Perfection

[MKFaizi]

Analog,

I take for granted that you are well meaning.

I cannot argue with you about your ideas on perfection because, truly, I cannot understand what you are saying. Your language is very dense and your method of expression very complicated.

Somewhere on this forum, David Quinn posted a link to something he wrote about academics. I don't always agree with every word David writes but this is a good piece. Have you read it?

I do not intend to say that you are a pompous fool like these people David described. I think you are well meaning and in earnest.

You just may want to clarify your sentences. Clarifying is not "dumbing down." It is learning to define yourself and your thoughts by asking yourself as you write, "What do I mean by that?"

The best writing is that which can be understood easily by nearly anyone. Good writing is not complexity of language but solidity and richness of ideas.

It is my hope that you will not take this as critcism. I don't mean it as critcism. I simply would like to clearly understand what you are trying to express.

Thanks.

Faizi

[hyperqube]

eeww, you better be careful when you dis jesus. not he wasn't the only begotten son of god. that is a deception of the temporal church in setting up partners with god. yes, he was god for how can god judge us unless he also takes on the flesh. no he wasn't crucified like it says in the quran. if you want to check the dates, when did jerusalem fall, after the stoning of james the just , jesus' brother or was he? yes you can calculate from the destruction and rebuilding of the temples to the fall of jerusalem and the multiples are correct. the christians have it oh so wrong. for they listen to paul more than jesus, don't they. paul, saul, the 13th apostle.

christians who have thrown away all of the law except for homosexuality. why? so evil hateful judgemental hearts can be exposed. christians who don't even attend church on the correct day of the week, the sabbath.

that is why at the end time the majority will be the apostate church. which is why you have a church which would bless a war for oil in the name of democracy, etc.

[Leyla Shen]

I have noticed such outrage at the teachings of Jesus in the last ten years, his very existence as a historical figure is questioned. It is not rational and might be powered by ignorance don`t you think?

His existence as an historical figure is more or less irrelevant to any wisdom that might be gleaned from the Bible. After all, it is in the argument for his fleshly existence that the message is completely lost -- don't you think?

I do not believe I am special - and there are hundreds that do understand.

I have rarely heard anyone who knows what sin is, especially Christians. I have rarely heard anyone who knows what salvation is, especially Christians.

Now, ya see, in that light how does this follow:

I am trying to point out that you appear to have an ilogical contempt for Christianity.

[Leyla Shen]

The State is my Shepherd; I shall not want
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures
He leadeth me beside the still waters
He restoreth my soul
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name' sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil
For thou art with me
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies
Thou annointest my head with oil
My cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the House of the State forever.

[Beingof1]

His existence as an historical figure is more or less irrelevant to any wisdom that might be gleaned from the Bible. After all, it is in the argument for his fleshly existence that the message is completely lost -- don't you think?

It is the fact that he transcended fleshly existence that is exactly the final culminating point of his life- it demonstrates what absolute enlightenment is capable of.

The message is lost when his consciousness and state of being is presented as one that cannot be experienced.

I said

Quote:
I do not believe I am special - and there are hundreds that do understand.

Quote:
I have rarely heard anyone who knows what sin is, especially Christians. I have rarely heard anyone who knows what salvation is, especially Christians.

Look at the words very carefully - as precise as I wrote them, then tell me if you still see contradiction, would you mind doing that?

Enjoyed the rewording of the psalm - it was a pleasure to read.

[Leyla Shen]

It is the fact that he transcended fleshly existence that is exactly the final culminating point of his life- it demonstrates what absolute enlightenment is capable of.

Unless you are a literalist -- that is, unless you read the Bible as something more than metaphor and allegory; that is, unless you are a fundie -- it is not necessary to either prove or disprove Jesus’s existence.

The two quotes you refer to are not necessarily contradictory. “Rare” could very well number in the hundreds. However, what is contradictory to me is the statement that Christians are especially ignorant of sin and salvation -- the most fundamental aspects of orthodox religion -- and then accuse someone of illogically holding such a thing in contempt. Is it not contemptible not to know sin and salvation as a Christian? If not, what is a Christian?

In line with my vision here, I should like to call it “I, The State.” It has more reworking potential, however.

[Beingof1]

Unless you are a literalist -- that is, unless you read the Bible as something more than metaphor and allegory; that is, unless you are a fundie -- it is not necessary to either prove or disprove Jesus’s existence.

And following this line of logic the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Plato, Caeser, Alexander the Great, etc. also did not exist right?
I might get something useful that will enrich my life from the story of Peter Pan but I do not believe in the reality that Peter Pan was a person.
By making the life of Jesus into an allegory it loses all of its power to assist us as Peter Pan could fly because he was the creation from imagination. Jesus was a real guy.

However, what is contradictory to me is the statement that Christians are especially ignorant of sin and salvation -- the most fundamental aspects of orthodox religion -- and then accuse someone of illogically holding such a thing in contempt.

Most Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and so on are ignorant of their own fundamental concepts.
I do not hold in contempt any of these sacred religions because of the ignorance of the followers. That would be ignorance on my part.

Is it not contemptible not to know sin and salvation as a Christian? If not, what is a Christian?

The same could be said of any religion and its basic tenants.
Why single out Christianity?

[Leyla Shen]

And following this line of logic the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Plato, Caeser, Alexander the Great, etc. also did not exist right?

As far as I know, neither of the men you mention above have attributed to them acts such as walking on water, turning it into wine, returning from the dead. The point is, the reason behind your insistence on his fleshly existence. Does proving Jesus existed prove also that he walked on water? Now, I think you should understand my thinking on the difference between possibility and probability. I reckon anything’s possible. However, what is probable is another matter entirely.

I might get something useful that will enrich my life from the story of Peter Pan but I do not believe in the reality that Peter Pan was a person.

Humour me, why is the fantasy that makes Peter Pan any more a fantasy than that which makes Jesus?

By making the life of Jesus into an allegory it loses all of its power to assist us as Peter Pan could fly because he was the creation from imagination.

But there is no doubt that Jesus was resurrected from the dead because the man existed? Is that right?

Jesus was a real guy.

And? Prove to me -- with the same type of evidence with which you can prove he walked the Earth -- that he was the son of God.

Most Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and so on are ignorant of their own fundamental concepts. I do not hold in contempt any of these sacred religions because of the ignorance of the followers. That would be ignorance on my part.

Well, it could come down to the Golden Rule: do unto others…no? Tell me, what is a religion without its followers?

What do you call this if not contemptible: "I have rarely heard anyone who knows what sin is, especially Christians. I have rarely heard anyone who knows what salvation is, especially Christians."

The same could be said of any religion and its basic tenants.
Why single out Christianity?

Why have you singled it out -- especially with your “especially”s?

[DHodges]

Jesus was a real guy.

In my opinion, the historical evidence is very weak. Some of the stories about his life are obviously untrue.

The same could be said of any religion and its basic tenants.
Why single out Christianity?

Christianity, and Islam, currently have a great deal of political influence and a large number of believers. There's not a whole lot of point in debunking Zeus.

[analog57]

Analog,

I take for granted that you are well meaning.

I cannot argue with you about your ideas on perfection because, truly, I cannot understand what you are saying. Your language is very dense and your method of expression very complicated.

Somewhere on this forum, David Quinn posted a link to something he wrote about academics. I don't always agree with every word David writes but this is a good piece. Have you read it?


Faizi

David Quinn was invited to the NPU forums and then abruptly vanquished. Why? I don't know. Very Ironic.


The physical universe consists of the perceptions of barriers and distance intervals, i.e. solidity and separation. These relations are actually the laws of nature. And like the human mind, the laws are orchestrated via a universal coherence. An assumption of continuity is then implied.

Transcendence is basically the realization of infinity. Infinity means continuity which can be duplicated via a wholly finite self similar iteration process. Geometric invariance becomes a rule that distributes over all finite iterations due to the encoding of a replicable rule within each fractal shape, just as DNA is encoded within each biological cell. Real mathematical continuity in the physical sense is an illusion.

Somehow, the encoded rules give rise to sentient biological entities, which means that sentience is part of the "DNA programming" of the universe.

[DHodges]

Infinity means continuity which can be duplicated via a wholly finite self similar iteration process. Geometric invariance becomes a rule that distributes over all finite iterations due to the encoding of a replicable rule within each fractal shape, just as DNA is encoded within each biological cell.

It's hard to tell what that means, if anything.

[MKFaizi]

Analog,

The reasons are obvious. You need to read David's writing about it.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Being of One:

If you knew what sin and salvation are you might abandon yourself to Christ, after all he claimed he is the only one that can save you.

Then, you are saying that only on the condition if I know what sin and salvation are as defined by you, I would abandon myself to Christ.

You indicated that very few people know the definition of sin and salvation. Obviously, no matter how I might define either of these things, the odds are that I would be wrong, in your view, because only a very few know what you know -- agree with your definitions.

By your standards, then, since I do not know the exclusive definitions of sin and salvation, I and others like me, can be considered ignorant by you and the very few who know what you know.

The logical surmise is that you and those few who also know your exclusive definitions of sin and salvation are very narrow minded. Logically, the only way that I could be taken up to Heaven would be to agree with you and your narrow group.

I do not believe that Jesus ever claimed that he is the only one who can save me. Further, I have no desire to be saved by Jesus or anyone else. I would rather rot in Hell than to ever put my faith in a poor, honorable man who was put to death for his insight into the hypocrisy of human beings, so called.

The whole idea of religion is fallacy. I think that, indeed, you are a fundamentalist.

If I said to you that the only way that you could be saved was to believe in Mohammed, would you not say that I was a fundamentalist and wrong?

Why should I believe you or anyone?

I don't and I will not. My convictions are my business. I do not believe that anyone like Jesus could want me to believe in the crap doctrine that came after him. I do not and I won't and I will not disclose my deepest personal thoughts to you or anyone else -- for the idiotic proof that you demand.

You sound like Pontius Pilate or some Roman soldier.

Someone cautioned me here to not dis Jesus.

If Jesus was here, I am convinced that Jesus would dis Jesus.

Jesus was a leader, not a follower. If, indeed, I want to follow his example, I will lead.

Faizi

[Diebert van Rhijn]

David Quinn was invited to the NPU forums and then abruptly vanquished. Why? I don't know. Very Ironic.

Analog looks a bit lost.

Expulsion from Ne Plus Ultra

Sadly, they quickly closed the forum to outsiders in the aftermath of kicking me off and are now hiding behind closed doors.

[Beingof1]

Leyla Shen,

As far as I know, neither of the men you mention above have attributed to them acts such as walking on water, turning it into wine, returning from the dead. The point is, the reason behind your insistence on his fleshly existence. Does proving Jesus existed prove also that he walked on water? Now, I think you should understand my thinking on the difference between possibility and probability. I reckon anything’s possible. However, what is probable is another matter entirely

The reason none of the above mentioned walked on water is that, as far as we know, they did not. If Jesus did not walk on water then the entire lesson of his life is lost. The record of his life would be a meaningless diatribe, an exercise in the futile.
The reasoning behind this conclusion is exclusion. A universe where everything and anything is possible but it cannot happen.
In a universe of all possibility - should be expectation of just that.

You are appealing to a half hearted attempt at a cure. Mediocrity does not help anyone - that is what is wrong with fundamental Christian thinking. They appeal to mythological symbolism concerning Jesus and make the case that no one can "be like Jesus". He becomes the Santa Claus of the whole religion.
The true heart of God is an all or nothing proposition. Radical in its experience as well as thought. Pushing the envelope of conventional thinking until it breaks into the realm of 'all possibilities'.

Humour me, why is the fantasy that makes Peter Pan any more a fantasy than that which makes Jesus?

"The world does not want to eliminate Christianity, it is not that straightforward, nor does it have that much character. No, it wants it proclaimed falsely, using eternity to give a flavour to the enjoyment of life."

- Soren Kierkegaard

Because Jesus was seen and heard by thousands of eyewitnesses.
The conversion of substantial regions of the Roman Empire before 100AD.

If his record is not true or believable, that would be akin to offering Tylenol to a terminally ill patient. Wonderful gesture but meaningless and powerless.

But there is no doubt that Jesus was resurrected from the dead because the man existed? Is that right?

I am appealing to honesty and integrity. Rather than admitting shortcomings and weaknesses, the attempt is made to reduce Christ to a victim. A victim of the state and history as his record is unreliable. What a legacy for a pure soul.

The intended result of the denegration of the reality of Christ is to lower the requirement so one can live in apathy to pure potential.

Why do not you believe you could resurrect?

And? Prove to me -- with the same type of evidence with which you can prove he walked the Earth -- that he was the son of God.

And who are you?

Well, it could come down to the Golden Rule: do unto others…no? Tell me, what is a religion without its followers?

A religion, in its true sense, does not have followers. It has an individual experience of its paradigm.
I do understand your point and it is well made.

What do you call this if not contemptible: "I have rarely heard anyone who knows what sin is, especially Christians. I have rarely heard anyone who knows what salvation is, especially Christians."

I call that my experience, although I was kind of vauge.
I find the Christianity that has no risk as weak powerless.

Why have you singled it out -- especially with your “especially”s?

So that I could draw a distinction, so as not to engage in needless discource.


DHodges,

In my opinion, the historical evidence is very weak. Some of the stories about his life are obviously untrue.

It is not his empirical existence that is in question amongst almost all historians, it his resurrection and miraculous events that are doubted. The notable exceptions would be Gnostic proponents as they do not believe you, I, or themselves exist.

Obviously untrue? It depends on what you have and have not experienced to anticipate possibility. You may yet Hodges, have an experience that defies all possibilities. Everything changes after one of those.

Christianity, and Islam, currently have a great deal of political influence and a large number of believers. There's not a whole lot of point in debunking Zeus.

Point taken - do not throw the baby out with the bathwater I would say.


MKFaizi,
I will answer you as soon as I can.

[Beingof1]

Then, you are saying that only on the condition if I know what sin and salvation are as defined by you, I would abandon myself to Christ.

Is there a disagreement in the definition of sin being an identity crisis, the belief that I am less or more than all that is?
Is salvation to know who and what you are with clarity?

How would you characterize sin and salvation?

You indicated that very few people know the definition of sin and salvation. Obviously, no matter how I might define either of these things, the odds are that I would be wrong, in your view, because only a very few know what you know -- agree with your definitions.

It is about honesty and openess. So yes, very few have I ever met are completely honest with themselves.
Truth is evident when nothing is hidden.

By your standards, then, since I do not know the exclusive definitions of sin and salvation, I and others like me, can be considered ignorant by you and the very few who know what you know.

You were engaged in a diatribe of how worthless and meaningless the life of Jesus is and was. So yes, at that point in time you were promoting ignorance.
Now you are infering I am self - righteous and pridefull, I do not mind that nearly as much. Earlier you were hurting yourself, now you are only trying to hurt me.

The logical surmise is that you and those few who also know your exclusive definitions of sin and salvation are very narrow minded. Logically, the only way that I could be taken up to Heaven would be to agree with you and your narrow group.

Now you are debating with yourself.

I have no desire to be saved by Jesus or anyone else. I would rather rot in Hell than to ever put my faith in a poor, honorable man who was put to death for his insight into the hypocrisy of human beings, so called.

That is because you still do not know who you are, if you knew who you were - you would know who Jesus is and was.

The whole idea of religion is fallacy. I think that, indeed, you are a fundamentalist.

OK - lets say I am a fundy by your definition.
If I get to big for that box, let me know.

If I said to you that the only way that you could be saved was to believe in Mohammed, would you not say that I was a fundamentalist and wrong?

Actually I would say you are right.
You seem real busy trying to fry me, so don`t let that little setback slow you down.

Why should I believe you or anyone?

Good question, you got an answer?

I don't and I will not.

Pardon me if my methods seem crude - but I am actually being a friend to you right now. Maybe some day you will think about this conversation and thank God for it.

You sound like Pontius Pilate or some Roman soldier.

Well you go girl.

I think you have a heart full of passion for truth, I admire that about you. I also admire you not having much tolerance for hypocrites.
I would say your discerning of others intentions and motives could use some work.

If Jesus was here, I am convinced that Jesus would dis Jesus.

You mean like the bumper sticker - "dear Lord, save me from your followers, amen".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

(...)
Because Jesus was seen and heard by thousands of eyewitnesses.

Actually none of the actual writers of the NT or other writings of that age that mention Jesus seem to have been eyewitnesses or even contemporaries. Too many errors and borrowing of fragments from clearly older records have been found.

However, there is as can be expected some dispute over this. Bottomline is that we're not in the realm of fact here. It's like saying it's true that Moses got the stone tablets on the mountain because the story tells that many people were standing there watching the event. Duh.

The conversion of substantial regions of the Roman Empire before 100AD.

A pattern that repeated several times in the history of religions. What does it mean?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Beingof1:

Is there a disagreement in the definition of sin being an identity crisis, the belief that I am less or more than all that is?
Is salvation to know who and what you are with clarity?

You mentioned elsewhere that you are not the only person using this definition. Do you know any others in particular who can elaborate this view?

Also, you seem to have the character of someone trying to save Christianity from Christians: have you found this enterprise to be fruitful?

[MKFaizi]

Thanks for posting the link, Diebert.

I read a bit of it. I have read lots of it before -- but how astonishing, really.

Ph.d. -- woo hoo. It's wonderful that people work hard to get a degree such as that and I sincerely hope that they find work that is meaningful to them and all that sort of rot.

I have known several people well who have Ph.d.'s in this or that thing. But not all of them use the thing as a weapon in the way that the people --primarily the one dude -- on this forum did. Many of them see the degree as rather meaningless EXCEPT that it enables them to dabble in something they love -- like geology, for example.

Someone who has a high degree in a study is a specialist in that field of study. The degree is not indicative of superiority in intelligence or superiority of any sort.

Reading the posts from that particular forum is interesting in that these people who consider themselves to be superior to the great unwashed masses are as jarred by thought that is not familiar and agreeable to them as, say, any hillbilly. In fact, in my experience, many hillbillies are more intellectually open and interested in new ideas or abstract thinking than those.

It is no wonder that that forum was closed to most people and accessible by invitation only. It was a vacuum intended to suck people in -- through the feeling of exclusivity -- and shut them out from anything that was not acceptable to this small, exclusive group.

Kind of like the Ku Klux Klan or some sort of cult. Kind of like Scientology.

Poor little Analog. No wonder he cannot make himself easily understood. Perhaps, he may yet be de-programmed.

Maybe, he can start with a simple recitation of the alphabet to get him started. Then, work his way up to simple, easily understood sentences -- like, "I think this or that thing." Something like, "I think the color blue is a cool, soothing color" or "I think that all people in the world should be well fed." Any elementary thought.

Something like those things just to get him started. Perhaps, in the world where he lives, he could start with some simple tactile exercises -- petting a kitten, playing with a puppy. Anything to get him connected with basics.

Start him out on a basic ten year old level and work up.

I am not being sarcastic. I do feel sorry for him and I would genuinely like to see him break free from his programming.

Faizi

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I dunno MK... that doesn't seem very practical.

Maybe we could find a forum with 12-14 year-olds discussing their issues, and dump analog in there. It would be like him going to another country, where everyone speaks another language. The goal would be to explain philosophy to these kids, without making esoteric references to mathematics, and without drawing unreadable maps of 'necessary conditions' and 'logical consequences'.

13 year olds aren't idiots. By that age, they should be able to understand you and your philosophy... and if they don't, you're mumbling.

[DHodges]

Expulsion from Ne Plus Ultra

Wow!

That read like a scene out of an Ayn Rand book or something, where the characters are completely cardboard. I've never seen someone play "Priest of Science" with such utter single-mindedness. If I was reading it in a novel, I'd think it was a gross exageration.

The stuff at the end about women was an interesting turn. It shows how quickly the supposed defenders of science will abandon it when scientific truth goes against political correctness, suddenly leaping to the defense of the bitch in distress.

I've seen this time and again, yet it still shocks me.

[DHodges]

It is not his empirical existence that is in question amongst almost all historians, it his resurrection and miraculous events that are doubted.

Well, if you just want to say there was some preacher guy who lived 2000 years ago... I'm willing to grant that there were many.

Obviously untrue? It depends on what you have and have not experienced to anticipate possibility. You may yet Hodges, have an experience that defies all possibilities. Everything changes after one of those.

Well, for instance, when you have two different accounts in the Bible that contradict each other, then obviously they are not both true. There are a variety of such. There are also stories which, if true, would be verifiable from sources outside the Bible.

In any case, he could not have risen from the dead, as he would have then been a zombie and would have gone around eating brains. Everybody knows that.

[analog57]

Infinity means continuity which can be duplicated via a wholly finite self similar iteration process. Geometric invariance becomes a rule that distributes over all finite iterations due to the encoding of a replicable rule within each fractal shape, just as DNA is encoded within each biological cell.

It's hard to tell what that means, if anything.

Here is a clue ...for you:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath540/kmath540.htm

[analog57]

Analog,

The reasons are obvious. You need to read David's writing about it.

Faizi

There are two sides to the story. You are on "Quinn's team". Your point of view is obvious. On the other hand, I am trying to be objective and unbiased. Not always easy to do...

[analog57]

Poor little Analog. No wonder he cannot make himself easily understood. Perhaps, he may yet be de-programmed.

I can appreciate your humor, especially since there are NO SMILEYS...

As I recall and look back at the discussion, DQ made the following statements:

http://home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/wo ... npu01.html

DQ:

Already, after a couple of days of perusing this forum, I regard most of you to be quite, quite mad. And no doubt, in turn, most of you will come to see me as an ignorant simpleton.

DQ defines timeless and ultimate knowledge as:

DQ:

Knowledge that cannot be overturned in any way, either by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, and is therefore true in all possible worlds. This contrasts with the relativistic and/or provisional truths of science.

Timeless knowledge is defined as that which is true for all time. If it is also an ultimate knowledge, then it is true for all possible worlds.

According to past conversations, A=A qualifies as ultimate-timeless knowledge by DQ.

Yes, physical objects are in a state of flux, in that they change with time. Of course one can see that if time is also a dimension then the thing becomes a changeless in four dimensions. So the law of identity holds for the higher dimensional thing, when time is a dimension. [thing + flux] is timeless. Yet time as a dimension is only a provisional theory, not an absolute truth.

So how is it possible to correlate a timeless analytic truth to our observed physical reality? I suppose one can, and must, see the combination of mental and physical reality, however limited any "sensed" physical reality may be, as a form of absolute existence, and in that respect, it is necessarily a timeless truth.

Hostile banter from timeless sages notwithstanding, I am forced to agree that there is some form of absolute existence and those who would say otherwise, are politically motivated?

Of course, any thing that is changeless with respect to transformation is quintessentially a symmetry, and symmetry subsumes any form of absolutism.