»Neo: 100% Human, 100% Machine«

diemkai wrote:

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.

Of course we can chose to experience a different reality. But defining it as better is subjective. It may be closer to "who we truly are", but maybe we need to experience "who we are not" in order to fully understand "that which we are".

Seriously, you ought to run to the bookstore and pick up "Conversations With God". It is a really light read and describes a lot of what I say in a much better manner. You don't have to agree with all of it, or any of it, or even agree with the premise... but it can shift your consciousness if you open up to it.

I think you would be fascinated with some of the truths in the book. I know I was... I believed most of the stuff before I ever flipped a page... and it was nice to see it laid out in front of me.

Sir Reef.

Going back to the first text. Perhaps you are looking at it wrong. Perhaps he is not 100 percent man 100 percent machine. PErhpas he is one hundred percent man one hundred percent digital. While in the matrix, where he has Jesus like powers, he is certainly both at the same time. OF course the end of the movie is a monkey with a wrench, I'll ahve to think on that.

P.S. Neo is definately a Jeus like character. He even ascends at the end of the first movie, He is born in a womb without a human father, he is ressurected, he is betrayed, Just like Jesus ascending into the heavens, and duh he knows kung fu. Everyone knows that Jesus knew Kung fu. Drunken boxing too.

Mark.13.22 False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

can you not see that neo is false?

I apologize for the apparent misunderstanding...I saw your remark that you were no Bible scholar, and I was honestly just trying to give you some background info since you said that was an area you didn't know much about. Nothering more than that. I didn't mean to contradict you or even try to show off, just inform, so I apologize if I offended you in any way.

Regarding the idea that it wasn't written until 70-100 years after Jesus' death...somewhat close at least. The latest one was written (I believe) in the 70's or 80's AD, but they were all being circulated well before then. As for the authorship of Mark and that group of verses you pointed out, I would argue that it doesn't matter who actually wrote the book. I mean, for all I know Bill Bob wrote it but they attached Mark's name to it and so on. While I don't believe that to be the case, that doesn't change that it still is important. I mean, if the author chose not to identify himself, does it matter who he is really? Besides, even if Mark <I>didn't</I> write the book it wouldn't be contradicting anything in Scripture, but rather an idea passed down by tradition. To say the least, I don't put stock in tradition. For the other point, I simply do not have an answer for those verses. I'd have to look into it more.

Regarding the King James Translation, I honestly cannot account for that number either, but you were a little off in one statement: the NIV and the KJV are not held to be the inspired Word of God, but rather translations of it (or at least, that is what I would hold to be the case). If God had given us an inspired passage in English, things might be different, but as it is, He gave it to us in Greek and Hebrew. Koine Greek is a MUCH more precise language than English, and a lot of the nuances and implied meanings were lost in the translations. If we wanted to get the actual meaning, we would need to go back to the Greek. On a side note, I'm not sure about the accuracy of the KJV...I can't recall if it went straight from Greek to English or if it went from Greek to Latin to English, but if it was the latter, then it would tend to be highly inaccurate. Likewise, the NIV is not generally respected as a very accurate translation since it was made for readability, not accuracy...I just happened to have a copy of it handy when I typed that post. On another sidenote, my personal preferred translations are the New King James (easy to read and relatively high accuracy, and it is not really related to the KJV) and the New American Standard (harder to read, but VERY accurate). Those are just personal preferences though...

As for the Jeremiah quote, I think they're actually referring to extra-Biblical texts with that passage. There was a sect of the Levites whose sole duty was to transcribe the Old Testament exactly, and historians generally agree that they did an incredible job of it, so I very much so doubt that there has been any significant changes to the Old Testament itself. Rather, the teachers of that day began to institute extra-Biblical rules. By the time of Jesus' day, I believe they had nearly 620 extra rules that the Jews were required to follow which the teachers claimed were taken from scripture. In fact, most of those rules were preposterous and were made up for self-serving reasons by corrupt religious leaders. The sect of the Levites that preserved the text never failed to do so though, but the teachers failed to interpret and teach it correctly. Basically, the actual text of the Bible never changed, but things were added onto it to "help" the Jews understand and apply it to their lives better.

Anyway...guess I had some opinion in there too, but that really couldn't be helped due to the nature of the questions. I haven't had a chance to look through those other passages you posted just yet, but do you still have the URL where you copied them all from? I'd be interested in looking it all up myself once I can find the time. Annnnndddd...I guess that's about all I have to say at the moment. Better go to bed...I have a quiz in four hours and I have yet to hit the sack for the night. Gotta love the college life...

Quote:

Seriously, you ought to run to the bookstore and pick up "Conversations With God". It is a really light read and describes a lot of what I say in a much better manner. You don't have to agree with all of it, or any of it, or even agree with the premise... but it can shift your consciousness if you open up to it.

Thanks Sir Reef - i am open minded to anything of this nature and will take a look.

Two books which you may have read which I enjoyed are Celestine Prophecy and Plato's "Republic" (in particular chapters 9,10,11,12,13). Have a look at these if you have not already - both contain indirect concepts which compliment your theories.

Just one more thing:

Quote:

Of course we can chose to experience a different reality. But defining it as better is subjective. It may be closer to "who we truly are", but maybe we need to experience "who we are not" in order to fully understand "that which we are".

I cannot dissagree with this but its the "maybe" in here I personally strugle with. Perhaps this is not fixed, i.e. we need this inverse reference at a cetain stage (which could be now) but we can move on from this. This notion could be used in histrocal terms i.e. a "progressed" human society could use historical reference material to realise how humans initially/historically defined "who they are" - this reference material would be as "real" as anything else perhaps even moreso in the "future" - we could define ourselves through simulation alone - confident our actions were not harmfull to others*- therefore one could choose how to define "that which we are" - either you "know it" or you refer to "why we know it".

(* - I think this opens up a whole debate which is very relevant to the matrix)

If I could remove this maybe my perception would defniately shift - I consider that although the theory I favour could be wrong it's a little less risky for the "future" of humanity.

Anubis IV wrote:

I apologize for the apparent misunderstanding...I saw your remark that you were no Bible scholar, and I was honestly just trying to give you some background info since you said that was an area you didn't know much about. Nothering more than that. I didn't mean to contradict you or even try to show off, just inform, so I apologize if I offended you in any way.

Thanks, and no problem. I never mind a little education. Learning is awesome. I was just defending myself a bit. My fault. Feel free to give me more of the past. One can never really have enough knowledge... especially if they think about a particular subject.

Quote:

Regarding the idea that it wasn't written until 70-100 years after Jesus' death...somewhat close at least. The latest one was written (I believe) in the 70's or 80's AD, but they were all being circulated well before then. As for the authorship of Mark and that group of verses you pointed out, I would argue that it doesn't matter who actually wrote the book. I mean, for all I know Bill Bob wrote it but they attached Mark's name to it and so on. While I don't believe that to be the case, that doesn't change that it still is important. I mean, if the author chose not to identify himself, does it matter who he is really? Besides, even if Mark <I>didn't</I> write the book it wouldn't be contradicting anything in Scripture, but rather an idea passed down by tradition. To say the least, I don't put stock in tradition. For the other point, I simply do not have an answer for those verses. I'd have to look into it more.

Personally, I don't think half of the Bible is meant to be a relative fact. Rather an aesop fable... sprinkled with a couple rules for the times. I mean, the "Jews" of the times were a nomadic culture and couldn't afford to lose numbers. Thus, certain rules were created. But, I also think these rules were not god inspired... rather created because "eating that kind of meat is gonna kill you". They didn't understand triginosis and the like... so best to cut it out of our diets. I think a lot of Jewish law was created out of neccessity for their people, rather than divine law.

I couldn't care <i>WHO</i> wrote the bible... I just get irratated when "devout Christians" cannot accept that it is a book created by man for man. It may have been partially inspired... aren't all books inspired? I mean, not a word is written that god hasn't infinately thought up, right?

It bothers me that people believe the miracle over the message. It is the message that the bible is good for. That is why I said I read it, and tossed it aside as I would a newspaper. I got the facts I needed.

But, so many get stuck on minutia... the bible is infallible, Jesus was born to a virgin, Moses parted the sea, there was a big flood... WHO CARES?! Yeah, it would be neat if that happened. But, it is the message that is important.

I mean, there are so many mistranslations and changes made for control in the bible that no one really knows what was said. The dead sea scroll, while everyone says corresponds to our present version of the bible and has been released... it has not. The many churches have not allowed a line by line interpretation to be released. Further, they insist on being allowed to edit the translations. Look it up. I saw a huge documentary on it a while back (one or two years ago... I can't imagine there are many changes).

The reasons are simple... people have built a foundation on certain beliefs... to change these beliefs would cause unrest and people to think about that which they currently do not. Spirituality was always supposed to come from within.

The reason, I believe, that Christianity has conquered the world so well is becuase it takes the responsibility and onus away from the individual. They don't have to think about spirituality themselves, they are fed it. To question it would be sacreligious... how simple. How supremely convienent.

Simple mistranslations that come from the top of my head:
Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultury.
Truth: Thou shalt not commit ZONA.
---- Zona is incest. Zona is not unmarried sex.

Jesus (paraphrased): A life without God is not worth living and destined for hell. (or something to that effect)
Truth: A life without God is not fit for the flames of Jericho.
---- The flames of J were an eternal fire outside of the city. That is where the people brought their trash. Thus, a life without god is not even worthy of a trash heap. We translated it for control.

Quote:

Regarding the King James Translation, I honestly cannot account for that number either, but you were a little off in one statement: the NIV and the KJV are not held to be the inspired Word of God, but rather translations of it (or at least, that is what I would hold to be the case). If God had given us an inspired passage in English, things might be different, but as it is, He gave it to us in Greek and Hebrew. Koine Greek is a MUCH more precise language than English, and a lot of the nuances and implied meanings were lost in the translations. If we wanted to get the actual meaning, we would need to go back to the Greek. On a side note, I'm not sure about the accuracy of the KJV...I can't recall if it went straight from Greek to English or if it went from Greek to Latin to English, but if it was the latter, then it would tend to be highly inaccurate. Likewise, the NIV is not generally respected as a very accurate translation since it was made for readability, not accuracy...I just happened to have a copy of it handy when I typed that post. On another sidenote, my personal preferred translations are the New King James (easy to read and relatively high accuracy, and it is not really related to the KJV) and the New American Standard (harder to read, but VERY accurate). Those are just personal preferences though...

The problem is that people DO take these Bibles to be the inspired word. They refuse to look at the historical accuracy of the translators and their personal agendas. To believe that the Roman's did not have a hand in altering the bible is pure nonsense. To believe that King James didn't have a personal agenda is fallicy. Imagine George Bush getting to translate the Bible... imagine the weirdness we'd have.

Everyone will interpret things the way they want.

So, it is a shame that people refer to the stories as fact. They refer to the rules, as fact. They refer to the text as fact.

Fortunately, you do not.

Quote:

As for the Jeremiah quote, I think they're actually referring to extra-Biblical texts with that passage. There was a sect of the Levites whose sole duty was to transcribe the Old Testament exactly, and historians generally agree that they did an incredible job of it, so I very much so doubt that there has been any significant changes to the Old Testament itself. Rather, the teachers of that day began to institute extra-Biblical rules. By the time of Jesus' day, I believe they had nearly 620 extra rules that the Jews were required to follow which the teachers claimed were taken from scripture. In fact, most of those rules were preposterous and were made up for self-serving reasons by corrupt religious leaders. The sect of the Levites that preserved the text never failed to do so though, but the teachers failed to interpret and teach it correctly. Basically, the actual text of the Bible never changed, but things were added onto it to "help" the Jews understand and apply it to their lives better.

Possible. I cannot remember the context, just the quote.

But, it just shows how peopel pervert good ideas.

Think about Christian Science. The creator, Mary Bakers-Eddy (sp), created her own works and understandings. She wrote them down. She even had followers. Which was grand. She had some stellar ideas. But, when she neared death, she had told them all <b>NOT</b> to create a religion out of it. She even had it in her will.

But, people are so narrow-minded and unable to function without the thoughts of someone else that they brought it to court. They actually had a court decide in their favor. Took her books and turned them into the Christian Science Texts.

Then they took her word to be gospel. Exhalted her as this saint. They took every word and made it a rule. But, these were just her words... her understanding. She never intended for it to be rules for everyone else. If it helped them along... awesome... but it wasn't to create a new religion.

Now, they have perverted her truths to a weird level. Taken something as simple as medicine and completely twisted the understanding.

It is sad.

Truly sad.

And that is with today's mindset. With our education. Imagine what it must have been like centuries ago? How simple it must have been to control the masses by saying "God decrees"?

Quote:

Anyway...guess I had some opinion in there too, but that really couldn't be helped due to the nature of the questions. I haven't had a chance to look through those other passages you posted just yet, but do you still have the URL where you copied them all from? I'd be interested in looking it all up myself once I can find the time. Annnnndddd...I guess that's about all I have to say at the moment. Better go to bed...I have a quiz in four hours and I have yet to hit the sack for the night. Gotta love the college life...

It all comes down to opinion. Especially with the Bible. No one has the original text.

And I am sure if we did, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me.

I look upon the Bible as I do the Christian Science Texts... a great idea turned into a boundry. I take the truth within and internalize it, if it makes sense to me. The rest I discard. And with that, I finish with the book.

I miss college. Get it while you can, man. Because it will be over soon, and all you can do is look back on it. I played ball for a MAJOR school and I certainly did not take advantage of it like I should have.

Sir Reef.

diemkai wrote:

I cannot dissagree with this but its the "maybe" in here I personally strugle with. Perhaps this is not fixed, i.e. we need this inverse reference at a cetain stage (which could be now) but we can move on from this. This notion could be used in histrocal terms i.e. a "progressed" human society could use historical reference material to realise how humans initially/historically defined "who they are" - this reference material would be as "real" as anything else perhaps even moreso in the "future" - we could define ourselves through simulation alone - confident our actions were not harmfull to others*- therefore one could choose how to define "that which we are" - either you "know it" or you refer to "why we know it".

I have read the "Celestine Prophesy". Good read, did you finish the second novel ... the "Tenth Insight", I think.

In reference to the above, remember that the human species is relatively young on the whole scope of things. I would guess we are probably like an early teen. Rebelling against everything. Stuck in the me, me, me mindset.

I think we do the whole "that which we are not" is for experience. We need to be that which we aren't to fully appreciate "that which we are". Remember, if god is everything.. then there is nothing that it is not. Therefore we need this belief that we are separate and independent for the whole thing to work. We need to believe we are not everything else around us in order to experience that which we are. Thus, relativity was born. Again, read "Conversations With God" as it explains it far better than I do.

I think your struggle is in the fear that something "bad" can happen to you or us. In my belief, it cannot. This isn't real. You are god, we all are... thus nothing bad can really happen.

Sir Reef.

Sir reef; We can agree to differ here - You are right I have some residual fear driving the concept i like (perhaps I need this fear to generate the hope I enjoy in the concept!!!!)

I am gonna stick with what I consider a less risky concept for now and have a read of that book you suggest, see what it brings.

stinkz wrote:

can't you see past the idea that only you the observer exist and all else is illusion? It is obviously NOT the case.

The philosophy that believes, that only "I" exist is called Solipsism.

On the other hand, I don't think it is true, because only 1 person believes it

Well, I can see this particular thread has gotten nowhere since I left.... knnknn... good point. No objective person can really believe that only he exists. I mean... its a good way to rationalize that everything he does is right, but, if everyone felt this way there would be chaos.

Without intolerance, there can be no justice. Without justice, there can be no peace. -stinkz