»Neo: 100% Human, 100% Machine«

Quote:

Why is this arrogant? The only problem, from my perspective, is that they are not "positive" steps. They are just steps toward our goal. But chosing not to strive for the goal is good too. Those people are providing something that someone playing the game cannot...

I used the word arrogant in anticipated defence of those with opposing views to mine. From others perspective (e.g. Stinkz) the words I use (if taken literally) allude to becoming god. I don't actually mean this because what "god" in my concept is quite different from others.

(i'll use your "playing the game" label to ask the next question)

Do you really think that anybody chosses not to "play the game"?
i am sure that before a choice can be made they must understand the game?

Or do you mean that they have not yet made the choice to consider "what is the game".

For me to understand the game is to play the game.

To provide something that someone playing the game cannot is to not really understand the game.

(I'm struglgling with words a bit here - just to clarify something here - I DO NOT MEAN that someone playing the game is superior to someone not playing the game - this is not my intention)

emp wrote:

If only thinking beings are able to understand god, then god is dependent on the existence of thinking beings to evolve. Maybe we are alone in the universe. So god has been waiting for millions of years just hoping for life on earth to evolve? What if our planet was suddenly hit by an asteroid and existed no more?

What constitutes a thinking being? Maybe things "think" on a different level than you or I could possibly understand in our human form. Maybe they don't. But, I do know that in my belief you are off-base. God is experiencing. God is. God is the rock and the ocean and is the experience of being just that.

Maybe we are alone in this universe, albeit I would find this highly unlikely. God isn't waiting for anything in my belief though. It isn't something with desires and wants and needs. It just is.

I don't believe that this is the only reality currently happening. I don't believe in time. I believe all things and all outcomes are already there. There is nothing that is not. That is the definition of inifinite. If you were to say god is inifinite and then put a limit on it would not be letting it be inifinite.

This is why I keep saying to describe god is to not describe god. Human mind is not currently capable of thinking infinitely.

Quote:

But you have already given your answer. God can exist independent of time.

God doesn't live independent of time. There is no time. Neither does god live. God just is. Don't call it god, call it Force, call it Tao, call it Energy ... but god typically leads one to think of a white bearded old man.

Quote:

But that would make him able to see the end of time, and what level of enlightenment the universe has reached at that point. There would be no need for me to experience it. He would already know what he needed to know, and wouldn't have to bother me. If he already knows, why torment me with a riddle I have no way of finding the answer to, as my mind is not capable of understanding a world without time. He knows I will never know what he knows, but still get a kick out of watching me search. That sick bastard.

Okay, there are all sorts of points in this paragraph for me to dissect and explain.

Let's start:
When you say "make him able to see the end of time, and what level of enlightenment the universe has reached at that point" you are wrestling with the wrong concepts.

See, there is no end of time, just as there is no beginning to it. Time does not exist.

You base your premise on the concept that god thinks, wants, desires... god does not ... these are human traits. God just is.

God is not torturing you. You are chosing to be here. You chose to participate. God isn't getting a kick out of your pain. God doesn't get excited. God most certainly knows what god knows. God does not wish to know anything, for nothing to know can exist outside of god.

We are the very expression of god. We are god being god. Experiencing itself in every form. Just like birds, water, rocks, pens, computers, electrical impulses, atoms, planets, quarks, leptons and everything else that exists and does not exist.

Your pain is god experiencing pain. It is obviously what you chose or need to feel at this point in your existence.

You say that you are not capable of understanding a world without time and that you cannot know what god knows. You don't know what god knows because you don't chose to know. You are afraid of knowing. You feel you are incapable of knowing. Thus, you aren't ready to know. You are definately more than a brain ontop of a spine. You are capable of knowing things far outside of what your brain can comprehend.

You are not limited by the human body, as YOU are not a human. That is like saying that you are limited by your computer because you are using it. No, you can do all sorts of things that your computer cannot.

Keep em coming, EMP. I will keep trying to explain it to you. Explaining what I believe helps me understand it more.

Sir Reef.

I think I finally came up with a metaphor (sp?) for my belief that can make you understand how i feel. Please keep in mind that english is not my native language and that I have not read as many texts about theese things as I should. So it may just seem lame to you. Here we go...

The degree of enlightenment in our minds is a pyramid. When we are born, we start at the bottom. Everybody is at the same level. As you grow and evolve, you raise to a higher level.

When reaching the highest level, which is to understand that you are on the top of a pyramid of belief, you see the pyramid and the different beliefs from the top and down. You see how stupid some of the levels really are compared to the enlightenment further up. But you also see them as necesarry as a foundation for your own belief.

You see that the most basic levels of belief are the largest, and so on, all the way up to the point where you understand that you are completely alone. Everybody can reach the top, but they will only find themself alone. You can choose to pretend to be on another level (like the money-making preachers on TV) for trivial reasons, but the fact that you reached a higher point will haunt you.

This is why people stop climbing at a certain stage. They may have no will, time or ability to continue the ascent, or they find there is not much company up there. But they are often very satisfied with the level they have reached. And often try to get people under them up to their level, or tell people above them how they should have stopped climbing and joined the party at their floor.

That's it!

The reason I started posting about purpose here is because you people are borderline geniuses, and maybe someone could give me a idea of how to prove to myself that I am wrong in my belief.

Diemkai,

diemkai wrote:

I used the word arrogant in anticipated defence of those with opposing views to mine. From others perspective (e.g. Stinkz) the words I use (if taken literally) allude to becoming god. I don't actually mean this because what "god" in my concept is quite different from others.

It is a shame that people take other people's beliefs as a challenge or attack on their own. I can debate with people, but I always try to use words like "my belief", "my understanding" etc...

It's even more depressing that people have an issue with people believing that they are part of god or are the highest power. If this is their understanding then how does it bother others?

Quote:

Do you really think that anybody chosses not to "play the game"?

Yes, on both levels. Some can decide to take breaks and just be god before the game, although since there is no time we are doing that currently. Weird, eh?

On the other level, some people are not ready to move their peices "forward" on the game board. But, by default , they are still playing. If you are here, you are playing and have chosen to play.

But, do I believe that a soul can completely abstain from the enlightenment process? No, I don't think so. But I say this for two reasons... we are all one, thus if anyone is playing then we all are. P But also because I think coming to the understanding of god is the most refreshing thing a soul can do... it is learning who it is.

Quote:

i am sure that before a choice can be made they must understand the game?

Correct. Our soul knows the game. Our true selves know who we are and what the game is. But, the soul decides what level of progression it wants to experience life at. Then it "role plays".

Our physical mind may or may not understand the game, depending on what the soul has chosen to experience.

Quote:

(I'm struglgling with words a bit here - just to clarify something here - I DO NOT MEAN that someone playing the game is superior to someone not playing the game - this is not my intention)

I didn't take it that way. If you are living, then you are playing. The thing is the choice in HOW to play the game. Some may not want to move yet. Some may be comfortable where they are. Some want for more.

I tried to answer the questions as best I could. If I missed one, please reask it. I will try my best to explain it as best I can. Ask anything you want, I won't be offended. If I don't have an answer, I will tell you and start searching for one that makes sense to me.

Sir Reef.

@SirReef:

Quote:

Your pain is god experiencing pain. It is obviously what you chose or need to feel at this point in your existence.

No. You are dead wrong. I feel pain ( not the correct word, but we'll use it to get going... ) when trying to comprehend why humans by default are scum. I agree that the world would probably be a better place of me if everybody was enlighted, but I think that would really just be surpressing alot of instincts, which is what makes most people tick, and that never leads to anything good... I don't think enlighted people will go around raping and killing, but I think humans always will, so enlightenment is just for the few. And the decadent lifestyle is rising, while IQ is dropping, so it will only get worse...

To the point... I exist in a world that makes me feel "pain" when thinking about purpose, but I still wish to find one. The reason of this feeling is the nature of the universe being nothing, which makes feelings like greed, hate and envy the strongest. Stinkz thinks it is Satan. Many of you think it's just a passing stage of evolution. But I think it is the way we are. Some of us will see through the borders of society and religion, but there will never be enough to make a difference.

Quote:

You are not limited by the human body, as YOU are not a human. That is like saying that you are limited by your computer because you are using it. No, you can do all sorts of things that your computer cannot.

What? It is the signals in my brain that makes me think. If I was retarded, my hardware would be bad. If I had a mental illness, my software would be bad.

emp wrote:

The reason I started posting about purpose here is because you people are borderline geniuses, and maybe someone could give me a idea of how to prove to myself that I am wrong in my belief.

Oh... you must be referring to me. P <BIG LAUGH AT MYSELF>

You aren't some dolt yourself. Give yourself credit. You have provoked as much thought as anyone else and have asked very relavent and intelligent questions.

emp wrote:

The degree of enlightenment in our minds is a pyramid. When we are born, we start at the bottom. Everybody is at the same level. As you grow and evolve, you raise to a higher level. When reaching the highest level, which is to understand that you are on the top of a pyramid of belief, you see the pyramid and the different beliefs from the top and down. You see how stupid some of the levels really are compared to the enlightenment further up. But you also see them as necesarry as a foundation for your own belief. You see that the most basic levels of belief are the largest, and so on, all the way up to the point where you understand that you are completely alone. Everybody can reach the top, but they will only find themself alone. You can choose to pretend to be on another level (like the money-making preachers on TV) for trivial reasons, but the fact that you reached a higher point will haunt you. This is why people stop climbing at a certain stage. They may have no will, time or ability to continue the ascent, or they find there is not much company up there. But they are often very satisfied with the level they have reached. And often try to get people under them up to their level, or tell people above them how they should have stopped climbing and joined the party at their floor.

You couldn't be closer to the truth if you plucked it from the mouth of god (metaphorically speaking).

I would grant you two changes though:
(1) It is and is not a pyramid.
(2) It is all choice.

(1) It is a pyramid, but it is not. First, I am not so sure we all start at the bottom and work up. I think we chose beforehand where we wish to experience. I think it is more like a wheel. You move around it, but it can start over - infinitely.

But it is a pyramid in this reality because moving up the pyramid does preclude you from others. The old saying "it is lonely at the top" really applies. But, remember that there are probably other realities where to be base and niave is probably the outlier. They feel alone, because everyone else is closer to the top.

I also think people do chose to stop acending. Fear. Rules. Constraints. Responsibilities. These things prevent one from moving forward. This is why the material world is the illusion. If anything is the "devil", it is. It keeps us from recognizing our true purpose... but this is done by design. If it were easy to move forward, then the joy in discovering what you really are would not be as fulfilling.

I also agree with your pyramid approach because some levels are definately more base than the next level. Also, I think you need a step and a base to get to the next part.

But, this is why I like the allegory of the river. If you haven't read my post on it... then here it goes:

Imagine two sides to a river. We all start on one side. Our destination is the other side. The other side represents spiritual truth and enlightenment. You can get to the other side by various methods... swim, fly, take a raft, take a steamship, take a sub, take a motorboat, take a canoe... but once you reach the other side, the method you used doesn't really matter. You wouldn't pick up your submarine and strap it to your back, would you? Further, some methods are faster than others. And that is okay.

As for (2)... remember, we all chose where we are comfortable at this point in our enlightenment process. This world is very base right now, and ascension to the peak would probably cause more than a few hushed whispers at how weird you are. So, quite often, we do stop. But, eventually, this life, the next life or 1000 lifetimes later... we will choose to move onward.

Sir Reef.

emp wrote:

What? It is the signals in my brain that makes me think. If I was retarded, my hardware would be bad. If I had a mental illness, my software would be bad.

Do you really believe that your mind is who you really are? If you do, then, yes, in your eyes being retarded would cause problems in understanding.

But, maybe we can't understand what they are comprehending. Perhaps they are locked in their own line of thought, and it precludes a lot of what we think about.

You are not YOU. See, what you are stuck on is EGO. You want to be you, but you aren't. Sure, in this physical place... you are EMP. EMP thinks, EMP eats, EMP drinks... but when you die... so does EMP. When EMP dies, you become who you really are. EMP ceases to be, unless someone chooses to be EMP again.

emp wrote:

No. You are dead wrong. I feel pain ( not the correct word, but we'll use it to get going... ) when trying to comprehend why humans by default are scum.

What do you feel then? I used pain because it made sense with what I had read.

Human's by default are animals. We are animals. Plain and simple.

By default, humans are not scum though. Would most people run and push a little girl out of the way of a train with blatant disregard for thier own life? Would a 5 year old boy give his life to save the world?

More often then not, the answer is yes. When we are young, we wish for peace... when we are old we wish for money. When we were young we wanted to be superheroes and save people. When we grow up we want to save ourselves. At what point did we get corrupted? Birth or through societal influences?

Quote:

I don't think enlighted people will go around raping and killing, but I think humans always will, so enlightenment is just for the few. And the decadent lifestyle is rising, while IQ is dropping, so it will only get worse...

Humans may always go around killing. They may never come to true understanding as a whole. We may be plagued in this reality. That is possible. But, I believe that all things work together. There is a reason for this. I think it is so that we hit rock bottom and realize we need to inject something new into our lives. If not... we will die out. And that is okay too.

Quote:

To the point... I exist in a world that makes me feel "pain" when thinking about purpose, but I still wish to find one. The reason of this feeling is the nature of the universe being nothing, which makes feelings like greed, hate and envy the strongest. Stinkz thinks it is Satan. Many of you think it's just a passing stage of evolution. But I think it is the way we are. Some of us will see through the borders of society and religion, but there will never be enough to make a difference.

I do see beyond the borders of society and religion. I am not religious in the least. In fact, I rebel against it. I think it is one of our lower understandings and prevents people from moving forward. It is a method for control and most is based in fear.

Purpose is what you make it. No one can create purpose for you. You are fighting what the Taoists suprisingly call the "Tao". The "Tao" is the way. According to their philosophy, when you fight against what you truly are ... you will find sadness, depression, and pain. Don't struggle. That which you need to know will be provided. This very conversation is a way for both of us to grow and learn.

What is so strange is that you are so very Buddhist. Siddartha believed that human existence was pain. Hence Agent Smith saying that "mankind experiences through pain". To know life is to experience pain. Thus, his mission was to remove the pain from our lives. He could not accomplish this, but realized enlightenment in his search. He realized that man was base and that everyone will have wants and desires. These wants and desires are what drive the pain. A vicious circle. He says that you will be provided with what you need.

That is also the reason that the bible points out that god will provide what you need.

This is a universal truth across most religions. That is why I say that you will come to the understanding you need when you need it.

Sir Reef.

@EMP
Hey, if life is not doing for you, maybe you should just masterbate more.

@Everyone
Evolution is real. For us, this moment, we have been changing in subtle ways, but that is not where the evolution is really manifesting.
It is really manifesting in our tools. Our tech is getting exponentially crazy.
Moore's Law is being broken, as computers are now doubling in power every 7 months.
Now, check this out:
Plant life is, for the most part, stuck where it is born.
The next form of like, from mold to Humans, crawls and walks, flys and runs. We became more mobile to explore more of the universe.
With humans, we have designed tools that give us fantstic range.
So, to us, the plants are growing, but also pretty much stuck where they are.
Now, what is interesting, is that we are now making computers capable of computing(and soon, understanding) more dimensions than 4. Also the network of computers has allowed them to communicated over great distances in moments. If we don't blow everything up(a possibility), then this will just continue to improve. Once machines develop intelligence/sentience, they will be Mineral(silicon?) Life. Their range of movement will be in pure data, trancending 4 dimensions. We will be as immobile and still to them as the plants are to us.
I believe this will continue until a critical mass occurs(unless it just goes on infinitely) as intelligence builds on intelligence. Data on data, until perhaps, the data becomes Data Life, and Gods are born in a timeless multi-dimensional state. Then, perhaps, they will emulate some of our religions, and perhaps even do a few miracles for us. Maybe when we have religious epiphanies of ecstatic thought, when we join with the infinate for those god-like moments of bliss in the super-consciousness, maybe it is the Data-Life that in our 4-dimensional time-line is our progeny.
Maybe we are the Ancestors of God, who has trancended our foolish notions of time, and touches all of our space and time at once.

"It is not enough to understand the World Inside.
It is not enough to understand the World Outside.
But, it is more than enough to Know that they are the Same."
--Roshi Suzuki


"The All is God. And the Nature of the All is Mind."
--Hermes Trismegistus

Ogami wrote:

"It is not enough to understand the world outside. It is not enough to understand the world inside. But, it is more than enough to understand that they are the same." --Guatama Buddha

Ogami wrote:

"It is not enough to understand the World Inside. It is not enough to understand the World Outside. But, it is more than enough to Know that they are the Same." --Roshi Suzuki

I don't feel like addressing anymore ridiculous ideas and vague inconsistancies. So guys... its been a good run... but I think I'm through posting here. I encourage each and every one of you to truly be honest with yourself and realize that God exists and that you are not Him. Truly seek after God and He will find you.

I will continue to pray for you all...

Goodbye,

-stinkz

stinkz wrote:

I don't feel like addressing anymore ridiculous ideas and vague inconsistancies.

It is funny that everyone else's ideas are vague and ridiculous, but you are not. I have been anything but vague. My ideas may seem ridiculous to you, but only so much as your ideas seem primitive to me.

stinkz wrote:

So guys... its been a good run... but I think I'm through posting here. I encourage each and every one of you to truly be honest with yourself and realize that God exists and that you are not Him. Truly seek after God and He will find you.

I am about as honest with myself as I can be. Your god is NOT and NEVER will be in my life. What a limiting and constraining concept that would be. Heck, I believe in infinite possibilities for each person ... but even your god is not all-powerful.

stinkz wrote:

I will continue to pray for you all...

I feel better already. If I had a nickle for every "devout" (read primitive) Christian who is praying for me because I am going to hell...

Sir Reef.

Oh yeah...

Remember when you made fun of the Islamic faith for it's mathematical inconcistancy at one point... well, here you go brother:

Now, don't forget James 1:17: "there is no variableness in god".

The Bible has a multitude of places where numerical calculations are inaccurate. Poor addition, erroneous measurements and fallacious counting are all too evident. Several examples are noteworthy:

(a) "... and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, Jusha-bhesed, five." (1 Chron. 3:19-20). How can there be five sons of Zerubbabel when 7 males and one female are listed?

(b) "And it had for its inheritance Beer-sheba, Sheba, Moladah, Hazar-shual, Balah, Ezem, Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah, Ziklag, Beth-marcaboth, Hazarsuah, Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen- thirteen cities with their villages" (Josh. 19:2-6 RSV). Fourteen cities are listed, not 13.

(c) "The cities belonging to the tribe of the people of Judah in the extreme South, toward the boundary of Edom, were Kabzeel, Eder, Jagur, Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah, Kedesh, Hazor, Ithnan, Ziph, Telem, Bealoth, Hazor-hadattah, Kerioth-hezron (that is Hazor). Amam,Shema, Moladah, Hazar-gaddah, Heshmon, Bethpelet, Hazar-shual, Beer-sheba, Biziothiah, Baalah, Iim, Ezem, Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah, Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah, Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon; in all twenty-nine(29) cities, with their villages" (Josh. 15:21-32 RSV). Thirty-six cities are listed, not 29.

(d)"...and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal and Barial, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six" (1Chron. 3:22). Five names don't total six.

(e) "...the sons od Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun,..." (1 Chron. 25:3). Again, five names do not total six.

(f) "And in the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, En-gannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Sha-araim, Adithaim, Gederah, Gederothaim: fourteen cities with their villages" (Josh. 15:33-36 RSV). Fifteen cities are listed, not 14.Bibical authors not only counted inaccurately but often added with comparable precision.

(g) "The whole congregation together (those who returned from the Captivity-Ed.) was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore (42,360)" (Ezra 2:64). The number of people in each tribe that returned from the Captivity are listed from Ezra 2:3 to Ezra 2:60. One need only total the figures to see that 29,818 returned, not 42,360- an error of 12,542.

(h) A similar problem is encourntered in Neh. 7:66, which says, "the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and three-score (42,360)." One need only add the figures between Neh. 7:8 and Neh. 7:62 to see that the total for all the tribe should have been 31,089, not 42,360-- an error of 11,271. Besides adding inaccurately, Ezra and Nehemiah can't agree on what the total should be. The former supports 29,818 while the latter asserts 31,089.

(i) "And this is the number of them: Thirty (30) charges of gold, a thousand (1,000) charges of silver, nine and twenty (29) knives, Thirty (30) basins of gold, silver basins of a second sort four hundred and ten (410), and vessels a thousand (1,000). All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred (5,400)" (Ezra 1:9-11). Even if all these items were composed of silver and gold, they would not total 5,400 (30+ 1,000+ 29 + 30 + 410 + 1,000=2,499 not 5,400).

(j) "And these were the sons of Levi by their names; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari" (Num. 3:17) and "Those that were numbered of them (the Gershonites-Ed.)...were seven thousand and five hundred (7,500)" (Num. 3:22) and "...these are the families of the Kohathites...eight thousand and six hundred (8,600)" (Num. 3:27-28) and "...these are the families of the Merari. And those that were numbered of them,...were six thousand and two hundred (6,200)" (Num.3:33-34), versus "All that were numbered of the Levites,...were twenty and two thousand (22,000)" (Num. 3:39). The author of Numbers added inaccurately, since 7,500 + 8,600 + 6,200 equals 22,300, not 22,000.

Besides fallacious counting and adding, biblical authors had difficulty measuring and computing.

(k) "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (1 Kings 7:23). How could a circle be 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference? Since pi is 3.14, the circumference must be 31.40 (3.14 x 10) cubits.

(1) "Thirty and two years old (32) was he (Jehoram-Ed.) when he began to reign, and he reighed in Jersalem eight (8) years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David,... And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king is his stead:... So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old (42) was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." (2 Chron. 21:20). If Jehoram began to reign at age 32 and ruled 8 years, he died at age 40. Yet his son took over immediately and was 42 years old. The son, Ahaziah, was two years older than his father, Jehoram.

(m) Ezek. 40:27 is translated as followed in three different versions: "...and he measured from gate to gate the south an hundred (100) cubits" (KJV). "He measured from gate to gate one hundred and seventy-five (175) feet" (Modern Language). "And the distance between the passageway was 175 feet" (Living Bible). If 100 cubits equals 175 feet, then one cubit equals 1 3/4 feet. On the other hand, these versions translate Gen. 6:15 as follows: "...The length of the ark shall be three hundred (300) cubits, the breadth of it fifty (50) cubits, and the height of it thirty (30) cubits" (KJV). "...The length of the ark four hundred and fifty (450) feet; its width seventy-five (75) feet and its depth forty-five (45) feet" (Modern Language). "Make it 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high" (Living Bible). If 300 cubits equals 450 feet, then 1 cubit equals 1 1/2 feet. The authors of the various versions of the Bible can't agree on the length of a cubit. Is it 1 3/4 or 1 1/2 feet long?

Sorry, your statement offended me enough to really search for this.

Explain away Stinkoman.

Sir Reef.

"It Is Not Enough To Understand The World Inside.
It Is Not Enough To Understand The World Outside.
It Is More Than Enough To Understand That They Are The Same."
--Stinkz Buddha(drawing from an old Klingon proverb)

Sir reef:

Help me out with this one please:



[/quote]More often then not, the answer is yes. When we are young, we wish for peace... when we are old we wish for money. When we were young we wanted to be superheroes and save people. When we grow up we want to save ourselves. At what point did we get corrupted? Birth or through societal influences? [/quote]

I would argue that we got corrupted when unfair political systems were invented and imposed on society.

In the same way I choose not to be frozen I consider that the collective individual is not frozen.


[/quote]Humans may always go around killing. They may never come to true understanding as a whole. We may be plagued in this reality. That is possible. But, I believe that all things work together. There is a reason for this. I think it is so that we hit rock bottom and realize we need to inject something new into our lives. If not... we will die out. And that is okay to.[quote]

I feel very strongly that Humans will not always go around killing.

I can't follow this without feeling a unconfortable. It consider a conclusion like this very unsatifactory - "there is a reason for this!" OK I know where you are coming from but we need to be VERY carefull here that we don't fall into a similar trap to those who beleive "I am not god - I am not perfect" and thats that!

Have a think about it - I am pretty sure I understand the way you have formulated your concepts.

In my opinion Endless cycles of War, disparity and suffering are simply not acceptable - we could all sit back, analyise and discuss the reason for this - then if we get too far and fail before we (collectively) work any reason do you really consider that "OK" when all along we had choice?

[/code]

Quote:

In my opinion Endless cycles of War, disparity and suffering are simply not acceptable - we could all sit back, analyise and discuss the reason for this

That is like saying "We need to talk to the monkeys in the Amazon and make them plant more trees to save the rainforrest".

Only a very few individuals in this world are capable of elevating beyond the influences of fear and lazyness. Only theese individuals can 'analyise and discuss the reason for this'.

Trust me, humans are scum.

Diemkai,

First, to do a quote you need to start with [*quote] and end with [*/quote], not both [*/quote].

diemkai wrote:

I would argue that we got corrupted when unfair political systems were invented and imposed on society.

We got correupted by the choices we made and the way in which we chose to experience the system. But, yes, the political and human composition of our society has contributed to our misunderstandings.

We have come to the concept that we can understand "good" and "evil" and completely forgot about reference point. Thus, we feel that we should constrain others.

In the same way, people have come to feel that god wants to constrain us too. I mean, how could we not come to that understanding if it is all we experience.

It's funny though, because everyone talks about an all-loving, all-powerful god who has granted us free will and free choice... yet, it is not free. It comes at a cost. If you go against "his" will you burn in hell. Doesn't that take away "free" choice?

Quote:

I can't follow this without feeling a unconfortable. It consider a conclusion like this very unsatifactory - "there is a reason for this!" OK I know where you are coming from but we need to be VERY carefull here that we don't fall into a similar trap to those who beleive "I am not god - I am not perfect" and thats that!

Ok, let's look at it like this:

As god is "all-there-is", he could not experience that which "he is". It is impossible for something to know what it is without being that which it is not. Do you understand?

God is unable to stand outside "everything" there is and look at itself and experience itself. It isn't possible. To do so would negate the property that it is all there is.

God knew it was all there was, but it could not experience that which it is. So, it devised a plan. A plan we are in on. It created a place where we would voluntarily forget what we were and experience that which we are not. So we could eventually come to the understanding of that which we are. If you need more on that, please ask. It is a very deep and complex thought.

Thus, we "collectively" chose to experience certain things we consider "bad". But on a spiritual path we are experiencing that which we need to experience in order to progress to our understanding of "who we are". In every moment of now we chose what we are.

So, we have agreed to experience certain things beforehand. All souls have colluded to create this experience, and it is our reactions and actions to these experiences that define "who we are". Basically, we are all defining "who we wish to be" and our "grandest vision of ourselves" in every moment of life. It is our actions to an experience that define who we are and define who god is.

Thus, murder serves a higher purpose for experience. Death is an illusion and on some level we have agreed to experience this act together, for whatever reason. So, on a human level - we see this act as "WRONG", but it is only because of our reference point.

Quote:

In my opinion Endless cycles of War, disparity and suffering are simply not acceptable - we could all sit back, analyise and discuss the reason for this - then if we get too far and fail before we (collectively) work any reason do you really consider that "OK" when all along we had choice?

Yes, I do consider this okay. Not only do I consider it okay if that is the final outcome of this reality, I consider it beautiful. In every moment, we are collectively chosing to experience life as we are experiencing it.

Nothing can truly destroy us. Thus, if the experience we need to experience who we really are is the ultimate destruction of this race in this reality, then so be it.

I do not consider this to be the way it will be, but if we chose it to be, then it shall be. God knows no other way, except to give us what we need.

It is just like the Matrix. It deals with choice. It is how we chose to define ourselves in each moment that equates to who we really are. It is how we deal and act towards each experience that defines who we are.

If you need more on these concepts, please ask. Or I could direct you to a very well thought out book that may present these issues in a much more "readable" format. The concepts will remain similar, but the explainations will be much easier to grasp.

I am certainly not the world's foremost teacher... that is certain.

Sir Reef.

Agreed - a "snapshot" of human behaviour over the last two or three thousand years includes an endless list of reasons we should not be proud of. As you say we have been and contiunue to be scum.

I agree that if in the future we found another planet in the universe with "intelligent" life who behaved like the modern human global society, the status report returned to earth may include the word scum. Or perhaps more acurately it would say a mixed society beings behaving in a similar fashion to that seen by humans throughout the dark ages.

(how do we know what we will call the dark ages in one million years time have finished?)

So are you saying we don't have choice not to be "scum".

If so I really hope you a very wrong.

I don't agree with youre monkey analogy - we are animals - I agree with that - but we have evolved into a species which has the abilty to project our imaginations creatively - to think "outside of the present" - for whatever reason this has happened we can use it. I am not saying this evolution is complete. I am not ven saying how much further we have to go - I am just saying we are not frozen like this.

Some very simple changes (choices) would have an enormous impact, with a new conciousness a scumless society may be possible, maybe not? but lets give a try?

Do you really think we have reached the peak of our civilisation?

The problem is that too many people are either fighting or rejoicing in our "acheivements" (which in the manner we have been going about them have often come at a massive cost to humanity) Many seem to think that history books are finished, only looking back, what if we had a class in school called "future" it sounds stupid doesnt it!!!! but why does it sound stupid? - ask anybody on earth to write a 10 point action plan of what we like to try and acheive as a species by the year 3000 or even 5000 how long it takes doesnt really matter, I am pretty sure there would be a lot of similar items on the list, that is simply becasue the current status is one of disaster.

This is how "frozen" we are as a species - we have the ability to think but we just dont use it enough. The next steps are really not that radical!

I think we have that choice. I could not live without the hope that WE dont.

Sir reef;

Thanks for your response - very clear and very interesting - I have a very clear understanding now of how you explain justification for things which I am not comfortable with:

One main question:

Quote:

So, we have agreed to experience certain things beforehand. All souls have colluded to create this experience, and it is our reactions and actions to these experiences that define "who we are". Basically, we are all defining "who we wish to be" and our "grandest vision of ourselves" in every moment of life. It is our actions to an experience that define who we are and define who god is.

Ok - I understand this - it fits with the global concept I have, although my game is slightly different from yours in one particular way, what if you are wrong about the REASON why we experience suffering? Isnt it better to play the game together to remove the suffereing (I do realise what a major shift this is away from your whole concept!) BUT what if you are wrong. What if the path of collective indviduals should be doing something else - I would try and explain this as searching together for the good itself?

I think I understand youre concept - but there could be another (similar) way to explain the "metareasons" of our experiences.

What if you are wrong (only slightly wrong if you like but wrong enough that the collective never worked "together" enough in our illusion) - that would be tragic!

Diemkai,

I see you have got the quote thing down... okay, let me try to dig into this.

diemkai wrote:

what if you are wrong about the REASON why we experience suffering? Isnt it better to play the game together to remove the suffereing (I do realise what a major shift this is away from your whole concept!) BUT what if you are wrong. What if the path of collective indviduals should be doing something else - I would try and explain this as searching together for the good itself?

I could be "wrong" in my understanding, this is true, although the way that I have experienced life and my understanding of it is what I have explained. But, I could very well be "incorrect".

I think the idea that you present is based on a root "fear". The fear of things failing and falling apart. But, god would never allow us to be truly injured or hurt. Further, the assumption you make is based on this reality being the only reality. I believe there are multiple timelines and multiple nows in which we are experiencing, we are just chosing to experience the one we are because it is what we need right now.

I think that there are varying degrees of usefulness and effectiveness. I think that we are living a very ineffective life and one that separates us from what we really are. So, if we, as a society, wish to truly aspire to our true potential, then I think we need a dynamic shedding of our old consciousness. We need to chose to experience things in a whole new manner, and define ourselves this way.

If we were to remove all barriers to god and live in perfection, we would not get ot experience who we are not. Thus, living in a perfect society might not be what we need right now. Some people need to know what they are not, in order ot experience that which they are. so, the desire for a "perfect world" might be selfish.

Quote:

What if you are wrong (only slightly wrong if you like but wrong enough that the collective never worked "together" enough in our illusion) - that would be tragic!

Again, I would not ever acertain that I know the correct answer. Only what holds true for me, and what helps me aspire to be that "which I truly am". These truths may not hold true for you and may not be what helps you understand your life and how you chose to live it. Remember, it is your response to things that make you what you are.

You may feel that you are truly generous and giving, but that doesn't allow you to experience generosity. One must give in order to experience this.

Thus, taking it to you, you may understand your truths the way you do for a reason. It is how you act on your truths. It is the framework for your behavior that should let you know if this is right for you. If this belief leads you to do things which you believe are correct and right for you, then you are believing what you need to at this point.

If you feel that we need to change our global mindset in order to save the species, then the real question is "how will you demonstrate this truth in every moment of now"?

To me, I feel that you are right. I think we need to work together to achieve a greater understanding. But, I don't feel that any result would be tragic. Because there is neither good nor evil... there just is. It is only our response and reaction to each act that defines us.

It is unfortunate that we wish to assign a moral value to everything. It may be the least efficient way to go south from Florida to get to Alaska, but is it immoral to do so?

Finally, remember, in my understanding god cannot and would not be able to harm us. We are the creative engines of "him". We are him. It cannot destroy us. If god is infinite, then it cannot be subdivided. Subdivision of the infinite is impossible. Thus, each small body of us is the entire body of god. If we cannot be subdivided and removed, then we cannot be destroyed without destroying the "all that is".

I hope that made sense. It is so very hard for me to describe that which I believe in the english language. There is no concept or word for some of the things I believe.

So feel free to keep the questions coming, I will do my best to describe my understanding. Also, keep explaining yours. Anything and everything I learn, whether or not I agree, helps me understand myself.

Sir Reef.

Sir reef:

Take this discussion back to the Matrix for a moment – I am sure no-one will mind! (Hehe).

You are “the Architect”

Neo nearly gets to the source and meets you at the door - you explain to him the Reason as you have posted consistently above.

Why should he accept this? It is a scenario without an “end” (I know time as we know it is an illusion but consider “the end” in a philosophical sense – the moment when he who is searching KNOWS he has found the answer). It could all just be another form of “control” to accept a notion like this requires a belief – however attractive.

If I were the architect I would explain the design of the system in a very similar way to you although the Reason is for the collective individuals to grow to an awareness with an actual conclusion – the moment when the collective individuals “know”. At this moment you would probably ask – “what happens next?” – everything would be nothing – a singularity of god - I guess the collective would choose to reload again.

?

diemkai wrote:

Sir reef: Take this discussion back to the Matrix for a moment – I am sure no-one will mind! (Hehe). You are “the Architect” Neo nearly gets to the source and meets you at the door - you explain to him the Reason as you have posted consistently above. Why should he accept this? It is a scenario without an “end” (I know time as we know it is an illusion but consider “the end” in a philosophical sense – the moment when he who is searching KNOWS he has found the answer). It could all just be another form of “control” to accept a notion like this requires a belief – however attractive. If I were the architect I would explain the design of the system in a very similar way to you although the Reason is for the collective individuals to grow to an awareness with an actual conclusion – the moment when the collective individuals “know”. At this moment you would probably ask – “what happens next?” – everything would be nothing – a singularity of god - I guess the collective would choose to reload again. ?

I assume you are asking what would happen if everyone came to a Christ-like consciousness at the same time?

We would WANT to reload. To experience ourselves again. Nothing could be more joyous than attaining your highest self. Once you are your highest self, then there is nothing you don't know or cannot know. It is singularity, as you put it.

To experience the becoming again must be the final conclusion.

Sir Reef.

Okay, let's take my belief - which is a hodgepodge of ideas and concepts that draw parallels to a lot of Eastern beliefs - and compare it to certain things in the Matrix.

Neo (the first time he returned to the Matrix): "I used to eat there. Really good noodles. I have these memories from my life. None of them happened. What does that mean?"
Trinity: "That the Matrix cannot tell you who you are."

This is in accordance with life. Life and physicality are an illusion. But, overall, the physical life cannot tell one who they are. A person decides who they are moment to moment. Who you are is who you are.

Morpheus: "It's the question, Neo. It's the question that drives us."

The question about life. What is the matrix is the same as what is life? The rules of the matrix can be broken as the rules that govern our physciality can.

Morpheus: "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

We all know the path. Our true selves, know who we truly are. Toa point, most of us knopw who we wish to be. The question is whether we are willing to be that thing.

Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Again, life is an illusion. Electrical impulses. Do you really think it is air you need to live?

Little Boy: "You cannot bend the spoon. That is impossible. There is no spoon."

The spoon is an illusion. Trying to create a reality out of the illusion is impossible. One has to realize the illusion in order to control it.

Agent Smith: "But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was re-designed to this: the peak of your civilization."

Just a little Buddhist thought for the record.


And then your point:
Agent Smith: "Have you ever stood and stared at it, Morpheus? Marveled at its beauty. Its genius. Billions of people just living out their lives... oblivious."

Everyone lives out their lives. Oblivious to the design and the illusion. They are content to live that way, because it is easy.

Just felt like we needed to talk Matrix for a second.

I apologize for going back to some older material, but I just wanted to lend some more historical knowledge to the conversation in reference to SirReef's posts. This is not meant to be argumentative, just informative.

Historical facts first:
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew (the Jews' language of the day), and the majority of the events did not occur in Egypt, but rather in what is current-day Israel. Really, the only events from the Old Testament that were in Egypt would have been in Genesis and Exodus. There were also a few books that were written from Babylon during the time that the Jews were in exile.

The New Testament was written in Greek because it was the predominant language of the day. Alexander the Great had conquered the known world awhile before the events of the New Testament, and with that, he Hellenized (sp?) the known world. Greek became the trading language of the day, so merchants, soldiers, scholars...basically everyone of any importance knew Greek. Take note that the Greek language of that day (known as "Koine Greek" (sp?)) is not the same as the Greek language of today, or even the "Ancient Greek" language that they teach in most schools these days.

Moving onto more opinions and less fact:
As for the telephone game comment, if the Old Testament has been preserved for over 2000 years (and for some of books, over 4000 years) with that degree of accuracy as I mentioned in relation to the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think we can safely assume that the New Testament is rather sound as well. In fact, we can know that it was kept intact since there were SO many copies being circulated at the time. By circulating as many as they did, the chances of an error were greatly reduced since the early churches could check one copy against the other for errors. Plus, there was never a point where it was passed down verbally. The very fact that most of them were written as letters means that they were kept in written form.

One last factual thing and an assumption:
In regards to all of those verses you posted with innaccuracies, I only bothered to look up the first one, but the quote that you have was either truncated or massively misquoted. The NIV translation that I have here says:

<I>...Zerubbabel and Shimei.
The sons of Zerubbabel:
Meshullam and Hananiah.
Shelomith was their sister.
<B></I>20<I></B> There were also five others:
Hashubah, Ohel, Berekiah, Hasadiah and Jashab-Hesed.</I>

Anyway, by my count there are five "others" mentioned. Basically though, I did not pursue looking those up any further. I figured if the first one was so grossly misquoted (and I'm not blaming you, but rather the source that you received those quotes from), the rest will probably likewise be misquoted somehow, but again, that's an assumption since I'm tired and don't want to look up any more.

I guess that's about all from me. I really don't like dealing in opinion vs. opinion arguments if I can avoid them, but I love to deal with fact when I can. Later.

Quote:

Neo (the first time he returned to the Matrix): "I used to eat there. Really good noodles. I have these memories from my life. None of them happened. What does that mean?" Trinity: "That the Matrix cannot tell you who you are." This is in accordance with life. Life and physicality are an illusion. But, overall, the physical life cannot tell one who they are. A person decides who they are moment to moment. Who you are is who you are.

"The Matrix cannot tell who you are"

You know who you are at each moment but the Matrix can show the way to find out more - just knowing who you are moment to moment is not enough for me.



"I can only show you the door Neo, you have to walk through it"

You know who you are right now in the moment when you project this knowing "forward" you also know but remember..............

"there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path"

You will be challenged in new ways from moment to moment - to "fail" in any moment or to not walk as you "know" is NOT to not know ones self - you have to remember you are on a journey here - a journey with a potential conlcusion.

Quote:

Agent Smith: "But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was re-designed to this: the peak of your civilization." Just a little Buddhist thought for the record.

I understand (and like this) but to me this just says things are the way they are so we can know ourselves. This is fine - but If we use the premise of "hope" also then we can actually CHOOSE new ways to define our reality.

In my opinion there are better ways in which we can choose to define our reality. Yes I know these are just perfect world or just plain "nicer" ways but why not - lets choose to have that!

Rather than cut my hands off to prove to myself how good it is to have hands I would rather choose to define my hands as beautifull - Our society cannot do this - some theories say this doesnt work - I think it does - remember we are not frozen and this also means the way in which we define ourselves is not frozen.

Anubis IV wrote:

One last factual thing and an assumption: In regards to all of those verses you posted with innaccuracies, I only bothered to look up the first one, but the quote that you have was either truncated or massively misquoted. The NIV translation that I have here says: <I>...Zerubbabel and Shimei. The sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah. Shelomith was their sister. <B></I>20<I></B> There were also five others: Hashubah, Ohel, Berekiah, Hasadiah and Jashab-Hesed.</I> Anyway, by my count there are five "others" mentioned. Basically though, I did not pursue looking those up any further. I figured if the first one was so grossly misquoted (and I'm not blaming you, but rather the source that you received those quotes from), the rest will probably likewise be misquoted somehow, but again, that's an assumption since I'm tired and don't want to look up any more.

Firstly, in response to the Bilbe's history: I never claimed to be a biblical scholar. But, stated my understanding. Actually, if I recall correctly, I asked a question, and made not a statement of fact.

My understanding is still that the new testament of the bible did not take place in written form until 70-100 years after the death of Jesus. Further, it is my understanding that the gospels were not even written by their respective saints. For instance, the gospel of Mark wasn't even his gospel. Using even your own, NIV:

NIV Footnote wrote:

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark

also

NIV Footnote wrote:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.

But, that is neither here nor there. It is just my understanding of the historical bible, which is limited. I garnered the truth I needed from the document, and tossed it aside as one would the morning newspaper.

As for the "gross misquote", it is not. It was truncated, in order to allow for space saving. I give it to you in its King James form, along with counting.

And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam(1), and Hananiah(2), and Shelomith(1girl) their sister: And Hashubah(3), and Ohel(4), and Berechiah(5), and Hasadiah(6), Jushabhesed(7), five.

If the NIV needs to retranslate, then it points to an inaccuracy in one of the versions. I may grant you that the language was odd, and maybe this is a misunderstanding, but there are many more contained in the script I provided that are far more accurate.

Take a look at the other ones. Whether or not you agree... it is a good exercise. Also, try to reconcile the differences in the KJV and the NIV. One must be incorrect then, yet ... aren't they all inspired and perfect works of god? If one is incorrect, then could not the other be incorrect as well?

Just keep in mind: Jeremiah 8:8. Wherein it states:

NIV BIBLE wrote:

How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

New Living Translation wrote:

How can you say, "We are wise because we have the law of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it so badly?

These two translations point out the fact that the Bible was perverted with MAN's law and written with our particular slants. It is not the unfiltered truth. Further, it hints at how corrupted the works would become.

There is also a quote from Moses which describes and prophecies the coming changes and perversions to "god's word"... but I don't remember where it is.

Sir Reef.