interpretation of the Bible and error regarding the intention meant by it's authors.

One should pause to wonder why the angels, the emissaries of God, always said "fear not" but that one should "fear" God? Thus the meaning of fear had two meanings In Shakespear's day. The angels were not telling people not to respect or revere them but this was the Greek/Aramaic word behind it to "not" be afraid.

In major translations of the Bible other than the King James Version the word fear in the Old Testament is substituted for the words respect or reverence God instead.

Romans 8:15
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Comment:
So God has not given us the spirit of "fear"... so either Timothy and Paul were wrong or you are Frank. I might also mention that the word "adoption" is not the word adoption but should have been translated "sonship". There are many translation "errors" that need to be studied to uncover their true meaning but once they are revealed the truth is likewise also uncovered.

C'mon, Rex, one doesn't have to depend on the meaning or non-meaning of one word to determine whether or not the god of the Bible has to be feared. The meaning of the texts show that the god indeed meant to "fear" the crap out of him.

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

"If you are not careful to observe every word of the law which is written in this book, and to revere the glorious and awesome name of the Lord, your God, he will smite you and your descendants with severe and constant blows, malignant and lasting maladies.(It goes on for another paragraph or so.) Deuteronomy 28:58

And here is the first of the famous ten commandments that Christians are trying to get posted in public buildings:

"I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation, but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments." Deuteronomy 5:6ff

I really don't much care what "intensive Biblical study" is supposed to do...I frankly look at what it does and cringe. In order to justify the conduct of a god that is murderous and barbaric...the people who do "intensive Biblical study" have to change the meaning of such words as "fear", 'slave", and "hell."

If you do not "fear" the god described in the Bible, I liken you less to Paul or Timothy...than to the people who lived under Saddam Hussein. Those unfortunates claimed to love and revere and respect Saddam...but they were scared out of their minds. And any reasonable look at the power of the god you claim to love, revere, and respect but not fear...tells me you are working that same way.

But...if you think it is in your best interests to butter up to this invisible god who is looking over your shoulder...do so.

If you do it here in an Internet forum, however, I suspect you will be challenged.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have on several occasions said: I do not know the nature of REALITY.

I have NEVER said I have no knowledge of reality.

And there is a difference...a significant difference.

And the fact that I have capitalized REALITY every time I have written that word in this context...should give anyone with a functioning brain (which I am beginning to suspect excludes Joe)...pause to consider that I am talking about the ULTIMATE REALITY of the universe and existence.

I must admit, Frank, that this statement had me stumped, and, as it was the only statement that you made that even came close to a defense of your position, it was the only statement that I even came close to considering seriously.

In searching for posts in which you mentioned "ultimate reality," I came up with 33 hits. Some of them, of course, don't have the phrase "ultimate reality," but enough of them do that I am convinced that you have, indeed, distinguished "reality" from "ultimate reality" (or, as you put it, "REALITY"). It seems, then, that I have been, at least partially, misinterpreting your assertions. Or, as Strother Martin famously said in "Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Now, in my defense, I don't think that I should have been expected to know that an uppercase "REALITY" was any different from a standard, run-of-the-mill lower case "reality." In forums such as these, uppercase typically denotes a change in emphasis, not a change in meaning. Had my misapprehension of your idiosyncratic usage of "REALITY" been brought to my attention sooner, much of this ensuing nonsense could have been avoided.

As I understand it, then, you claim that you do not know the nature of "ultimate reality." That's fine, I have no quarrel with that. Indeed, I share your incomprehension. But whereas I think you claim that you don't know ultimate reality on an epistemological level , I am far more modest: I don't know ultimate reality on a definitional level. If I can't make out what people mean when they talk about "ultimate reality," then I have no chance of "knowing" what it is as an epistemological matter.

Now, of course, your claim that you do not know "REALITY" (with which I can sympathize) does nothing to illuminate your claim that you know "something" (which remains unexplained). I will, however, leave that discussion for another day and another thread. As you've pointed out before, Frank, much of my time is occupied with chastising lower primates -- I'm much too busy to contribute further to this thread.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I have on several occasions said: I do not know the nature of REALITY.

I have NEVER said I have no knowledge of reality.

And there is a difference...a significant difference.

And the fact that I have capitalized REALITY every time I have written that word in this context...should give anyone with a functioning brain (which I am beginning to suspect excludes Joe)...pause to consider that I am talking about the ULTIMATE REALITY of the universe and existence.

I must admit, Frank, that this statement had me stumped, and, as it was the only statement that you made that even came close to a defense of your position, it was the only statement that I even came close to considering seriously.

In searching for posts in which you mentioned "ultimate reality," I came up with 33 hits. Some of them, of course, don't have the phrase "ultimate reality," but enough of them do that I am convinced that you have, indeed, distinguished "reality" from "ultimate reality" (or, as you put it, "REALITY"). It seems, then, that I have been, at least partially, misinterpreting your assertions. Or, as Strother Martin famously said in "Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Now, in my defense, I don't think that I should have been expected to know that an uppercase "REALITY" was any different from a standard, run-of-the-mill lower case "reality." In forums such as these, uppercase typically denotes a change in emphasis, not a change in meaning. Had my misapprehension of your idiosyncratic usage of "REALITY" been brought to my attention sooner, much of this ensuing nonsense could have been avoided.

As I understand it, then, you claim that you do not know the nature of "ultimate reality." That's fine, I have no quarrel with that. Indeed, I share your incomprehension. But whereas I think you claim that you don't know ultimate reality on an epistemological level , I am far more modest: I don't know ultimate reality on a definitional level. If I can't make out what people mean when they talk about "ultimate reality," then I have no chance of "knowing" what it is as an epistemological matter.

Now, of course, your claim that you do not know "REALITY" (with which I can sympathize) does nothing to illuminate your claim that you know "something" (which remains unexplained). I will, however, leave that discussion for another day and another thread. As you've pointed out before, Frank, much of my time is occupied with chastising lower primates -- I'm much too busy to contribute further to this thread.

Good!

0 Replies

Frank

You quoted this from the Bible:

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

Comment:
You have been told in posts on Abuzz that later in the very same chapter that God says he will show mercy down to the 1000 generation of the fathers children for their faith. Yet you choose to only emphasize the slurs against the God of the Bible and not acknowledge the whole scope of the meaning.

Do you not think by leading children in the wrong path of righteousness that this curse is continually passed down by the "parents" and not necessarily by God? It is well known in psychology that people abuse their children because they were abused by their parents. This really has not very much to do with God but with the human condition. It can often take four generations to out live a reputation of abuse and misguidance.

I liken you at times to the "preachers" "radical conservatives" that stand as you do on these same scriptures and tell people their families will be cursed for sins. You are no better than they are... Just because you do not believe the Bible does not mean you do not swallow the misinterpretation in the exact same manner.

You "hate" the biblical God because you see only the hate, fear and "childhood of people" in the Bible and do not recognize enough the emancipation in the Bible.
This is fear is seemingly what you want to see even though there is a vast scriptural love that transcends the hate. You see only the hate so you can justify your own distaste for the Christian/Hebrew God. This may be the purpose of the hate in the Bible to catch one unaware and to raise them up to a higher standard in the "new" testament.

For God so loved the world that he gave...

Yet you see only pestilence, famine and plagues.

You wrote from the Bible:
"If you are not careful to observe every word of the law which is written in this book, and to revere the glorious and awesome name of the Lord, your God, he will smite you and your descendants with severe and constant blows, malignant and lasting maladies.(It goes on for another paragraph or so.) Deuteronomy 28:58

"I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation, but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments." Deuteronomy 5:6ff

Comment:
You do not see that God takes the form of punishment much like a paddle that was in past times used to chastise an unruly child. Today we just put them on death row. We take on the form of children as God is the master that guides us. Is the discipline delivered by the paddle or the hand that holds the paddle of by some unseen constituent or an over all idea of retribution. Do we not punish "ourselves" with guilt, shame and ultimately insanity? Is hell not in fact a product of our own creation and free will?

You Wrote:
I really don't much care what "intensive Biblical study" is supposed to do...I frankly look at what it does and cringe.

Comment:
This is why you continue to dredge up and slant the parts that are to provoke thought and justice and yet you do not know the words that provoke profound love and brotherhood.

You Wrote:
In order to justify the conduct of a god that is murderous and barbaric...the people who do "intensive Biblical study" have to change the meaning of such words as "fear", 'slave", and "hell."

Comment:
Frank

Biblical scholars do not change the meaning of "fear" the meaning was changed throughout Elizabethan literature. This is not a "guess" of mine but is documented in numerous/countless literary works from Shakespeare and other quite prolific writers of the period.

It is no coincidence that God chose to have the new testament written during the classical period and the Bible translated to English during the Elizabethan period. This was because there were so many extraneous works that the words could be traced through secular writings and the scriptures could be rich and full of meaning and not lost to our understanding today. We have the works of Euclid, Socrates Plato Euripides, Homer and many of the words in the Greek new testament are from geometry, a from of science, not only literature.

So the meaning of the greek words have precise meaning and are not just haphazard as you would imply. This is a reason for "intense Biblical study" and not just to pick the parts that fit what you want to say. To let it interpret itself and not interpret it as you have in times done.

You wrote:
If you do not "fear" the god described in the Bible, I liken you less to Paul or Timothy...than to the people who lived under Saddam Hussein. Those unfortunates claimed to love and revere and respect Saddam...but they were scared out of their minds. And any reasonable look at the power of the god you claim to love, revere, and respect but not fear...tells me you are working that same way.

Comment:
This is where you are "guessing" and I will tell you you are WRONG... You may think you know of two realities but don't tell me mine if you are going to only look on the surface.

You Wrote:
But...if you think it is in your best interests to butter up to this invisible god who is looking over your shoulder...do so.

Comment:
You say, butter up... I say, give thanks, respect and revere. You say, looking over my shoulder and I say, God knows the future.

You Wrote:
If you do it here in an Internet forum, however, I suspect you will be challenged.

Comment:
Jesus Christ was challenged and look what the world did to him... I do not "fear" God and I do not "fear" this world either.

Peace with God brings peace with the self.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank

You quoted this from the Bible:

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

Comment:
You have been told in posts on Abuzz that later in the very same chapter that God says he will show mercy down to the 1000 generation of the fathers children for their faith. Yet you choose to only emphasize the slurs against the God of the Bible and not acknowledge the whole scope of the meaning.

Oh, no I didn't.

I also posted:

Quote:

"I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation, but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments." Deuteronomy 5:6ff

Quote:

Do you not think by leading children in the wrong path of righteousness that this curse is continually passed down by the "parents" and not necessarily by God? It is well known in psychology that people abuse their children because they were abused by their parents. This really has not very much to do with God but with the human condition. It can often take four generations to out live a reputation of abuse and misguidance.

Jesus Christ, Rex...you are justifying this pathetic god of your by saying it is perfectly fine with you for this monster to visit punishment on the kids of people who won't kiss its ass.

Wake up!

Quote:

I liken you at times to the "preachers" "radical conservatives" that stand as you do on these same scriptures and tell people their families will be cursed for sins. You are no better than they are... Just because you do not believe the Bible does not mean you do not swallow the misinterpretation in the exact same manner.

I could not care less what you "liken me to."

You claim I swollow misinterpretations...but you come up with some of the most inane reasoning for anything you don't like about the Bible.

Quote:

You "hate" the biblical God because you see only the hate, fear and "childhood of people" in the Bible and do not recognize enough the emancipation in the Bible.

I don't "hate" the god of the Bible any more than I hate the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood.

I mention that the god is a jealous, vindictive, murderous, barbaric, petty, cartoon god because the god is a jealous, vindictive, murderous, barbaric, petty, cartoon god.

Quote:

This is fear is seemingly what you want to see even though there is a vast scriptural love that transcends the hate. You see only the hate so you can justify your own distaste for the Christian/Hebrew God. This may be the purpose of the hate in the Bible to catch one unaware and to raise them up to a higher standard in the "new" testament.

For God so loved the world that he gave...

Right...John 3:16...where you god tells you he will forgive you for your "sins" (all the stuff that offends it)...but first, you must torture and kill his son.

Gimme a break!

Rex...the rest of your post is your usual nonsesne.

Live with your fears.

0 Replies

Frank

I wrote:
Do you not think by leading children in the wrong path of righteousness that this curse is continually passed down by the "parents" and not necessarily by God? It is well known in psychology that people abuse their children because they were abused by their parents. This really has not very much to do with God but with the human condition. It can often take four generations to out live a reputation of abuse and misguidance

You Wrote:
Jesus Christ, Rex...you are justifying this pathetic god of your by saying it is perfectly fine with you for this monster to visit punishment on the kids of people who won't kiss its ass.

Wake up!

Comment:
Frank You seem incapable to understand that generations are visited by the terror engrained in them by their parents and God is simply an arbitrary form of justice. These children in turn grow to enforce the same terror on their own children and others. They receive the same recompense of their OWN ways and errors.
Can you not just see that God is simply the rule that justice WILL be served due to our own decisions. God does not impute punishment on the innocent! God does not let the guilty go free unless there is a desire for forgiveness and a change of HEART and humility.

I wrote:
I liken you at times to the "preachers" "radical conservatives" that stand as you do on these same scriptures and tell people their families will be cursed for sins. You are no better than they are... Just because you do not believe the Bible does not mean you do not swallow the misinterpretation in the exact same manner.

You wrote:
I could not care less what you "liken me to."

Comment:
...this, and you tell me to "open my mind" you are such a hypocrite! What, open my mind to your sloppy studies and derisions?

You wrote:
You claim I swallow misinterpretations...but you come up with some of the most inane reasoning for anything you don't like about the Bible.

Comment:
It is inane in light of your shallow understanding... Though you follow tradition but so does the mass of the unenlightened in this world. This is the reason that innocence is nailed to crosses. You are part of the problem and not the solution.

I Wrote:
You "hate" the biblical God because you see only the hate, fear and "childhood of people" in the Bible and do not recognize enough the emancipation in the Bible.

You Wrote:
I don't "hate" the god of the Bible any more than I hate the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood.

Comment:
Just because you think God is a fairy tale does not make it so... You seem opinionated for someone who claims this REALITY is not known. You seem to know enough to make comparisons about something you do not care to study in detail. You would hate wolves if they were carrying you away to devour you. Do you need to be being torn from limb to limb to realize your travesty?

You Wrote:
I mention that the god is a jealous, vindictive, murderous, barbaric, petty, cartoon god because the god is a jealous, vindictive, murderous, barbaric, petty, cartoon god.

Comment:
Frank, you are the cartoon drawn against the God of the Bible simply touting your own unsubstantiated reality against a REALITY that extends to the ends of the universe. The reason you do not "know" REALITY is because you have not "honestly" tried to understand. You know your own cartoon that you have penciled in yourself. You accuse others of you own linguistic arts pictures versus the true creation of God...

I Wrote:
This fear is seemingly what you want to see even though there is a vast scriptural love that transcends the hate. You see only the hate so you can justify your own distaste for the Christian/Hebrew God. This may be the purpose of the hate in the Bible to catch one unaware and to raise them up to a higher standard in the "new" testament.

For God so loved the world that he gave...

You Wrote:
Right...John 3:16...where you god tells you he will forgive you for your "sins" (all the stuff that offends it)...but first, you must torture and kill his son.

Comment:
I would like to know where in the Bible that God tells people to kill Jesus Christ. Again this is your feeble logic that you base your ideas of REALITY on. God never told people to kill Jesus he looked into the future (with his foreknowledge) and saw the free will of the people and the evil acts that they would perform. This did not stop God from sending his son to save the world though. This is the heart of my God the heart that you refuse to acknowledge.

Comment:
As for the rest of my post you seem eager to avoid the break down of justice yet you make alligations against a "just" God you do not care to even "study" let alone know...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank

I wrote:
Do you not think by leading children in the wrong path of righteousness that this curse is continually passed down by the "parents" and not necessarily by God? It is well known in psychology that people abuse their children because they were abused by their parents. This really has not very much to do with God but with the human condition. It can often take four generations to out live a reputation of abuse and misguidance

You Wrote:
Jesus Christ, Rex...you are justifying this pathetic god of your by saying it is perfectly fine with you for this monster to visit punishment on the kids of people who won't kiss its ass.

Wake up!

Comment:
Frank You seem incapable to understand that generations are visited by the terror engrained in them by their parents and God is simply an arbitrary form of justice. These children in turn grow to enforce the same terror on their own children and others. They receive the same recompense of their OWN ways and errors.
Can you not just see that God is simply the rule that justice WILL be served due to our own decisions. God does not impute punishment on the innocent! God does not let the guilty go free unless there is a desire for forgiveness and a change of HEART and humility.

You apparently don't understand that your god threatens to visit punishment on the offspring of people who offend it...because of the offense of that person...not the offenses of any of the offspring.

You also apparently do not know what rationalization is.

Quote:

I wrote:
I liken you at times to the "preachers" "radical conservatives" that stand as you do on these same scriptures and tell people their families will be cursed for sins. You are no better than they are... Just because you do not believe the Bible does not mean you do not swallow the misinterpretation in the exact same manner.

You wrote:
I could not care less what you "liken me to."

Comment:
...this, and you tell me to "open my mind" you are such a hypocrite! What, open my mind to your sloppy studies and derisions?

No...to the information I am offering you.

Quote:

You wrote:
You claim I swallow misinterpretations...but you come up with some of the most inane reasoning for anything you don't like about the Bible.

Comment:
It is inane in light of your shallow understanding... Though you follow tradition but so does the mass of the unenlightened in this world. This is the reason that innocence is nailed to crosses. You are part of the problem and not the solution.

So...you are enlightened...and we, the masses, are unenlightened!

Once again, Rex....WAKE UP!

Quote:

I Wrote:
You "hate" the biblical God because you see only the hate, fear and "childhood of people" in the Bible and do not recognize enough the emancipation in the Bible.

You Wrote:
I don't "hate" the god of the Bible any more than I hate the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood.

Comment:
Just because you think God is a fairy tale does not make it so... You seem opinionated for someone who claims this REALITY is not known. You seem to know enough to make comparisons about something you do not care to study in detail. You would hate wolves if they were carrying you away to devour you. Do you need to be being torn from limb to limb to realize your travesty?

You're losing it, Rex. Calm down. Take a tranquilizer.

Quote:

You Wrote:
I mention that the god is a jealous, vindictive, murderous, barbaric, petty, cartoon god because the god is a jealous, vindictive, murderous, barbaric, petty, cartoon god.

Comment:
Frank, you are the cartoon drawn against the God of the Bible simply touting your own unsubstantiated reality against a REALITY that extends to the ends of the universe. The reason you do not "know" REALITY is because you have not "honestly" tried to understand. You know your own cartoon that you have penciled in yourself. You accuse others of you own linguistic arts pictures versus the true creation of God...

Well I do not know the Ultimate REALITY...but I sure as hell can read the Bible...and I have. And the god described in that book is a jealous, vindictive, murderous, barbaric, petty, cartoon god.

Sorry your fear is clouding your mind from seeing that.

Quote:

I Wrote:
This fear is seemingly what you want to see even though there is a vast scriptural love that transcends the hate. You see only the hate so you can justify your own distaste for the Christian/Hebrew God. This may be the purpose of the hate in the Bible to catch one unaware and to raise them up to a higher standard in the "new" testament.

For God so loved the world that he gave...

You Wrote:
Right...John 3:16...where you god tells you he will forgive you for your "sins" (all the stuff that offends it)...but first, you must torture and kill his son.

Comment:
I would like to know where in the Bible that God tells people to kill Jesus Christ. Again this is your feeble logic that you base your ideas of REALITY on. God never told people to kill Jesus he looked into the future (with his foreknowledge) and saw the free will of the people and the evil acts that they would perform. This did not stop God from sending his son to save the world though. This is the heart of my God the heart that you refuse to acknowledge.

Why did the god have to send his son to save the world.

The world was doing just fine.

But the god of the Bible...supposedly...was offended by damn near everything humans did unless they were kissing the god's ass.

The god...in this particular fairytale, could simply have forgiven the people their sins...but instead, sent his son to be tortured and killed.

What is so goddam wonderful about that barbaric tale?

0 Replies

The Problem of Self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know