The French call us le Rosbifs, unlike the French peasants the English Yeomen ate beef as opposed to all the horrible bits of offal the aristos didn't want.
Quote:
The name Beefeater is of uncertain origin, with various proposed derivations. The term was common as early as the 17th century as a slang term for the English in general. The earliest connection to the Royal Household came as a reference to the Yeomen of the Guard by Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, who frequented the Court in 1669. In referring to the Yeomen of the Guard, he stated, "A very large ration of beef is given to them daily at the court, and they might be called Beef-eaters". The Beefeater name was carried over to the Yeomen Warders, due to the two corps' outward similarities and the Yeoman Warders' more public presence. Beefeaters also commonly produced and consumed broths made of beef, which were described as rich and hearty. These broths were known, at the time, as bef or beffy
I am overcoming the flu so it may be a side effect of the mild medication.
If so, I apologize for taking this discussion "further" into the realm of the absurd, blame it on the Alka-Seltzer Plus.
I am calling this, "The Shapeshifting God".
God is the very essence of what a shapeshifter is.
The Bible says God has no form nor comeliness, yet we attribute God with hands, motives and even people.
This verse says God had no form then likens God to a plant.
Isaiah 53:2 King James Bible
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Comment:
No form?
Even the number zero has a form 0, but it represents nothing.
So the first form nothing takes is zero or seed of all numbers.
Then zero takes on the form of all numbers.
Perhaps even before numbers, nothing became all geometry, circles, straight lines and polygons of all shapes and sizes, symbols and signs that represent time, directions, seasons and taboos.
God began to represent light, darkness and good and evil.
God represented consciousness, intelligence, knowledge and wisdom.
God shapeshifted into the tiniest of particles atoms, elements, microbes and all the way up to the largest of mass, stars, galaxies and multiverses and angels.
Till humans also began to represent gods.
There is no shape or thing that God cannot exist within.
We attribute God with safety and abandonment, with sustenance and abundance, with forgiveness and tribulations.
God is our needs, wants and addictions.
God is our peace and God is war.
God saves us from ourselves and damns us to an eternity of punishment.
So we have to distinguish the subject of God from the object of God.
God is a verb and a noun, just as light is both a particle and a wave.
God is a shifter and a shape.
God is the shifter within, the spirit. The image of God is spirit and God is change and changeless.
God is energy imposed upon matter.
As matter is also energy, so God is both everything and nothing.
Latin condescensio; also anthropopatheia is giving something the attributes of another thing.
Comment:
Or, it is tracing nothing as a straight line growing and billowing into everything.
This is the crossroad where paganism, polytheism and monotheism converge.
All three forms of claim that, "God is love" but even love is a form governed by rules of etiquette and discipline. So God has also shifted into the form of love? Is love not hate in reverse?
This begs to the question, can love be greater than God? For it seems God is neutrality without motive.
God is existence without passion.
God is, and reality sorts itself out, so there is no judgment that can convict neutrality, neither neglect nor meddling, God can be wrong or right.
God simply shifts into infinity and infinity makes of itself what it does.
For God to interact would be a violation and the pillars of the world's foundation would crumble upon itself.
And would God's first act not be as a newborn 's first cry?
Would God even know how to speak?
Is there any possible comprehension when one is everything at once. Does not everything cry out with one loud voice and create a noise that even a single thought it impossible?
We have created God in our own image but is this the real God or is this a God our our own design?
Have we overlooked the laws of balance that separates God from humans.
We attribute God to things but God is not one thing but everything.
To define God is to destroy the very nature of God.
To limit God to a trinity or a pantheon of titans when God is no less within the smallest to the largest of ideals.
Only neutrality can maintain morality.
There are some things that God cannot be. God is almighty and God is personal? How can both exist in the same being? How can one be totally within the room and totally outside of room at the same time?
How can something with such infinite power be tender and knowing of our lowly state?
Does God shift into things or do we place God into things.
God is either within everything or not.
If God is truly within everything then God is equally within evil as God is within that which is good.
God simply shifts into our own consequences and we make our own choices.
Our own desire for virtue we can attribute to God but can God violate neutrality? Is God capable of anything but neutrality?
Can God be judged for this neutrality? It is impossible for God to break a natural law. One single infraction and the world would cease to exist.
Can God be impartial?
Can God be judged for sexism, for racism, for religious tyranny?
Can God make mistakes? Can God be fooled or persuaded to act unwisely?
Does God think and write books?
God is the seed and that seeds grows depending on how it is nurtured and cared for. Each universe grows on its own as a result of pure neutrality.
Circumstancialism can only exist in within pure neutrality.
Free will is circumstancialism.
My brain is tired, I feel like I got lost in this, but perhaps I just reached some infinite place that defies all logic and explanation.
"To define God is to destroy the very nature of God."
If you can accept that, that is faith. Or as Alan Watts said, "When you get the message hang up the phone."
This is the crux of the matter, to see that spirituality is subjective, that the mind thinks in opposites and these opposites are interdependent. That the resolution of these opposites or the whole (holy) cannot be thought, only experienced, or as the Buddhists say, "the difference is the identity".
Joseph Campbell quoted his friend Heinrich Zimmer who said, "The best things can't be talked about. The second best things refer to those first things and are always misunderstood."
These second best things are religions, of course, and they are always misunderstood. They are metaphors and people take them as facts, to believe or deny. Therefore, the believers and atheists are always mistaken, and they completely miss the point.
The only way to know sometime is to define it but when we define something as everything and nothing then we are no closer to knowing anything about that which we seek to define.
The only way to know sometime is to define it but when we define something as everything and nothing then we are no closer to knowing anything about that which we seek to define.
Things can be known without defining them in contrast to something else. E.g. there is energy everywhere in various forms and states of change, and there is nothing that isn't a product of energy, but yet we can still understand energy in terms of its effects and manifestations without having to define it relative to something that it's not.
Yes, we can see the parts but not the whole. Or as Alan Watts said, the eyes cannot see themselves. There are various tricks, I know, but none of them solve the Zen koan.
And I think there's a powerful taboo again seeing this. Which of course brings us back to Alan Watts again who wrote a book called, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.
Yes, we can see the parts but not the whole. Or as Alan Watts said, the eyes cannot see themselves. There are various tricks, I know, but none of them solve the Zen koan.
And I think there's a powerful taboo again seeing this. Which of course brings us back to Alan Watts again who wrote a book called, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.
The eyes see themselves in the mirror . . . or was that a metaphor? If so, a metaphor for what? You may be assuming the existence of something that isn't really there. If you are sure of this thing's existence without being able to see it, then you must already know it on some level without fully seeing/understanding it. So what exactly is it you are unclear on? Or is it that you want something to remain mysterious to give you room to assert how powerless knowledge is, e.g. because you dislike the power of knowledge and prefer darkness?
I'm not talking about some mysterious objective reality, but just a subjective peace of mind that can't be rationalized. I suppose it's ridiculous to even talk about it, but here I am. The Crux of the matter is in Heinrich Zimmer's words, which I quoted earlier.
I'm not talking about some mysterious objective reality, but just a subjective peace of mind that can't be rationalized. I suppose it's ridiculous to even talk about it, but here I am. The Crux of the matter is in Heinrich Zimmer's words, which I quoted earlier.
Subjective peace of mind is something different from "the eyes seeing themselves," at least if you take it literally, which I did because I didn't know what kind of metaphorical meaning you might be implying with the phrase.
Subjective peace of mind can be temporary, like when a caffeine addict finally gets that much-awaited shot of espresso; or it can be more permanent, which comes with realizing that every spiritual experience sought outside the mind is already latent within the mind if you can connect with it without resorting to external stimuli.
The living body, on the other hand, is the vehicle for the soul and it requires certain things to sustain it, such as food, hygiene, and protection from the elements. If you don't get lured into artificial forms of comfort and pleasure that alienate you from your body's innate capacity to adapt to most conditions, you will be happy and joyous with almost nothing and the innate peace of mind that is latent within the spirit will blossom and grow.
0 Replies
TheCobbler
0
Reply
Tue 4 Sep, 2018 03:59 pm
A little video I made a while back
Please subscribe to my channel click the bell next to the subscribe button if you would like updates.
Are you referring to the biblical Eden or the book by Steinbeck?
0 Replies
coluber2001
1
Reply
Fri 21 Sep, 2018 05:41 pm
@TheCobbler,
Quote:
Religion is the very definition of mystery.
That's about as accurate and concise as you can get. Unless you're a Zen Buddhist, then even that is wordy. In fact, even calling yourself a Zen Buddhist is superfluous and egoistic.
There is the famous anecdote about two Zen Buddhist monks. One wore his shoes on his head, and the other assented his recognition of the resolution of opposites, or as the Buddhists would say, "The difference is the identity."
The best way to define the Mystery and religion is to shut up.
0 Replies
TheCobbler
1
Reply
Mon 17 Feb, 2020 04:49 pm
0 Replies
Setanta
0
Reply
Mon 17 Feb, 2020 06:23 pm
Ecuador is not in Mesoamerica, not even close. It's on the Pacific coast of South America. They did monumental architecture, but there is no historical or archaeological evidence that they did "graven images." Once again, RR/Cobbler is making sh*t up as he goes along.
I did an image search for this latest crapola from RR/Cobbler, and it took me to a site called "Ancient Code." This is from their about page:
Quote:
Ancient Code is a website founded in 2012 that covers articles and scientific discoveries that help understand humanity’s past, present, and future.
We analyze, question and debate the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis which suggests that in the distant past, visitors from elsewhere in the universe came to earth and helped kick-start our civilization.
However, in addition to exploring the ancient astronaut hypothesis, our website covers a wide range of subjects including human origins, archaeology, history, lost civilizations and history in general.
Our mission is to empower our readers and drive the development of a healthy online community by providing puzzling and thought-provoking articles that help our readers question everything.
Our writers and editors have appeared on a number of popular TV documentaries including Ancient Aliens by the History Channel, What on Earth by the Discovery Channel, and Gaia TV among others.
Our writers and editors have appeared on a number of popular TV documentaries including Ancient Aliens by the History Channel, What on Earth by the Discovery Channel, and Gaia TV among others.
Our writers and editors have appeared on a number of popular TV documentaries including Ancient Aliens by the History Channel, What on Earth by the Discovery Channel, and Gaia TV among others.
Our writers and editors have appeared on a number of popular TV documentaries including Ancient Aliens by the History Channel, What on Earth by the Discovery Channel, and Gaia TV among others.
Hey Rex . . . wanna buy a bridge?
0 Replies
TheCobbler
2
Reply
Thu 20 Feb, 2020 11:50 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Ecuador is not in Mesoamerica, not even close.
Maybe you should learn how to read Set? Nowhere on those memes does the word Mesoamerica appear...
Who is making **** up? If you are trying to unload your "Trojan Horse" bridge... No thanks, my bridges are friendly to all cultures.
A simple Wikipedia/Google search reveals you are simply, incorrect.
It seems that there IS both historical and archaeological evidence that they did "graven images."...
Honestly, I do not see anything that as closely resembles the art of ancient Egypt from these cultures but the system of religion is nearly exactly the same.
So even though the art is expressed in slightly different ways the religion is still the same polytheism.
And it is an oddity that Egyptians were also builders of "monumental architecture" as was common in all of these religions that were clearly styled after the most ancient ones as was Mesopotamia.
It is apparent that polytheism is tens of thousands of years old.
Comment:
Considering nearly all cultures of the earth have polytheism roots it stands to reason that they all share the same polytheistic prehistory stretching back tens of thousands of years.
And as for monotheism, even monotheism is not a modern idea...
It is preposterous to suggest that over tens of thousands of years of polytheism's history that monotheism was not even once considered...
"There is nothing new under the sun."
And God made man in his own image.
That in itself is a seed of a patriarchal form of polytheism... (Conferring godly characteristics to the human form.)
Stating a theory of what some people believe is not lying.
They believe what they believe and though these beliefs may be far fetched or not, it is a fact not a lie.
Why you can't figure that out on your own is a quandary in itself.
With inhabitants in the Americas for nearly tens of thousand of years it is hardly inconceivable that some may have ventured out of the Americas to other continents...
Example: The distance from Polynesia to Easter Island is 2,585 miles.
Excerpt:
The results, Stinnesbeck said, suggest “high mobility” on the part of the prehistoric individuals due to long-distance travel between their settlements and the caves at Tulúm.
Comment:
The arrogance of some who think they know it all based upon old and outdated "theories"...
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Thu 27 Feb, 2020 10:24 pm
It is lying when you repeatedly speak of religion coming from Meso-America, and then deny that you said anything about Meso-America. While it is true that the people Ecuador made items which were graven images, they did not do graven images on their monumental architecture. Your standards of evidence are very poor indeed.
/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/2e/ac/2eac9706-6b71-4b08-b9da-306f09ea9e61/200128060027-barbie-new-inclusive-line.jpg)
