How did the Universe get here?

[emilynghiem]

Finally! So you'll stop calling it jesus/god? Yes, how do we get back on the right track? We are so off base right now it's pathetic. Parents not staying together to raise the child in a 2 parent home. Our masses are living below poverty. Our government is corrupt. We are destroying this planet with pollution. Kids being bullies in school is a big problem.

Seems we need to do a better job at raising our kids. They're growing up to be ignorant assholes. We also need to respect the poor and middle class more than we do. When jobs are plentiful crime goes down. When jobs are scarce crime goes up. It seems like our government and the corporations sent our jobs overseas because we cost them too much.

I could go on and on, but if you fixed all these things, we'd have a much better society. Going to church is completely unnecessary in teaching love, understanding, empathy, kindness, etc. You don't have to lie or scare me into being a good person.

Hi [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] I agree not to "require" you or others to use those terms when talking to others like you who don't. For those who need to hear it in those terms to stay on the same page, then if they require that, I am okay translating back and forth for others who need that.

If you do not, I agree we can drop it.

For some of the intimate points to grasp and digest, people may revert back to their "native language." (When discussing finer intellectual concepts with my Spanish speaking friends, the English can only go so far, and then my friends have to translate for each other to get the same concepts on that deeper level. I guess it's a mutual inconvenience, but we put up with it and understand that people will think in their native language and perception.)

I agree this should NOT be required of you or others who don't think like that, or find it annoying. If we can establish a common understand what we mean anyway, then we won't need to rely on such terms as much. I look forward to that also, but one step at a time.
First we build the relationships on common framework, and the rest will follow.

I will be just as glad as anyone else here not to have to jump through 10 million hoops for each person who needs to hear it and say it in this way or avoid that way, etc. etc.

P.S. as for solving all the world's problems, once we no longer have such division between religious and secular groups, churches or businesses, or political affiliations
YES we can get a lot more done faster. By focusing on common goals, we can find ways to "bypass" all the conditions we put on relations to divide us in bureaucracy.
So even the barriers we overcome here are part of that larger process we can implement in real world relations and society.
it takes the same process of agreeing to let go conditions, and quit all this rejection and division tying things up in conflict. Totally agreed all this will change!

 

[emilynghiem]

You may be surprised to find that there is no single, agreed upon definition of the mind. The psychiatric, mental health and medical professions each have their own functional definitions.

It is a common belief that the mind is the activity of the brain. One point is the physical brain and nervous system which are the mechanisms by which energy and information flow throughout our beings.

Our senses take in information from the environment. These become electrical signals which travel through the nervous system to the brain which, then, gives them meaning and responds by releasing neurochemicals and dispatching electrical signals which, in turn, regulate the body, control movement and influence emotions.

A second point on the Triangle of Well-Being is relationships which are the means by which information and energy are shared. An integral part of the mind is comprised of the relational process of energy and information flowing between and among people. This happens through the spoken or written word. In person, this also happens through eye contact, facial expression, body language, posture and gesture.

The more I learn the more I realize you are wrong.

dear [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] so instead of calling this "jesus connecting us with god,"
what you describe above sounds like the same
"overlapping or intertwined" levels of the "trinity"
spelled out for an individual instead of symbolized collectively as god/christ/holyspirit

from level of physical reality of the INDIVIDUAL
to the relationships with others,
what do you call the collective level in the progression?
the "relationship" between the individual and "collective society or humanity?"
the "relationship" between each individual perception of truth
and the "collective body of truth combining all knowledge out there"?

i am happy to substitute that instead of representation by symbolic terms in the trinity.

do you understand that since everyone may talk about these
levels of mind/body/spirit
or individual/relationship/collective
or physical/mental/abstract or higher energy

maybe THAT is why religions "get off" using a collective symbol
instead of trying to spell it all out. So the collective symbol can encompass
your way, my way, Boss's way, GISMYS way of dealing with truth
and life experiences on all three levels, no matter what we call it.

So if we can agree we are talking about the same things,
then the symbolism is no longer required. Let people who talk that way
using those symbols use it between them, and people like you and me
and Boss trying to spell out these levels, let us use that language.
There are just as many people who don't care to hear it this way either!
whichever way works!

 

[Boss]

Where would you like to start with the proof process that all our points can be reconciled without changing our systems?

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

Gotta when Boss messes up and inadvertently reveals his true agenda! He makes a mockery of all of his previous posts.



And no, I am not at what Emily is trying to do and neither a I mocking your beliefs. I am at your pretentious BS posts where you try to use "science" and "spiritualism" and all the other illogical drivel that never seems to stop!

I have NO idea where you get the notion that I have "messed up and revealed my true agenda" by claiming that you are on a mission to destroy Christ and God. I am only pointing out what is obvious to me from your posts. It doesn't have a thing to do with my personal beliefs.

Science and spiritualism are hardly "illogical drivel" and the same can be said for archeology and history. I have supported my viewpoints clearly with evidence from science, archeology and history. You've not refuted my arguments with anything other than an opinion. Most of it is baseless speculation. This is why you are spending so much time and going to so much effort to attack me personally here. You really got nothing else!

Emily is trying (in vain, I believe) to bring us all together in universal understanding for the greater good. I appreciate her efforts and applaud her courage, but I believe it is a futile project. It will not work because your goal and objective is to destroy Christ and God. That is really ALL you care about here. You'll say or do whatever it takes, including outright lying through your teeth if you must. The objective will not change.

 

[Boss]

We already have a name for that it's called your conscience and we know where it comes from. It comes from your brain.

No, it doesn't come from your brain. If this were true, all human conscience would be the same. I love how this brain thing we have is being used to explain away every bit of evidence we have spirit, thoughts, dreams, consciousness. The brain is an organ, made up of gray matter, blood vessels, tissue, etc. It's not some magical mystery box where all ideas and thoughts reside until conjured up. Your conscience comes from your mind, not your brain. Your mind is a collection of information compiled over your lifetime, your education, wisdom, experiences, what has worked for you and what has failed. Yes, your organ known as the brain is used to assimilate these elements of mind into animation or projection by your physical being, as well as introspective and contemplative concepts which remain in your mind.

When you're a smart ass saying "we already have a name for that" it sounds as if you are trying to argue that spirituality is somehow on the outside looking in... hoping for the chance to prove itself by finding a word to define it! Nope, sorry spirituality, we already have a word for that! Well guess what, asswipe? You wouldn't have any words for anything if it weren't for spirituality giving humans the inspiration to create language. You would have grunting noises like the other upper primates.

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

The concept of "wrong" is a learned behavior. Animals in the wild do not have a conscious understanding of "wrong" unless it is instinctively taught by their peers, and the same is true for humans as well. A conscience is not an emotion, GUILT is an emotion that we feel when we've done something perceived to be wrong. Humans have the added bonus of moral conscience, which is directly related to spiritual connection. Through moral conscience we establish various "wrongs" and "rights" and call them ethics or ethos.

Now, our moral conscience doesn't require a person be spiritually connected. It is a learned behavior. This is why Atheists can "feel bad" when they do "wrong" things.

You may be surprised to find that there is no single, agreed upon definition of the mind. The psychiatric, mental health and medical professions each have their own functional definitions.

It is a common belief that the mind is the activity of the brain. One point is the physical brain and nervous system which are the mechanisms by which energy and information flow throughout our beings.

Our senses take in information from the environment. These become electrical signals which travel through the nervous system to the brain which, then, gives them meaning and responds by releasing neurochemicals and dispatching electrical signals which, in turn, regulate the body, control movement and influence emotions.

A second point on the Triangle of Well-Being is relationships which are the means by which information and energy are shared. An integral part of the mind is comprised of the relational process of energy and information flowing between and among people. This happens through the spoken or written word. In person, this also happens through eye contact, facial expression, body language, posture and gesture.

The more I learn the more I realize you are wrong.

So now there is conflicting opinions on the mind and it isn't just coming from your brain. That's a complete walk back from what you stated earlier.

"...it's called your conscience and we know where it comes from. It comes from your brain."

The more I learn the more I realize you are wrong.

And what do you think I've said that is wrong? I pointed out that our mind is not physical, our thoughts and dreams are not physical. You asserted they are physical they come from our brains. Well, we can cut my brain and your brain open and we'll find exactly the same makeup. So how can our thoughts and beliefs be so profoundly different?

Our minds are a spiritual component of who we are as people. I know you don't like to think of it that way because you've defined "spiritual" to mean the same as "made up fantasy and bullshit" and virtually nothing will ever change your opinion. All I can say is you're wrong, that's why you cannot give me the chemical/material composition of a human mind. Explaining how the brain reacts to the mind and what the mind tells the brain to do, is not evidence the brain controls our mind. Showing me brain waves on a monitor doesn't prove the brain is creating thoughts, it is only the brain processing information from the spiritual mind.

 

[BreezeWood]

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

Gotta when Boss messes up and inadvertently reveals his true agenda! He makes a mockery of all of his previous posts.



And no, I am not at what Emily is trying to do and neither a I mocking your beliefs. I am at your pretentious BS posts where you try to use "science" and "spiritualism" and all the other illogical drivel that never seems to stop!

I have NO idea where you get the notion that I have "messed up and revealed my true agenda" by claiming that you are on a mission to destroy Christ and God. I am only pointing out what is obvious to me from your posts. It doesn't have a thing to do with my personal beliefs.

Science and spiritualism are hardly "illogical drivel" and the same can be said for archeology and history. I have supported my viewpoints clearly with evidence from science, archeology and history. You've not refuted my arguments with anything other than an opinion. Most of it is baseless speculation. This is why you are spending so much time and going to so much effort to attack me personally here. You really got nothing else!

Emily is trying (in vain, I believe) to bring us all together in universal understanding for the greater good. I appreciate her efforts and applaud her courage, but I believe it is a futile project. It will not work because your goal and objective is to destroy Christ and God. That is really ALL you care about here. You'll say or do whatever it takes, including outright lying through your teeth if you must. The objective will not change.

the truth is emilynghiem is not willing to recognize (biblical) scripturalism by its own devices of intolerance has long since lost any Standings it may have had in postulating humanities destiny.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your grasp of human psychology is marginal and your grasp of animal psychology is non-existent. That you constantly make the feeble attempt to equate a "moral conscience" to a "spiritual connection" is just your religious hocus pocus snake oil. There are spiritual atheists and nonspiritual atheists and both have moral consciences. Your religion doesn't have an exclusive on what constitutes a "moral conscience" especially given the atrocities that have been committed in the name of your religion and your God by those who you claim have a "moral conscience, which is directly related to spiritual connection".

Hi [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] and [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
What about proving "what is the distinct factor" that opens up the human conscience to connect more universally or not with others?

Could we prove that "Forgiveness" and "Inclusion" correlates with more open connection and ability to reconcile with other diverse beliefs or groups.

And that "Unforgiveness" or "fear" BLOCKS the conscience and inhibits or limits connection?

What do you think of that, instead of just judging people "by labels"
who does and does not have a universal connection or varying degrees?

 

[emilynghiem]

the truth is emilynghiem is not willing to recognize (biblical) scripturalism by its own devices of intolerance has long since lost any Standings it may have had in postulating humanities destiny.

Hi [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]
Yes and no.
For those who it doesn't help or serve, of course it yields no purpose.

For those who use it to address each other and correct flaws and increase
undertanding, that's fine, if they can use it then it has relevance.

Doesn't it depend on how it is used, BW?

And can't the same "intolerance" apply to ANY system also, such as how some people do not feel the Constitution fits them anymore, and others still use to express standard
principles of laws that remain true and applicable?

Doesn't it depend on the people and the situation, what they need and what doesn't work?

Thanks, Breeze! whatever works for you may be completely irrelevant to someone else.
But that doesn't mean your ways are voided, just because other people don't need them.

 

[emilynghiem]

1.

I have NO idea where you get the notion that I have "messed up and revealed my true agenda" by claiming that you are on a mission to destroy Christ and God. I am only pointing out what is obvious to me from your posts. It doesn't have a thing to do with my personal beliefs.

1. [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] if you personally believe that about those people, that is your personal belief.

I believe otherwise, that any such problem as you perceive, can be resolved in the process.
I don't see these people as you do, and neither do they.
They don't see you as you and I do, either. So it is equal; both sides understand their own intent, but don't see the other's intent, causing mutual objection.

So how is this NOT about people's personal beliefs?
Clearly we are projecting since we do not all see the same things.
How can it be "just their beliefs about you" and not "your beliefs about them."

Emily is trying (in vain, I believe) to bring us all together in universal understanding for the greater good. I appreciate her efforts and applaud her courage, but I believe it is a futile project. It will not work because your goal and objective is to destroy Christ and God. That is really ALL you care about here. You'll say or do whatever it takes, including outright lying through your teeth if you must. The objective will not change.

1. I think you recognize it is your perception/belief this is futile.
2. Why can't you also recognize it is your perception
"they only care about destroying Christ and God"

Especially if you can see they need to "change their perception of you which isn't accurate"
why can't you see that it is mutual and you "change your perception of them" also.

Sorry you both got such impressions of each other you both disagree with equally.
I think if those got cancelled out, whatever is left are people perfectly able and willing to sort out and resolve the necessary points, and let the other issues rest or fix them later!

 

[emilynghiem]

The irony here is that while Boss is pointing his fat finger at everyone else in "moral outrage" the rest of his fingers are pointing right back at him.

He is only correct that your attempts are fruitless but not for the reasons he alleged.
2. He is the problem because he lacks the fundamental honesty and integrity necessary to embark on this endeavor. And yes, that has been established in multiple threads already.

1. I am more than willing to reach a consensus with sane rational honest people.

2. But there is no point in wasting our time with anyone who isn't even honest about his own agenda and beliefs to begin with.

Hi [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] and [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

Can we agree that both of you are coming into this trying to be open to #1.
But we are all going to run into people "who have the effect to us of #2" and just blocking things. Do we agree this is universal?

Derideo was the first person on this board I met who confirmed to me the understanding of how consensus can be formed, and the neutrality it would take.
So I understood that even my openness to including/accommodate the given terms for "Christian God/Jesus" is going to be seen as nonneutral, and need more help to balance the process. I accepted that some people will always have a built in bias either FOR or AGAINST this language, and that is the reality we are facing. No one is going to be perfectly universal and nonbiased, and we are going to have limits and impose on others. Someone is not going to fully trust me, and will argue I am imposing a bias as much as I try not to.
That is why the trust and forgiveness is such a necessary part of the process
or we would never get through it. People are gong to bring in their personal biases
and languages, the LIMITS of what they can forgive or what they will reject in others.

Can we try to work out this process ANYWAY, given that people come in thinking I AM sticking to what is true as needed to form a consensus that include that; and thinking other people who won't let go of their biases then point the finger at me for mine are the problem.

yes and yes, we are all going to go through that, because we are all human and have our own experiences, which allow us to see the biases in others, as they can see in our views.

And yes we are going to close our minds to some things, and project as part of the process.

Can we accept the fact the process is only going to be as perfect as the people in it,
so yes we are going into it KNOWING we have these limitations.

What I'd like to suggest is just NOTATING where someone has a limit, and keeping track of the patterns so it STILL SHOWS how reconciliation works and where it gets blocked:
Example:
1a. where Boss and I can "forgive" some issue over "is something spiritual or physical or both and can it be measured," we can still work together and stick to common points
1b. if Boss "cannot forgive" Montrovant for not resolving this, then those two will not be able to work through that block to align the points or concepts they could focus on

2a. if Derideo can forgive me for using Christian language and translating back and forth, then we can still work directly or indirectly together
2b. if sealybobo and I cannot forgive problems with when to use Jesus/God and when not to, then this inhibits/distracts/limits our ability to work through some applications

So there is no "right/wrong" way to do this.
We just admit as Boss or DT has when we cannot believe or see something as useful,
but believe that is a dead end. Or as sealybobo saying absolutely no references to jesus/god, will not go there, sorry.

We can still track which things we were able to deal with
and which were limits we could not get past, and show how that "correlates" with results.

Like in baseball, We can still use both the hits and the strike-outs to track and show patterns.

if you are both okay letting even those "blocks or conflicts" be part of the process,
I think this helps demonstrate which differences are necessary to resolve first
and which will either take care of themselves as we go, or end up not mattering so much.

Thank you! I trust BOTH of you to have equal contributions and equal misgivings/limits or shortcoming, as I find all people to be equal. I will have my areas of plus and minus also.
So the point is to help each other identify those, even if they do not change. Just agree to work with whatever is given, to show how we are individually, flaws or biases and all, is part of the natural process.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

Gotta when Boss messes up and inadvertently reveals his true agenda! He makes a mockery of all of his previous posts.



And no, I am not at what Emily is trying to do and neither a I mocking your beliefs. I am at your pretentious BS posts where you try to use "science" and "spiritualism" and all the other illogical drivel that never seems to stop!

I have NO idea where you get the notion that I have "messed up and revealed my true agenda" by claiming that you are on a mission to destroy Christ and God. I am only pointing out what is obvious to me from your posts. It doesn't have a thing to do with my personal beliefs.

Science and spiritualism are hardly "illogical drivel" and the same can be said for archeology and history. I have supported my viewpoints clearly with evidence from science, archeology and history. You've not refuted my arguments with anything other than an opinion. Most of it is baseless speculation. This is why you are spending so much time and going to so much effort to attack me personally here. You really got nothing else!

Emily is trying (in vain, I believe) to bring us all together in universal understanding for the greater good. I appreciate her efforts and applaud her courage, but I believe it is a futile project. It will not work because your goal and objective is to destroy Christ and God. That is really ALL you care about here. You'll say or do whatever it takes, including outright lying through your teeth if you must. The objective will not change.

Thank you for proving me right about you denying your own agenda and being a blatant dishonest liar.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The irony here is that while Boss is pointing his fat finger at everyone else in "moral outrage" the rest of his fingers are pointing right back at him.

He is only correct that your attempts are fruitless but not for the reasons he alleged.
2. He is the problem because he lacks the fundamental honesty and integrity necessary to embark on this endeavor. And yes, that has been established in multiple threads already.

1. I am more than willing to reach a consensus with sane rational honest people.

2. But there is no point in wasting our time with anyone who isn't even honest about his own agenda and beliefs to begin with.

Hi [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] and [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

Can we agree that both of you are coming into this trying to be open to #1.
But we are all going to run into people "who have the effect to us of #2" and just blocking things. Do we agree this is universal?

Derideo was the first person on this board I met who confirmed to me the understanding of how consensus can be formed, and the neutrality it would take.
So I understood that even my openness to including/accommodate the given terms for "Christian God/Jesus" is going to be seen as nonneutral, and need more help to balance the process. I accepted that some people will always have a built in bias either FOR or AGAINST this language, and that is the reality we are facing. No one is going to be perfectly universal and nonbiased, and we are going to have limits and impose on others. Someone is not going to fully trust me, and will argue I am imposing a bias as much as I try not to.
That is why the trust and forgiveness is such a necessary part of the process
or we would never get through it. People are gong to bring in their personal biases
and languages, the LIMITS of what they can forgive or what they will reject in others.

Can we try to work out this process ANYWAY, given that people come in thinking I AM sticking to what is true as needed to form a consensus that include that; and thinking other people who won't let go of their biases then point the finger at me for mine are the problem.

yes and yes, we are all going to go through that, because we are all human and have our own experiences, which allow us to see the biases in others, as they can see in our views.

And yes we are going to close our minds to some things, and project as part of the process.

Can we accept the fact the process is only going to be as perfect as the people in it,
so yes we are going into it KNOWING we have these limitations.

What I'd like to suggest is just NOTATING where someone has a limit, and keeping track of the patterns so it STILL SHOWS how reconciliation works and where it gets blocked:
Example:
1a. where Boss and I can "forgive" some issue over "is something spiritual or physical or both and can it be measured," we can still work together and stick to common points
1b. if Boss "cannot forgive" Montrovant for not resolving this, then those two will not be able to work through that block to align the points or concepts they could focus on

2a. if Derideo can forgive me for using Christian language and translating back and forth, then we can still work directly or indirectly together
2b. if sealybobo and I cannot forgive problems with when to use Jesus/God and when not to, then this inhibits/distracts/limits our ability to work through some applications

So there is no "right/wrong" way to do this.
We just admit as Boss or DT has when we cannot believe or see something as useful,
but believe that is a dead end. Or as sealybobo saying absolutely no references to jesus/god, will not go there, sorry.

We can still track which things we were able to deal with
and which were limits we could not get past, and show how that "correlates" with results.

Like in baseball, We can still use both the hits and the strike-outs to track and show patterns.

if you are both okay letting even those "blocks or conflicts" be part of the process,
I think this helps demonstrate which differences are necessary to resolve first
and which will either take care of themselves as we go, or end up not mattering so much.

Thank you! I trust BOTH of you to have equal contributions and equal misgivings/limits or shortcoming, as I find all people to be equal. I will have my areas of plus and minus also.
So the point is to help each other identify those, even if they do not change. Just agree to work with whatever is given, to show how we are individually, flaws or biases and all, is part of the natural process.

Emily,

I am game to give this a try.

DT

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily,

I am game to give this a try.

DT

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Great! Now you and sealybobo made it clear to me there are limits, or no tolerance at all for the jesus/god language with some people.

How do you suggest we deal with such conflicts as with you and Boss, both distrusting each other's intent or integrity etc. in coming into the process.

Do we just acknowledge you both have opposing perceptions of each other,
and admit that is a limit you share? And leave it at that?

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] I noticed sealybobo was honest about having issues with the jesus/god thing.

Can we just let sealybobo "represent" that group by those who AGREE they have that goal, and NOT worry about people who don't agree to be considered part of that group that either rejects or wants to get rid of the jesus/god religious approach.

Derideo: To be fair, Boss WAS trying to be open in making these statements. Even if not succeeding. And did not mean to "change words" around trying to explain things. It's ok to say you do not think this person has their act together upstairs in perfect order, but I don't think "liar" is fair. If someone is "lying" to themselves it is not intentional.

Can you and Boss agree to terms to describe where you disagree where you can both live with it? Boss does not see it as lacking integrity or lying, just because there is inconsistency going on in failure with words. You do not describe your intent as trying to attack Christians, but sealybobo seems perfectly open and honest about wanting to get rid of that language and the negative thing associated. Can we agree to sort in groups, and if those people ARE present in the process, including GISMYS and his level or approach, then we agree to let them participate in their way, being HONEST where they agree or disagree.

I have no problem with someone saying: sorry no go, but can we agree what to call it instead of blaming "the other person" for X Y Z because of conflicting perceptions.

Boss how would you describe in words your differences without blaming either you or DT for seeing each other differently? just stating it objectively where you differ?

If we can form teams around these groupings, and then pick issues we want to address, we can use our differences to represent the general population running into these same walls or limits, and how to manage the difference approaches despite conflicting views.

 

[sealybobo]

No, it doesn't come from your brain. If this were true, all human conscience would be the same. I love how this brain thing we have is being used to explain away every bit of evidence we have spirit, thoughts, dreams, consciousness. The brain is an organ, made up of gray matter, blood vessels, tissue, etc. It's not some magical mystery box where all ideas and thoughts reside until conjured up. Your conscience comes from your mind, not your brain. Your mind is a collection of information compiled over your lifetime, your education, wisdom, experiences, what has worked for you and what has failed. Yes, your organ known as the brain is used to assimilate these elements of mind into animation or projection by your physical being, as well as introspective and contemplative concepts which remain in your mind.

When you're a smart ass saying "we already have a name for that" it sounds as if you are trying to argue that spirituality is somehow on the outside looking in... hoping for the chance to prove itself by finding a word to define it! Nope, sorry spirituality, we already have a word for that! Well guess what, asswipe? You wouldn't have any words for anything if it weren't for spirituality giving humans the inspiration to create language. You would have grunting noises like the other upper primates.



The concept of "wrong" is a learned behavior. Animals in the wild do not have a conscious understanding of "wrong" unless it is instinctively taught by their peers, and the same is true for humans as well. A conscience is not an emotion, GUILT is an emotion that we feel when we've done something perceived to be wrong. Humans have the added bonus of moral conscience, which is directly related to spiritual connection. Through moral conscience we establish various "wrongs" and "rights" and call them ethics or ethos.

Now, our moral conscience doesn't require a person be spiritually connected. It is a learned behavior. This is why Atheists can "feel bad" when they do "wrong" things.

You may be surprised to find that there is no single, agreed upon definition of the mind. The psychiatric, mental health and medical professions each have their own functional definitions.

It is a common belief that the mind is the activity of the brain. One point is the physical brain and nervous system which are the mechanisms by which energy and information flow throughout our beings.

Our senses take in information from the environment. These become electrical signals which travel through the nervous system to the brain which, then, gives them meaning and responds by releasing neurochemicals and dispatching electrical signals which, in turn, regulate the body, control movement and influence emotions.

A second point on the Triangle of Well-Being is relationships which are the means by which information and energy are shared. An integral part of the mind is comprised of the relational process of energy and information flowing between and among people. This happens through the spoken or written word. In person, this also happens through eye contact, facial expression, body language, posture and gesture.

The more I learn the more I realize you are wrong.

So now there is conflicting opinions on the mind and it isn't just coming from your brain. That's a complete walk back from what you stated earlier.

"...it's called your conscience and we know where it comes from. It comes from your brain."

The more I learn the more I realize you are wrong.

And what do you think I've said that is wrong? I pointed out that our mind is not physical, our thoughts and dreams are not physical. You asserted they are physical they come from our brains. Well, we can cut my brain and your brain open and we'll find exactly the same makeup. So how can our thoughts and beliefs be so profoundly different?

Our minds are a spiritual component of who we are as people. I know you don't like to think of it that way because you've defined "spiritual" to mean the same as "made up fantasy and bullshit" and virtually nothing will ever change your opinion. All I can say is you're wrong, that's why you cannot give me the chemical/material composition of a human mind. Explaining how the brain reacts to the mind and what the mind tells the brain to do, is not evidence the brain controls our mind. Showing me brain waves on a monitor doesn't prove the brain is creating thoughts, it is only the brain processing information from the spiritual mind.

A dog thinks "boy I'd like to eat that bone". That thought the dog just had isn't physical either. Right? So is that non physical part of the dogs mind prove a god exists?

 

[emilynghiem]

A dog thinks "boy I'd like to eat that bone". That thought the dog just had isn't physical either. Right? So is that non physical part of the dogs mind prove a god exists?

Hi [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] I was going to post this link for Boss, on the post about animals
having some emotions and connections similar to people:

Raju The Elephant Cries After Being Rescued Following 50 Years Of Abuse, Chains

but since Boss is having a bad day, being accused of lying and all manner of ill repute,
I will back off and post it here on your reply instead.

I WILL say yes, there are people who report feeling the "emotions and spirit" of trees and animals. So they consider this part of the "collective life energy and consciousness" joining all life in an interconnected web. You can call that some level of God, if you want.

With the above link, to the elephant weeping visible tears upon being rescued, it is up to the people to interpret the feelings/reactions in the elephant. They could be guessing for all we know. They "felt" he "understood" they were there to help him. Who knows if his tears were just pain from stress or removing his shackles.

All this can be interpreted as total physical reactions, chemical changes in the stress level and in the brain. It does not have to be anything spiritual just because some people see it that way.

and we can still agree it is more natural for the elephant to be removed from bondage
and returned to some natural habitat environment. We don't have to believe the elephant was crying and understood being rescued. That's faith based and not necessary.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A dog thinks "boy I'd like to eat that bone". That thought the dog just had isn't physical either. Right? So is that non physical part of the dogs mind prove a god exists?

Hi [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] I was going to post this link for Boss, on the post about animals
having some emotions and connections similar to people:

Raju The Elephant Cries After Being Rescued Following 50 Years Of Abuse, Chains

but since Boss is having a bad day, being accused of lying and all manner of ill repute,
I will back off and post it here on your reply instead.

I WILL say yes, there are people who report feeling the "emotions and spirit" of trees and animals. So they consider this part of the "collective life energy and consciousness" joining all life in an interconnected web. You can call that some level of God, if you want.

With the above link, to the elephant weeping visible tears upon being rescued, it is up to the people to interpret the feelings/reactions in the elephant. They could be guessing for all we know. They "felt" he "understood" they were there to help him. Who knows if his tears were just pain from stress or removing his shackles.

All this can be interpreted as total physical reactions, chemical changes in the stress level and in the brain. It does not have to be anything spiritual just because some people see it that way.

and we can still agree it is more natural for the elephant to be removed from bondage
and returned to some natural habitat environment. We don't have to believe the elephant was crying and understood being rescued. That's faith based and not necessary.

Anyone who has ever had a pet bigger than a hamster knows that animals have emotions. I saw a guineapig freak out when it thought that it had lost it's dearly beloved partner. Pure emotional reaction that was completely natural under the circumstances and no different to that of a human either. Elephants most certainly have emotions and they recall lost loved ones years after they have died. There is a NOVA program where they are fondling the skull of one of their former herd mates. Obviously they are recalling her memory.

So as mammals animals share the same emotions that we do because they are very similar as far as DNA and other attributes go. There is also no question as to their intelligence. When it comes to spirituality we have measured the brain wave patterns of people who are experiencing strong spiritual "connections" and we have detected the exact same brain wave patterns in animals.

For the sake of supposition only, if these spiritual connections are to some imaginary deity then it is the absolute height of hubris on the part of those who claim that animals don't have "souls" to deny that they don't. Animals experience the same emotions, have the same ability to think and are capable of achieving spiritual trance states so the evidence makes them at least our equals in the eyes of this imaginary deity.

Equally so, since animals experience everything that we do, the claim that our "spiritual connections" makes us unique and some kind of "children of God" is farcical since it means that all living creatures fit that definition.

What all this tells me from a purely objective point of view is that we are just a species that evolved a survival mechanism that began with adapting to having to live on plains after the trees became scarce. Since apes are known to use tools we had our hands free because walking upright gave us an advantage to spot predators at a greater distance. Long pointy sticks and rocks gave us the ability to defend ourselves. Fire gave us an evolutionary advantage at night. The evolutionary adaption of language skills help us coordinate our hunting skills to be more effective. Our ability to mimic the sounds of other animals gave us another evolutionary advantage.

So I don't see anything special or anything that was divine intervention about us. We were forced to adapt or die. We adapted because that is how evolution works. We are changing our current environment for the worse and we will need to adapt again or die. No divine intervention will save us. We either do it ourselves or die out.

That is how the universe and our minute corner of it works.

 

[sealybobo]

Emily,

I am game to give this a try.

DT

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Great! Now you and sealybobo made it clear to me there are limits, or no tolerance at all for the jesus/god language with some people.

How do you suggest we deal with such conflicts as with you and Boss, both distrusting each other's intent or integrity etc. in coming into the process.

Do we just acknowledge you both have opposing perceptions of each other,
and admit that is a limit you share? And leave it at that?

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] I noticed sealybobo was honest about having issues with the jesus/god thing.

Can we just let sealybobo "represent" that group by those who AGREE they have that goal, and NOT worry about people who don't agree to be considered part of that group that either rejects or wants to get rid of the jesus/god religious approach.

Derideo: To be fair, Boss WAS trying to be open in making these statements. Even if not succeeding. And did not mean to "change words" around trying to explain things. It's ok to say you do not think this person has their act together upstairs in perfect order, but I don't think "liar" is fair. If someone is "lying" to themselves it is not intentional.

Can you and Boss agree to terms to describe where you disagree where you can both live with it? Boss does not see it as lacking integrity or lying, just because there is inconsistency going on in failure with words. You do not describe your intent as trying to attack Christians, but sealybobo seems perfectly open and honest about wanting to get rid of that language and the negative thing associated. Can we agree to sort in groups, and if those people ARE present in the process, including GISMYS and his level or approach, then we agree to let them participate in their way, being HONEST where they agree or disagree.

I have no problem with someone saying: sorry no go, but can we agree what to call it instead of blaming "the other person" for X Y Z because of conflicting perceptions.

Boss how would you describe in words your differences without blaming either you or DT for seeing each other differently? just stating it objectively where you differ?

If we can form teams around these groupings, and then pick issues we want to address, we can use our differences to represent the general population running into these same walls or limits, and how to manage the difference approaches despite conflicting views.

Here is where we differ. We don't believe that if you don't believe like we do, that you go to hell. The other side needs to stop doing that. Those people need to stop telling that lie about god. And funny the Muslims think that about all non muslims just like the christians think that about non christians. Stop this.

We don't believe a real god would care about gay sex. Unsafe unprotected sex with multiple partners is not smart no matter if you are straight or gay.

No one wants to get an abortion, but if a woman finds herself in a position where she doesn't want a kid, science, logic, common sense, mind your own business, freedom finances says sometimes abortion is a necessary evil. And if you don't believe in a god, then killing a seed in the womb while sad to the woman doing it is no more a shame when you squash a mosquito or kill a deer for food. It's life babe. Some live so others can die. Really if you take religion out of the equation there is no argument against abortion. I wouldn't want to raise a retarded person. I know retarded people and I'm sure they love them but being a Spartan we would just kill the baby. You wouldn't? Great, but I say you shouldn't force someone to raise a retard so I'm for late term abortions. I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

Stop acting the victim whenever someone tells you they don't believe in god. Don't suggest it's because we are angry or want to sin. That's a non starter.

I was thinking the other day about this religious lady who I think likes me. Would she if she knew I didn't believe in god? My one atheist friend said he would never marry anyone dumb enough to believe in a god. I thought only theists would refuse to marry atheists. I never considered an atheist might not want to marry a theist.

Take on your fundamentalists. The 3 in 10 who think the bible stories are real, let us see you stand up to them and tell them they are crazy. Stop being neutral on this.

 

[sealybobo]

A dog thinks "boy I'd like to eat that bone". That thought the dog just had isn't physical either. Right? So is that non physical part of the dogs mind prove a god exists?

Hi [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] I was going to post this link for Boss, on the post about animals
having some emotions and connections similar to people:

Raju The Elephant Cries After Being Rescued Following 50 Years Of Abuse, Chains

but since Boss is having a bad day, being accused of lying and all manner of ill repute,
I will back off and post it here on your reply instead.

I WILL say yes, there are people who report feeling the "emotions and spirit" of trees and animals. So they consider this part of the "collective life energy and consciousness" joining all life in an interconnected web. You can call that some level of God, if you want.

With the above link, to the elephant weeping visible tears upon being rescued, it is up to the people to interpret the feelings/reactions in the elephant. They could be guessing for all we know. They "felt" he "understood" they were there to help him. Who knows if his tears were just pain from stress or removing his shackles.

All this can be interpreted as total physical reactions, chemical changes in the stress level and in the brain. It does not have to be anything spiritual just because some people see it that way.

and we can still agree it is more natural for the elephant to be removed from bondage
and returned to some natural habitat environment. We don't have to believe the elephant was crying and understood being rescued. That's faith based and not necessary.

Anyone who has ever had a pet bigger than a hamster knows that animals have emotions. I saw a guineapig freak out when it thought that it had lost it's dearly beloved partner. Pure emotional reaction that was completely natural under the circumstances and no different to that of a human either. Elephants most certainly have emotions and they recall lost loved ones years after they have died. There is a NOVA program where they are fondling the skull of one of their former herd mates. Obviously they are recalling her memory.

So as mammals animals share the same emotions that we do because they are very similar as far as DNA and other attributes go. There is also no question as to their intelligence. When it comes to spirituality we have measured the brain wave patterns of people who are experiencing strong spiritual "connections" and we have detected the exact same brain wave patterns in animals.

For the sake of supposition only, if these spiritual connections are to some imaginary deity then it is the absolute height of hubris on the part of those who claim that animals don't have "souls" to deny that they don't. Animals experience the same emotions, have the same ability to think and are capable of achieving spiritual trance states so the evidence makes them at least our equals in the eyes of this imaginary deity.

Equally so, since animals experience everything that we do, the claim that our "spiritual connections" makes us unique and some kind of "children of God" is farcical since it means that all living creatures fit that definition.

What all this tells me from a purely objective point of view is that we are just a species that evolved a survival mechanism that began with adapting to having to live on plains after the trees became scarce. Since apes are known to use tools we had our hands free because walking upright gave us an advantage to spot predators at a greater distance. Long pointy sticks and rocks gave us the ability to defend ourselves. Fire gave us an evolutionary advantage at night. The evolutionary adaption of language skills help us coordinate our hunting skills to be more effective. Our ability to mimic the sounds of other animals gave us another evolutionary advantage.

So I don't see anything special or anything that was divine intervention about us. We were forced to adapt or die. We adapted because that is how evolution works. We are changing our current environment for the worse and we will need to adapt again or die. No divine intervention will save us. We either do it ourselves or die out.

That is how the universe and our minute corner of it works.

Fantastic.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So you know more then the scientists who say the universe had a beginning ? and ever since the big bang, everything was the result of a cause and it produced an effect.

Scientists don't say that the universe had a "beginning" meaning that it was "created". They just mean that the current form of the universe started with the big bang. Before that was the singularity and they have no way to measure what existed prior to that. However that don't say that there was nothing which is what you are falsely implying.

Did time begin with the big bang ?

Time is a measurement - time was created by man.

It measures the amount of disorder in the cosmos and here on earth.

Measurable time is available a split second after the big bang; before that, the laws of physics break down and time - as you and I know it - becomes irrelevant.

We would have to use a theoretical application known as "imaginary time."

A sort of time that runs at right-angles to "real time."

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Maybe the universe simply "exists" and was never created in the first place. I'm not really talking about time as explained by relativity, but a more dynamic model - one with multiple dimensions.

As far as the big-bang is concerned, that might have been a mere step in the process.

The multiple big bang theory makes sense for a universe that has always existed and will always exist.

One Big Bang, or were there many? | Science | The Guardian

It is only speculation and is not scientific .there is no evidence to support this view.

I notice that no one is saying the same thing about "God."


It is a valid hypothesis - like a lot of other things on the table.

That's how theories are begat.

 

[GISMYS]

THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS PROOF OF GOD,WHAT KIND OF FOOL NEEDS MORE PROOF????====================== God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.
21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn’t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
ROMANS 1:18-22===and you???