[Enter The Matrix]
Sparks: "And for the record, when I cart your bodies back to Zion, do you prefer cremation or the gardens?"
Ghost: "Sparks, your faith in us remains a source of personal inspiration."
Sparks: "Well, I am what I am and I do what I can."
Niobe: "Then, can you shut up and hit the button?"
Sparks: "Your wish, Captain, my Captain, is my keystroke, colon, double backlash, execute, command."
 

Username:

  
Password:

  
Auto-login on each visit
  

  
Not a user yet? Register in 20 seconds!

»THE MATRIX AND BIBLICAL UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM«

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Forum:
Symbols in the Matrix & References to existing philosophies

 

SilentWarrior

Thanks for keeping it going...  

Reply with quote


Bleeding newbie poster
Posts: 6
View user's profile

Hey again guys, and thanks to all for continuing this thread.

As a side-note to the conversation, I have to say that these types of discussion are what truly define philosophical learning. By exploring and understanding other perspectives, we can formulate and further our own. If all members of contemporary society subjected themselves to this type of philosophical exploration, chances are that the world would be a much better place. This is because being able to think philosophically is being able to challenge one's state of mind and accept that there is so little we know for certain about the Universe. Challenging our morals and values can only lead to a better life.

Ah, but the problem: so much has been said in this thread that I no longer know what direction we're going in - this is not uncommon in philosophy.

I'll start with the irrational number comment. Irrational numbers are a concept that I was exploring a while ago. I began to think critically about my perceptions and realized very quickly that there was no such thing as a definite number in our existence. I suppose that once we reach the atomic state we can count faithfully, but that's absurd. We cannot count atoms in everyday things like bread. My point? That everything is an approximation. Reality is so very complex and, moreover, random.

I've been contemplating it, and finally the comment made by Cristorly that "if there is relativism there must be absolutism" struck home. I have already realized that reality is an interwoven string of opposites and contradictions. It's true; relativism cannot exist without absolutism. As exact opposites, they cannot exist without one another.

But what if I said that there was no way to prove for certain that there was an absolute truth, only that there exist individual relative truths? I suppose that this is still a self-defeating comment. Alas, there is a flaw in my philosophy, and I admit defeat. If there are any other relativists that can help me out, I'd appreciate it. All perspectives have their flaws, so I'll get to trying to find the holes in others and pinpoint them on this thread Whitelaugh.

I've also never thought of myself as Buddhic or Christic, but it's interesting that you should say that. If that is the highest plane of perception, then why was my theological approach flawed?

cristorly

YOU'RE MOVING ON, SILENT WARRIOR  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

No, there was not an evident flaw in your theology. What I said is that it was tautological. That your flow of thinking and behavior is Christic and Buddhic, but you didn't realize it.

God is inmanent, trascendent and holistic. That is Pantheism, not Pandeism. Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation.

So the direction of these threads remains the same, from my point of view, that is to make a movie with a theocentric perspective. That's what I am aiming at. I will write the script in Spanish so that BigMista doesn't get mad at my awful syntax in English. Then I can translate it into English. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

The greatest difficulty in understanding the Bible is the false premise about its presumed complexity.
electric infinity

  

Reply with quote


Nearly 50 posts!
Posts: 47
Location: unknown
View user's profile

once we can get past this idea of a personal figure 'god' then and only then can true perception be accessed.

the only god people bow to and worship, without even realizing it, is the ego.

cristorly

EGO IS THE MOST POPULAR GOD, BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

You can't generalize, Electric Infinity. Ego is the most popular God, but it doesn't mean that it is the only one that people worship. You are taking a gnostic positiion. The epi-gnostic position is the right one. Epi-gnosis is exact knowledge, correct discerning of the truth. Gnosticism plus Nihilism make a suicidal combination. And there is no happy suicide.


It's better to take it easy and rest assure on the perfection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary. We can't add or take away anything out of that sacrifice. And it is real. It is peace and joy. A movie with a peaceful and joyful ending is what I am aiming for.


Romans 5:18 can give you some insight in case you are as open minded as you are supposed to be just by taking part in this forum. A little biblical verse won't hurt you. And it means Universal Salvation. Universal Reconciliation. Peace. Joy. Truth. Unconditional love for all the created beings. It sounds pretty good when you take a Theocentric stand. See you. Blessings and happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

electric infinity

  

Reply with quote


Nearly 50 posts!
Posts: 47
Location: unknown
View user's profile

you certainly seem to label,categorize,package and compartmentalize the behavior patterns of 'humans'.

polarization of what is 'right' and 'wrong' have taken over our true perception and i take it quite easy knowing that 'jesus' is yet another attempt to control minds.

we can only save ourselves.

cristorly

GOOD NEWS, ELECTRIC INFINITY  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

That's good news, Electric Infinity. If we can only save ourselves, that new idea can be patentized and sold in the market at a very high prize.

When you use the word "save" I really don't know what you mean. When I use the word "save", I mean to be immortal, to be eternal, really immortal, really eternal. It is a concrete concept. It's not an ethereal concept like the "save" you are using.

Now we don't see what I am talking about, but the day will arrive when we will see eye to eye. Like it or not. Believing or disbelieving. That is the sovereignty of Grace. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

cristorly

"SELF-RELIANCE" BY RALPH WALDO EMERSON  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

Hello! Speaking about Biblical Unitarian Universalism, in the essay "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson we have a pretty nice example of what I am talking about.

That is the kind of spirit that I would like a new movie based on The Matrix to have as its leit motiv.

Excuse, BigMista, my broken English. I will try to improve it little by little.

Blessings and happiness in Christ Jesus Universal. Cristorly Thumbup

cristorly

JUST CHECKING MY SIGNATURE  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

This is a post to check if my signature is OK.

Fatpie42

  

Reply with quote


Another Smith poster!
Posts: 2560
View user's profile

Has anyone looked at the 'Roots Of The Matrix' DVD in the ultimate collection. The philosophy section has an interesting section on ideas of 'truth'.

We all believe in truth to the extent that we all believe that there is something 'which is the case'. The problem is that we have difficulty knowing what the truth is.

Now as silent warrior has shown us our measuring and numerical systems are innaccurate because we only ever come across irrational numbers. If they are 'real numbers' (ie. having infinite decimal places which don't recur, then we cannot even 'name' the number! (a number is denoted by all of it's digits and if these are infinite and non-recurring we could never properly denote what number we are using).

We also have a problem that all of our experience of the world is observational and therefore it is all in some way coloured by the way we consider it.

Even our methods of discussing ideas are merely linguistic and how can a language designed by ape-like mammals to inform each other which fruits should be eaten really be expected to consider complex ideas of ontology (of the constitution of the universe)?

Buddhists have realised for a long time that what religion intends to produce is best gained without the concept of God. It is an error to presume that a concept of God is helpful. Humans are at their best when they have compassion for the whole of humanity (or even life in general) - why should this require a God?

"I am more than man, more than life! I am a GOD!"
Skeletor
cristorly

NOBODY IS EXEMPT FROM GOD  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

Amado Nervo, Mexican writer, says: "THE SOUL IS A CUP THAT IT'S ONLY FILLED UP WITH ETERNITY". The problem is not gnoseological; it's teleological. We want to trascend; we want to live forever.

Buddhic is anthropecentric; Christic is theocentric. Nobody is exempt from God. Sooner or later we will have to face that simple truth. There is no way out. We can't cover the sun with a finger. The Universe has an absolute theocentric reality and a relativist anthropocentric realm. Unity in diversity. Period.

The creature was made to please the Creator. That is simple mathematics. That's not tyranny. Let's not be cynical, please. It is LOVE. Unconditional love of God for His creatures. Sooner or later human beings will learn to love God in an unconditional way through the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

There is punishment for the unbelievers, but not eternal punishment. Discipline until they repent. Repent is "metanoeo". To change one's mind. To stop looking for our own righteousness apart from the righteousness of God in Christ (Romans 10).

But ultimately everybody will enjoy Paradise. That is teleological, gnoseological, ontological, ethical, deontological, axiological, perfect with me. It makes sense that the only and one Omnipotent and Loving God wills to save His creatures (I Timothy 2:4).

It is sanity from the point of view of God. It is insanity from the point of view of FatPie42, BigMista, Electric Infinity, but God is much more bigger and greater than our gnoseological shortcomings. God is God. That's it. Simple. Just grasp it as a child would grasp it and don't let it go away. And if you let it go away, don't worry, sooner or later as a boomerang it will come back to you in all its meaningful light. The light of the love of God in Jesus Christ.

Let's be honest. Envy of Christ is very common in our world from false christs. We don't want to give glory to Christ. As simple as that. We are stubborn, but we are not exempt from God. No way. Happiness and peace in Jesus Christ. Cristorly

Fatpie42

  

Reply with quote


Another Smith poster!
Posts: 2560
View user's profile

Could you stop trying to win the creative writing competition and make a sensible argument?

All this stuff about mathematics and love and boomerangs is making my head spin. It is also a clear abuse of poetic licence.

That a creator's creations should be make for the creator's sake alone is not pure mathematics. It is pure selfishness. If we were to create robots capable of independant thought (as Asimov's stories imagine) there is a clear feeling that we would be responsible for those creatures. On this view, it seems that Jesus' act of redemption is simply God fulfilling a responsibility. It does not seem obvious why I should need to play any part of it. I didn't even want to get involved.

The only way to give man any responsibility to God is to refer to the sin of Adam. But Adam's sin is just that - ADAM'S. It's not mine. How can I rebel against someone I have never met?

At this point religious teachers will always rush to little stories about 'God always being there' and 'coming to God as a child'. But the fact is that a child doesn't think God is always there any more than I do. A child trusts that God is there in the same way that they trust that Father Christmas is there.

Is the child right to deny Father Christmas? Yes! So what makes denying God any less reasonable?

To say that it is reasonable to believe in God is one thing. To say that it is UNREASONABLE to deny him is quite another!

electric infinity

  

Reply with quote


Nearly 50 posts!
Posts: 47
Location: unknown
View user's profile

put the bibles away already. religion only helps itself....thats it! its a self replicating virus that has been allowed acess to human minds. the whole 'jesus' myth was created to control those minds and to give people the idea that they are worthless and without power. 'sin' is a joke. its just another futile attempt to make people feel bad and create negative emotions. those who depend on 'saviors' are only denying the power that lies in each one of us. throw down your bibles and your myths and know that you can access the universe all by YOURSELF!

cristorly

GOD CREATED EVIL  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

Hello! I had said it in biblical verses, but I see that you are not reading those critical verses. God is responsible for everything in the Universe. God created evil. The purpose of evil is to know the badness of evil and the virtues of goodness. That is the teleological key point in the creation of evil. Evil is a necessity. That is the only way we can know right from wrong.

God is the First Cause. We are not the first cause in any way. If you want me to put it bluntly, I say it: We are robots. We kick and fight, but we are designed for happiness, joy and peace, because that is the goal of the Universe. That is the purpose of God, not ours. God is our owner. You think that you are responsible. That is maya. You think that you are choosing. That is an illusion. You are an instrument of God not matter what you do.

Even when you are cursing, that is the will of God. Even when you think that you are in control of anything, it is God who is above you. We are headed to Paradise, to a great future, but not of ourselves. It is of God. We come out of God and we are heading towards God.

All the roads lead to God, but before that, all the road must merge in Jesus Christ, the Perfect Man. Jesus Christ is Neo. What else can I say? Cristorly

electric infinity

  

Reply with quote


Nearly 50 posts!
Posts: 47
Location: unknown
View user's profile

oh yes...the christians should find 'jesus', the muslims should find 'mohammed',blah,blah,blah,yada,yada,yada,gimple,gample,goo.

sure, we only have one choice and that is to wake from the trance of the ego...thats it. i know either way we go we are still 'guided' by a vast awareness of undescribable energy. there is NO personal being almighty figure up in the clouds making egotistical judgements. the world of reason bounds humans to this idea.

if you feel better believing that 'jesus' will save you then go right ahead.

SilentWarrior

  

Reply with quote


Bleeding newbie poster
Posts: 6
View user's profile

Read next post.

SilentWarrior

God...  

Reply with quote


Bleeding newbie poster
Posts: 6
View user's profile

I'm going to take a philosophical approach to God for a minute.

As I have stated before, my "God" is not a personal figure or a man sitting in the heavens, making decisions for me. On the contrary; my God is the divinity of my existence, the unbelievable fact that I am conscious, that I exist, that I am an 'I'. "Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)," as Descartes put it. No matter what philosophy you follow, you are a thinking being, and therefore you exist. In a sense, if you are a fatalist, this could lead to the assumption that God is the First Cause and he is responsible for all subsequent events. Even from a purely logical perspective, this can be a reasonable claim. But it does not have to be your choice.

I am still trying to discern from Cristorly's posts, what type of God his is. If you are 'Bhuddic' then it should be the God I have chosen, but if you are 'Christic' then you believe in a God that is utterly separate from his creation. I think the problem here is that your posts are somewhat cryptic and perhaps contradictory. We are trying to figure out where you stand.

To all the posters: let's remain critical, but friendly. I see some harsh words being said, and that's unnecessary. Do not assume that someone's point of view is ridiculous because you believe it to be so. There are friendly ways to criticize without being insulting. If you disagree, then say it; don't yell it.

Hopefully we can keep this conversation going. It is an interesting debate.

Fatpie42

  

Reply with quote


Another Smith poster!
Posts: 2560
View user's profile

If we are robots that suggests we have no choice? Does this not mean that all rewards and punishments are in vain?

Normally the problem of evil is explained by free will. If we are robots there is no free will and suffering becomes more cruel and unecessary than ever before.

That's before I even ask how God is any more likely to have free will than we are.
(BTW aren't humans the first cause of literature? I do believe that there was no such thing as literature before humans existed...)

cristorly

BUDDHIC AND CHRISTIC GOD AT THE SAME TIME  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

Hello! Silent Warrior, my God is Buddhic-Christic at the same time. From my relativist-anthropocentric stand I assume a philosophical position as the one you are taking as a free thinking human being. That is so I am my own God. From that perspective I believe in inmanence: God is everywhere, God is all, I am God. I have free will, I do choose my own destiny. I am a master of my Universe.

From my abolute-theocentric realm I take a theological position, but it is not fatalistic in the negative sense that you are thinking. All the contrary. That is the best possible position I am taking. There are degrees of glory. The more advanced reign with Christ, the less advanced enjoy Paradise on Earth anyway. Everybody is happy. There is joy, peace and love for everybody. That is the best of destinies.

God is transcendent. I am not God. God is Yahweh and Christ is the Perfect Man. But Christ is not God. Christ is the Son of God. The Prototype of all human beings. God is the First Cause. God is a necessity from the philosophical and the theological points of view. A NECESSITY. God is Spirit. God is the Holy Spirit. That is my God in this realm.


As you can see I am Buddhic-Christic. Not Buddhist-Christian. That's different. I am not a follower: I am a little Buddha-Christ in miniature. I hope you understand what I am trying to say from the beginning.

I have free will and I don't have it. It dependes how you look at it. From my absolute position, I don't have free will or free agency. From my relativist position, I have free will or free agency.

Thanks, FatPie42 and Silent Warrior, for keep the dialogue flowing. For keeping it alive. Thanks, Electric Infinity, for being honest about the way you think. There are no losers. Everybody is a winner. And the winner takes it all. Cristorly

dub329

questions  

Reply with quote


More experienced poster
Posts: 29
View user's profile

I have learned a couple of ideas I find quite insightful. Some see God as seperate from themselves; this , if I am not mitaken is called the personal God. Others find God in themselves as well as in living beings; this, if I am not mistaken, is the transpersonal God. Christorly, what is your belief?

Also, you'll have to be patient with me. I am having some trouble understanding the duality of relativism and abolutism. I understand how both ideas are needed so as to give each other definition, yet I do not understand how to believe in both, as my epistemology seems to affirm the contradictory and even dangerous nature of relativism. Absolutism seems to include certain truths as parts of a whole, parts true in themselves yet perhaps only differing in trivial ways. Relativism seems to include and simultaneously exclude truths.
Oh, and sorry, but one more question. What does anthropocentric (sp?) mean, and what does theocentric mean?

vato

Cristorly  

Reply with quote


More posts than most others
Posts: 77
View user's profile

What the Fuk do you know Cristorly your Going bald you fuckyn dumbass Get some rogaine. Figure out how to grow some hair on your head before you start talking about how you have this deep understanding about life and jesus and buddah, you cant even get hair to fuckyn grow on your head anymore. So shut the fuk up get the fuk out here!

with much love,

Grandma

cristorly

TRANSPERSONAL GOD, DUB329  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

Hello! Dub329, I believe in a transpersonal God, who is inmanent and transcendent. And holistic. Anthropos plus center is from the point of view of the human beings. Theos plus center is from the point of view of God. Anthorpocentric is relativist and theocentric is absolutist. Take a close look at both views and you will see that they are not contradictory. Buddha and Christ: That's the solution. Thanks a lot, Dub329. Happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

theson

proving God to exist or to prove otherwise  

Reply with quote


More posts than most others
Posts: 78
Location: East Haven
View user's profile

Everyone in here seems to have an idea of who God is or may be, all very similar. He's perfect, right? To find out more about who God is, I would suggest reading Psalms. If you do believe in the resurrection, (i.e. a born again Christian), you find conviction in the word, or even to some non-believers. It says "I will ignore all philosophers, even the most brilliant of them". I would say what if you stopped philosophising so much and start to study what you all seem to know there is or what may be a perfect God. Here's another verse "For false phrophets come bringing praise to themselves but true ones come proclaiming God, not of themselves" I actually was taken by someone saying all you ever worship is your ego. True, unless that ego is praising God and following his son, Christ.

cristorly

BRAINS ABUSED BY RELIGION  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

It seems that you are not reading quietly what we are talking about. I am a Bible believer. I believe in Resurrection. If you worship Yahweh, you are not alone, you are not the only one. To have the brains abused by religion is very common. We are not worshiping ourselves. Your accusation is false.


Read patiently and you will see. Read all the posts with a humble heart before accusing and giving a false testimony. We are talking about God in a very non-accusing way. Just like friends. Instead of saying to read Psalms, you have to say to read the entire Bible. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

cristorly

FALSE PROPHETS  

Reply with quote


More posts than teeth
Posts: 41
Location: Dominican Republic
View user's profile

Many believers like to talk about false prophets assuming they are real prophets. If they were true prophets, the first thing that they would prophesy is that their pet translation of the Bible is wrong. Why don't they use a correct translation like the Concordant Bible (

godstruthfortoday.org,...
concordant.org)?...
Who is the false prophet?

dub329

question  

Reply with quote


More experienced poster
Posts: 29
View user's profile

I mean no effense in this question, but why is the concordant Bible the correct ranslation and others innacurate? Why is this version less well known?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next Reply to topic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



Right now you are in a Matrix forum called
"Symbols in the Matrix & References to existing philosophies"
Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Click here to see all topics of this forum
Click here to see all other Matrix forums hosted by matrix-explained.com

 


Click here for more options
V
V

Search

View unanswered posts

Log in to check your private messages

Click here to see, who is online

Most users ever online was 443 on 06.Nov.2003 10:03

Submit your site!

Go voting!

Edit your data

Jump to:  
Memberlist
Usergroups
FAQ
The time now is 01.Sep.2014 13:13
All times are GMT + 2 Hours

Powered by p h p B.B. © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group