Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
The Lamb of God
- Thread starter lindsay
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 110
Amazing indeed. I skimmed through the article and will read it with detention later. A great find. I enjoy this kind of speculation.
Interesting site where the article is hosted, plus an interesting magazine that CEN Technical Journal...
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).
Interesting site where the article is hosted, plus an interesting magazine that CEN Technical Journal...
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 110
bradford said:
No, no, Brad, it was on the 7th day. The day he was supposed to rest he used it for playing pranks on us, glorified monkeys. Leisure takes many forms...
L
I hate to get involved in the whole evolution/creationism dust-up, but I'm pretty sure I remember that years ago the argument was made that God deliberately planted the fossil record on earth to test men's faith. Women's, too, I think. If you believed in a God like that, I guess you'd always be wondering what He was going to do next, and whether you could trust anything in the world. You would think: Is this another test? Or is this for real? The religion of anxiety.
J
jesed
Guest
Yet, there are another christian interpretations that read the six days metaphorically; then there is no "problem" with evolution facts. Even the idea of creation not in one single act, but in evolutionary process is implied in the Genesis in this metaphoric christian interpretations. The interesting question is: why we called "christian" only one side of the coin and not the other?
It is also funny that we can support a metaphoric aproach to the Yi, but not to the Bible; isn't?
Best wishes
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Teilhard/Teilhard-evolution.htm
It is also funny that we can support a metaphoric aproach to the Yi, but not to the Bible; isn't?
Best wishes
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Teilhard/Teilhard-evolution.htm
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 110
jesed said:
Actually, I personally support a metaphorical approach to the Bible very much; is that "dogmatic" aspect of its interpretations that go against my grain. I've learned of the Yijing being used to strategize battles and build earthly empires; of the Yijing as a base for Confucianist, Daoist and even part of the Buddhist doctrines; but as far as I know it was never used as a religious canon per se, the way the Bible or the Koran have. Many borrowed from it but the Yi itself remains pristine. In that context, the Yijing has escaped the deplorable record the other two have as a scaffold for religious fanaticism.
I certainly wish the Bible (and the Koran) was widely interpreted in the same metaphorical way the Yijing is...
L
None
The scientific method is, roughly, to observe data, collect it and see if it forms a pattern. Actually science is an art and those most successful at it know that. The mind collects data and forms a picture from it. The success of the subconscious is that it makes no assumptions to start with for every question put to it. Absolute objectivity. No a priori. We can't do that. The New York Times article called, "Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don't" gets all involved in whether we have any free will at all in light of discoveries that the subconscious does five times more of the work in thinkingthan 'we' do. As usual they got all side tracked when the key point was that we, the conscious mind, "is like a monkey on the back of a tiger.' The subconscious being the tiger. I should stop there as who, especially if they are considered intelligent, if only by themselves, will even accept that scientific fact. Those that wanted to dismiss everyone else’s beliefs aren't going to admit that they know nothing of the universe, not even how gravity works. Strings, magic forces "attracting"? O come on. Not a clue. What interests me most is all the assertions about Sacred Scripture that were penned by the will of God and not man, that we pontificate about. There is a way to 'know the truth' but step one, arrogance, must be gotten over first, especially among the 'humble'. Step two I would call radical or absolute objectivity. There are absolutes, if you want any absolute answers. I will consider my job done to stop here. If you can get to level one, I'm sure someone will help you to level two. From two you may smell the rest of the way to the beginning of your journey. The good news is that although it may be the beginning you will know just about where you are going, roughly.
The scientific method is, roughly, to observe data, collect it and see if it forms a pattern. Actually science is an art and those most successful at it know that. The mind collects data and forms a picture from it. The success of the subconscious is that it makes no assumptions to start with for every question put to it. Absolute objectivity. No a priori. We can't do that. The New York Times article called, "Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don't" gets all involved in whether we have any free will at all in light of discoveries that the subconscious does five times more of the work in thinkingthan 'we' do. As usual they got all side tracked when the key point was that we, the conscious mind, "is like a monkey on the back of a tiger.' The subconscious being the tiger. I should stop there as who, especially if they are considered intelligent, if only by themselves, will even accept that scientific fact. Those that wanted to dismiss everyone else’s beliefs aren't going to admit that they know nothing of the universe, not even how gravity works. Strings, magic forces "attracting"? O come on. Not a clue. What interests me most is all the assertions about Sacred Scripture that were penned by the will of God and not man, that we pontificate about. There is a way to 'know the truth' but step one, arrogance, must be gotten over first, especially among the 'humble'. Step two I would call radical or absolute objectivity. There are absolutes, if you want any absolute answers. I will consider my job done to stop here. If you can get to level one, I'm sure someone will help you to level two. From two you may smell the rest of the way to the beginning of your journey. The good news is that although it may be the beginning you will know just about where you are going, roughly.
Last edited:
I just want to second hbar12's recommendation of the "New York Times" article "Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don't" by Dennis Overbye in the Science Section of the Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007 newspaper. This is real science, not "Chris Lofting science". The article is extraordinarily interesting, and has huge implications for our understanding of human behavior and knowledge. It also impacts divination. Perhaps I could try to explain how - I was thinking of starting a separate thread about the article on Clarity as soon as I read it two weeks ago, even before hbar12 mentioned it - but it might be more work than it's worth. I doubt many here will be interested. But just in case:
You can download the article for a modest fee, perhaps even for free if you sign up for a trial membership of NYT's clipping service.
As for hbar12's Level 1/2, I'm not sure what he/she is talking about, but I'm not a big fan of absolutes in philosophy. How 19th century! The world's had enough warmed over Plato.
Lindsay
You can download the article for a modest fee, perhaps even for free if you sign up for a trial membership of NYT's clipping service.
As for hbar12's Level 1/2, I'm not sure what he/she is talking about, but I'm not a big fan of absolutes in philosophy. How 19th century! The world's had enough warmed over Plato.
Lindsay
While I'm feeling my old caustic self, I just want to point out I did not post the "Lamb of God" article to open up a discussion on radical Christian ideas - who cares? I don't - but to show everyone who is interested in Chinese etymology - Lise, Hilary, Harmen, and a few others - what an utter farce etymological arguments can be when they are used to push and justify predetermined ideas. I would deeply advise lovers of etymology to study Chinese with modern materials and to exercise restraint.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 110
lindsay said:
I know you meant Levels 1 and 2, but that "Level 1/2" was very suggestive...
L
lindsay said:
Figured that was the point when I read the article, as it was of pretty low academic quality.What is the correct term for seeing ideas and patterns in historical texts that are projected onto the text rather than built through induction? Would that be reification?
lindsay said:
I didn't read the whole thing, as there's nothing new, but yes, so what? The reason why people think this is so profound is because it challenges their simplistic ideas of there being a necessary duality between the mind and body. They think- ok, everything is just physical OR there is a ghost in the machine I have to have faith in. That dichotomy does not exist. That is not the case that there must be duality for there to be more than the what we perceive; or for there to be conscious purpose in the actions of our lower, animal natures.
B
bruce_g
Guest
I take the context of this article as stated in the page heading: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse.
I once read an article in some Krishna Consciousness magazine, of a Krishna guru’s conversation with a Catholic priest. His assertion was that Christ is short for Krishna, because they sound so much the same, and since Krishna came long before Christ, Krishna was obviously the father of Christ. Of course all the Krishna dudes fawned and cheered, whilst the Christians called Krishna the devil.
Will the human race ever outgrow this sort of stuff?
I once read an article in some Krishna Consciousness magazine, of a Krishna guru’s conversation with a Catholic priest. His assertion was that Christ is short for Krishna, because they sound so much the same, and since Krishna came long before Christ, Krishna was obviously the father of Christ. Of course all the Krishna dudes fawned and cheered, whilst the Christians called Krishna the devil.
Will the human race ever outgrow this sort of stuff?
B
bruce_g
Guest
Will the human race ever outgrow this sort of stuff? 24
1) Don't worry about the human race. Return to your way.
2) The human race will return to _______?
a) the Way
b) God
c) nothing
d) all of the above
1) Don't worry about the human race. Return to your way.
2) The human race will return to _______?
a) the Way
b) God
c) nothing
d) all of the above
Bruce and Autumn, what exemplary citizens you are in the realm of ideas!
Bruce, Hex 24 is the perfect answer to your question! Why do we all want other people to agree with us so desperately? We grab at anything culturally respectable - history, science, scholarship, scripture, television, rock songs - to buttress our arguments. We return to the matrix to justify every important belief. Why do we care? If we are right, then we are right, no? Who cares what other people think?
No, no, no - it isn't about truth. It's about being at one with everybody else, a drop in the ocean of community, accepted and loved by all. Being loved. Return to the womb. Look, I'm as bad in this regard as anyone else. I don't know what to say. Underneath all the onion layers of blah blah intellectualization, I only want people to...well...love me. They won't, of course. Why should they? But the desire, the need is still there. It drives me to find ways to prove myself to others, to seek their agreement, their approval. Chinese etymology might be tempting, might induce believers to consider my views (my views = me) seriously. But all I want is to return to the the primal soup, where I am on the same page with everyone else, and - more important - everyone is in agreement with me.
That is part of what I think this "Lamb of God" article is about.
Autumn, I really think the article on free will vs. determinism is more than just the same-old-same-old. It isn't just about materialism. It isn't just about reductionist naturalism. It isn't just about "I did it because my DNA made me do it, your Honor. But I am very sorry I stole all that money."
This to me is the exciting new thing: there is an emerging realization, based on scientific experiment, that our model of the mind is completely wrong. It appears that most of our behavior and decision-making is being handled by a pre-conscious function we did not even know about 10 years ago. The conscious mind - you know, the one you like to call "me" - is not really running the show. In fact, it's main function is to justify our behavior and actions after the fact. We - meaning the "we" we normaly think of as our "selves" - have very little control over this pre-conscious decision-maker. And it is very fast and very decisive. We make most decisions well before "we" even know about it.
It appears that the conscious mind is not fully integrated into the control system of our organism.
Think about it.
Lindsay
Bruce, Hex 24 is the perfect answer to your question! Why do we all want other people to agree with us so desperately? We grab at anything culturally respectable - history, science, scholarship, scripture, television, rock songs - to buttress our arguments. We return to the matrix to justify every important belief. Why do we care? If we are right, then we are right, no? Who cares what other people think?
No, no, no - it isn't about truth. It's about being at one with everybody else, a drop in the ocean of community, accepted and loved by all. Being loved. Return to the womb. Look, I'm as bad in this regard as anyone else. I don't know what to say. Underneath all the onion layers of blah blah intellectualization, I only want people to...well...love me. They won't, of course. Why should they? But the desire, the need is still there. It drives me to find ways to prove myself to others, to seek their agreement, their approval. Chinese etymology might be tempting, might induce believers to consider my views (my views = me) seriously. But all I want is to return to the the primal soup, where I am on the same page with everyone else, and - more important - everyone is in agreement with me.
That is part of what I think this "Lamb of God" article is about.
Autumn, I really think the article on free will vs. determinism is more than just the same-old-same-old. It isn't just about materialism. It isn't just about reductionist naturalism. It isn't just about "I did it because my DNA made me do it, your Honor. But I am very sorry I stole all that money."
This to me is the exciting new thing: there is an emerging realization, based on scientific experiment, that our model of the mind is completely wrong. It appears that most of our behavior and decision-making is being handled by a pre-conscious function we did not even know about 10 years ago. The conscious mind - you know, the one you like to call "me" - is not really running the show. In fact, it's main function is to justify our behavior and actions after the fact. We - meaning the "we" we normaly think of as our "selves" - have very little control over this pre-conscious decision-maker. And it is very fast and very decisive. We make most decisions well before "we" even know about it.
It appears that the conscious mind is not fully integrated into the control system of our organism.
Think about it.
Lindsay
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 15, 1970
- Messages
- 3,128
- Reaction score
- 210
I sure love the posts you spread (sow? strew?) around here. Always read them very interested, often chuckling, often copying something, not that often answering because I don't know that much about those subjects. Lots of ideas, but there it stops.
Are your posts enough 'you'?
LiSe
Are your posts enough 'you'?
LiSe
Last edited:
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 62
lindsay said:
Well, I have to agree with Autumn, there is indeed not much new here. This was already well known in the first part of the 20th century and you can find many references to it in the writings of Freud, Jung and others.
And there is a parallel with much older Eastern insights that state that the doer, the thinker, etcetera is an illusion. Nobody does anything, everything just happens. This includes the ego, the me, the self, it also just happens.
What about free will then and our efforts to do what is good and right? (or bad and wrong for that matter
)The odd thing is that there is no problem with that really .. until you start to think about it.
Our clumsy concepts create those problems, in nature they don't exist. Free will and 'everything just happens' are not opposed, on the contrary. Everything just happens - that is the ultimate freedom. In a way ... but don't think about it ...
Last edited:
From The Devil's Dictionary, be Ambrose Bierce
DECIDE, v.i.
To succumb to the preponderance of one set of influences over another set.
A leaf was riven from a tree,
"I mean to fall to earth," said he.
The west wind, rising, made him veer.
"Eastward," said he, "I now shall steer."
The east wind rose with greater force.
Said he: "'Twere wise to change my course."
With equal power they contend.
He said: "My judgment I suspend."
Down died the winds; the leaf, elate,
Cried: "I've decided to fall straight."
"First thoughts are best?" That's not the moral;
Just choose your own and we'll not quarrel.
Howe'er your choice may chance to fall,
You'll have no hand in it at all.
DECIDE, v.i.
To succumb to the preponderance of one set of influences over another set.
A leaf was riven from a tree,
"I mean to fall to earth," said he.
The west wind, rising, made him veer.
"Eastward," said he, "I now shall steer."
The east wind rose with greater force.
Said he: "'Twere wise to change my course."
With equal power they contend.
He said: "My judgment I suspend."
Down died the winds; the leaf, elate,
Cried: "I've decided to fall straight."
"First thoughts are best?" That's not the moral;
Just choose your own and we'll not quarrel.
Howe'er your choice may chance to fall,
You'll have no hand in it at all.
B
bruce_g
Guest
I’m getting confused between this thread and the ‘different point of view’ thread. It must be a plot: The Great Lindsay Confuzzlement Conspiracy!
Martin, you were right: I was homogenizing ideas from this thread with those of the other. They do form a sort of pretzel logic.
As said “over there”, I can only get my head around these concepts using a zoom-able scoped lens. What’s way out there appears equivalent to what’s way in here. That leaves sense of self in the middle. The middle layer can be seen as our epidermis – our conscious bodily form, which separates in here from out there. From way out there or way in here, there’s nothing at all we need do. But for here and now, in this conscious form, our conscious mind must participate. It isn’t the King, but it is the general.
No view by itself provides a definitive answer as to questions like: predetermined destiny, control/no control of conscious vs. subconscious vs. unconscious, etc. Yi uses the image of a pair of eyes, and they coordinate to see As It Is (Bhagavad-Gita).
Martin, you were right: I was homogenizing ideas from this thread with those of the other. They do form a sort of pretzel logic.
As said “over there”, I can only get my head around these concepts using a zoom-able scoped lens. What’s way out there appears equivalent to what’s way in here. That leaves sense of self in the middle. The middle layer can be seen as our epidermis – our conscious bodily form, which separates in here from out there. From way out there or way in here, there’s nothing at all we need do. But for here and now, in this conscious form, our conscious mind must participate. It isn’t the King, but it is the general.
No view by itself provides a definitive answer as to questions like: predetermined destiny, control/no control of conscious vs. subconscious vs. unconscious, etc. Yi uses the image of a pair of eyes, and they coordinate to see As It Is (Bhagavad-Gita).
Yes, Bruce, you've found me out. My objective is to spread confusion and bafflement wherever I go. I'm here now, so let's see what I can do. Hmmm. I've got it!
Bruce, you're undoubtedly correct in suggesting we are not likely to resolve these great philosophical issues here. It doesn't matter, practically speaking, what the truth is anyway, does it? We all act like we have free will. We all think we are in control of our lives. We all behave as though our actions and opinions are the most rational and appropriate possible. The world is our oyster. If people screw up, it's their own fault. I take credit for all my successes, and my failures . . . well, I don't remember exactly what happened. Maybe somebody else made a mistake. The future is bright and full of possibilities. As long as we continue to think this way, none of what we have been talking about makes any difference at all. But it was fun for awhile.
Lindsay
Bruce, you're undoubtedly correct in suggesting we are not likely to resolve these great philosophical issues here. It doesn't matter, practically speaking, what the truth is anyway, does it? We all act like we have free will. We all think we are in control of our lives. We all behave as though our actions and opinions are the most rational and appropriate possible. The world is our oyster. If people screw up, it's their own fault. I take credit for all my successes, and my failures . . . well, I don't remember exactly what happened. Maybe somebody else made a mistake. The future is bright and full of possibilities. As long as we continue to think this way, none of what we have been talking about makes any difference at all. But it was fun for awhile.
Lindsay
Last edited:
B
bruce_g
Guest
Now totally confused as to where to post this!
Whether the dog on a leash or fallen leaf analogies are most accurate, or, whether our determined conscious efforts can direct the course of heaven, what matters to an individual may have little impact on anything but that individual. But that's quite a feat in itself. And, one should not underestimate the far reaching effects of a willful decision well executed.
It has been fun indeed.
Whether the dog on a leash or fallen leaf analogies are most accurate, or, whether our determined conscious efforts can direct the course of heaven, what matters to an individual may have little impact on anything but that individual. But that's quite a feat in itself. And, one should not underestimate the far reaching effects of a willful decision well executed.
It has been fun indeed.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 110
lindsay said:
That sounds like an existential crisis, Lindsay... Glad you are not a teenager anymore; some smartassed doctor may stuff you with antidepressants with no second thoughts. Easy solutions in a complicated world. Sigh, the good old times of sex, drugs and rock-n-roll...
L
rosada
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,934
- Reaction score
- 3,250
Not sure how this thought fits in but why not post it here anyway.
lindsay made the comment about man instinctively looking for agreement, how we do tend to hope for that and seek it out and even ignor or contort our own ideas to fit in. I've been realising lately how life determining/distroying this compulsion to preserve the ego (personal point of view) really is and how key to our spiritual development is the ability to see things from our own position and symultaneously see things from another point of view. Like when one poster gives an interpretation of a hexagram and then further postings run along the lines of trying to top this first interpretation with one that is "more right" or else an argument as to why the poster is wrong. We get caught up thinking the purpose of The Game is to find a predetermined correct answer, when perhaps the real purpose of the I Ching is to calm our brains so we don't need an "answer" at all, then with the mind at neutral, we automatically feel and flow with the experience.
lindsay made the comment about man instinctively looking for agreement, how we do tend to hope for that and seek it out and even ignor or contort our own ideas to fit in. I've been realising lately how life determining/distroying this compulsion to preserve the ego (personal point of view) really is and how key to our spiritual development is the ability to see things from our own position and symultaneously see things from another point of view. Like when one poster gives an interpretation of a hexagram and then further postings run along the lines of trying to top this first interpretation with one that is "more right" or else an argument as to why the poster is wrong. We get caught up thinking the purpose of The Game is to find a predetermined correct answer, when perhaps the real purpose of the I Ching is to calm our brains so we don't need an "answer" at all, then with the mind at neutral, we automatically feel and flow with the experience.
But I think that the drive to find agreement in others is not always ego based. I think we also have a tendency to perhaps doubt our own perceptions of the world and we look for validation in others.
A little kid might ask: "This is pink, right?" as he only begins to learn the colors. As grown ups we sometimes need to ask "Is this real, do you see what I see?". As we have no way of knowing that our perceptions are valid unless others agree with us, I'm afraid... and sometimes persisting in keeping our point of view is just a defense mechanism perhaps. Just a thought.
A little kid might ask: "This is pink, right?" as he only begins to learn the colors. As grown ups we sometimes need to ask "Is this real, do you see what I see?". As we have no way of knowing that our perceptions are valid unless others agree with us, I'm afraid... and sometimes persisting in keeping our point of view is just a defense mechanism perhaps. Just a thought.
rosada
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,934
- Reaction score
- 3,250
Yes, like the opening and closing of an eye. Sometimes we have to widen our field of feeling, sometimes we have to focus it. I suspect that when we focus, colors are brighter, images are sharper, so we are disinclined want to relax our focus and Go Fuzzy to take in someone else's.
B
bruce_g
Guest
Fuzzy and focused, great analogy. But, we can’t expect everyone to be looking through our lens all the time. What makes an enjoyable thread, imo, is lack of competitiveness. A different point of view is nothing personal.
rosada said:
This is really very interesting, Rosada. I reminds me of something Lise wrote earlier about how the I Ching made her feel stronger. Sometimes finding the "answer" is not as important as taking the time to put the situation in perspective. Doing an I Ching reading is definitely aborbing enough as an activity to count as a "time-out". By the time you are done, the monkeys jumping around in your mind may have settled down a little. Of course, the "answer" is still important, but - as you say - you may be a lot more open to different interpretations instead of your first impulse.
You know, watching how people behave on this forum is fascinating. There is a branch of social psychology called Small Group Dynamics, and from what I know, it is very relevant. A lot of what goes on here is totally predictable. You can see how different people fill different roles. If you knew what you were doing, you could even manipulate things a little. <You are feeling very sleepy> You could cause the group to go in different directions. <very sleepy> Push social buttons. <When I raise my finger, you will do whatever I say> Stir things up, calm things down. <I am holding up my finger> Well, just a thought. Be sure and have a nice day tomorrow <and agree with everything Bruce says>
Lindsay
B
bruce_g
Guest
lindsay said:
huh?
rosada
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,934
- Reaction score
- 3,250
I'm thinking how people have no trouble getting benefit from different schools of philosophy. For example, on a day when your biorhythms are down, you can take comfort from knowing Venus is trining your ascendant. Or with health. Some medicines seem betterr suited to curing a particular illness than others. Like Christain Science has had great success with eradicating disease, but if you've got a cavity in your tooth you might prefer to go to a regular dentist. Likewise, why shouldn't we be able to look at what different religions are good for? For example, in some situations perhaps one belief does not give a useful answer, so wouldn't it be nice if we were well informed enough to be able to say, "Well, what would a hindu suggest at a time like this?" and rather than feeling it was blasphemy to consider another belief, we could just look at belief systems as tools to navigate through all this Mind Stuff the Universe keeps producing.