On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead.
Adonai bless
Interesting, I've never heard this before... What are your sources?
On July 18 2010 19:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote: hju, these threads always suck^^ I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
Oh the irony...
Difficult to find sources would take some time as it mostly covered up specially teachings of techno-spirituality I think most of the public would be interested in that if knew about it. There is a website www.cassiopaea.org which has a research team working on rediscovering the techniques of palochristanity and techno-spirituality my source is personal experience but not gonna go into that at present.
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Sounds good man .
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: If you don't like those definitions i gave, another broader definition is the ability to do work. For the second question i'd suggest asking that to a professor on a university.
But what is it that gives it this ability? There must be something.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: What you're talking seems to be related about is the problem of induction, so I'd reccomend you look it up and also read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, can be found online, it's a short story. Basically says how science has been improving, and how facts we now think are wrong, are not totally wrong, but just with some details missing. That as science progresses and gathers and analyzes more data what we know gets more refined and more accurate, so many things people "knew" with the few simple methos and observations a few centuries ago, were not 100% wrong. The more science advances the closer to 100% it gets. It's not a one time job. Anyway, he explains it better than me.
Yes, I totally agree with this. But until it is 100% refined we cannot say it truly understands anything. For example a new theory might evolve that totally debases our old theories and this is accepted as the new 'idea' of how reality is.
I will read this short story soon.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: But do you know what are sciences' assumptions? Science starts from the assumption that things are knowable. If you don't make that assumption, you can't apply reasoning and there would be no point in trying to describe things scientifically. After that, that things exist and are somehow describable. Again, without these 2 assumptions, you can't reason any knowledge about anything, because 1) they couldn't be known; 2) they wouldn't exist; 3) they coudln't be described.
The best we could do, I think, is to say that scientific descriptions of some phenomena are very accurate and that their accuracy is a strong indication that some things are knowable. So as far as that goes, I'd say science can describe some elements of reality. But there are a lot of ways to describe reality and the physical laws of the universe are not the only way to do it.
Concerning the computer metaphor, isn't knowing how a computer works, part of knowing what it is? How can you know what a computer truly is if you don't know how it works and vice versa?
Btw, i'd like to ask you to define reality, and how does that fit the place you live in.
Science makes the assumption that : 1. All things are ultimately objective and based off of material things. 2. These objective and material things have 'inherent' laws that govern there interactions. 3. Consciousness arises from physical properties i.e. subjective experience and come from objective phenomena.
My computer metaphor was meant to explain that though we may have description A then can describe object B that does not mean there is any correlation between A and B. For example between Newtonian and relativistic physics. They can both describe the workings of reality very, very accurately but from a philosophical point of view they are completely different and even opposed.
From Newtonian physics we infer that objects and forces are concrete in time and space and have a fixed location. But form relativistic physics we can infer that time and space are not 'concrete' in the way we think they are. That is that two observers can only agree that something happened not at what time or what place it actually happened.
Though both these may describe the physical interactions similarly there philosophical implications are completely different. And it is from these philosophical implications that we derive our world view. These are what I am concerned with. If we argue that Science can accurately describe reality in its current form then we say that its philosophical implications are also correct which if accepted can have huge impacts.
This is just a small example. The difference between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics is vastly different and philosophical implications are huge. For example: Science has always assumed that objectivity is real and that things are knowable. What quantum physics tells us is that this is not possible and that our belief in an objective world may even be misplaced.
On July 19 2010 01:30 Blyadischa wrote: Wish there were more people who actually have read some of the big philosophers before making claims from messages they found in movies.
Can you cite who these people are and make appropriate arguments for this? I'm tired of people coming into this thread and assuming that the people in this thread do not know what they are talking about. While there are individuals who might exhibit this from time to time, we are not idiots. Read the entire thread history before you start making claims.
This isn't particularly addressed to you Blyadisha but to everyone who does this. One of TL's ten commandments is to respect threads and to read the history of the thread before makings posts.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: If you don't like those definitions i gave, another broader definition is the ability to do work.
But what is it that gives it this ability? There must be something.
can I butt in here? I'm very interested. What exactly are you talking about? I tried to read back but I am just confused. Epsilon, can you explain what it is you are asking about?
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom ?
One of the greatest philosophers I have ever known told me this...
"Don't know, don't care, I'm gonna go back to work."
When I would ask him stuff like this.
really? he was one of the greatest philosophers you've ever known, and he didn't care about those questions? exactly what kinds of questions did this great philosopher care about?
On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote: I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus).
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead.
Adonai bless
Interesting, I've never heard this before... What are your sources?
On July 18 2010 19:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote: hju, these threads always suck^^ I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
Oh the irony...
Difficult to find sources would take some time as it mostly covered up specially teachings of techno-spirituality I think most of the public would be interested in that if knew about it. There is a website www.cassiopaea.org which has a research team working on rediscovering the techniques of palochristanity and techno-spirituality my source is personal experience but not gonna go into that at present.
You are referring to the early Gnostic sects? We can't really do much dialoging if you aren't willing to provide me with information.
On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote: I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus).
no sources, I just know it's almost certainly true. An enlightened man wouldn't write contradictory stories that go completely against his most basic principles. Want a dozen examples? I am not expert on the bible but I am sure that would be quite easy to muster.
Am I correct in that your counter to my argument is that it can't be proven they aren't his teachings? Because of course that is true - I can't prove anything based on stuff that happened thousand+ years ago and neither can you. However, it can be proven that they contradict his teachings time and time again.
If I wrote a book of buddhism, and it was contradictory to many of buddha's known teachings - how could you debunk it if I claimed it was based on his teachings? You couldn't. We must use our own ability to think critically to come to our own conclusions.
So are you disagreeing with my assertation? Do you want me to provide repeated contradictions?
And FWIW I don't think his teachings were just corrupted in the new testament (though that has a greater level of corruption). I think they were corrupted as soon as other authors started interposing their own lessons and views as being the teachings "of god". If Jesus was really connected to god then it is he that should be giving the lessons only.
And this is all of course only if Jesus actually existed in the first place. Though, I suspect he did.
On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote: I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus).
no sources, I just know it's almost certainly true. An enlightened man wouldn't write contradictory stories that go completely against his most basic principles. Want a dozen examples? I am not expert on the bible but I am sure that would be quite easy to muster.
Am I correct in that your counter to my argument is that it can't be proven they aren't his teachings? Because of course that is true - I can't prove anything based on stuff that happened thousand+ years ago and neither can you. However, it can be proven that they contradict his teachings time and time again.
If I wrote a book of buddhism, and it was contradictory to many of buddha's known teachings - how could you debunk it if I claimed it was based on his teachings? You couldn't. We must use our own ability to think critically to come to our own conclusions.
So are you disagreeing with my assertation? Do you want me to provide repeated contradictions?
And FWIW I don't think his teachings were just corrupted in the new testament (though that has a greater level of corruption). I think they were corrupted as soon as other authors started interposing their own lessons and views as being the teachings of christ(aka the old testament).
My "counter to [your] argument" is this: if you have no sources and simply know these things to be "almost certainly true," then I fail to see any point in pursuing a dialogue with you, as you have no clue what you're talking about (if you want me to be extremely upfront with you). Your beliefs, and ensuing position, isn't rational.
However with that said, I wouldn't mind if you posted one or two examples, just to see what angle you're coming from. If you do, please try to avoid regurgitating information commonly found in the "infidel" community (i.e. Ehrman, "Jesus seminar").
How do I have no clue what I am talking about? Your argument sucks man, it's stupid. I can use my brain, I don't have to be an expert on christianity to see the blatant contradictions.
A quote from jesus
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3–5
And yet, how does the bible tell us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc.
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Leviticus 19:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Corinthians 2:15
how about jesus on non-violence? I think we all know about Christianity's history of violence.
"You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another." Mt. 10.22-23
"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41
but the bible doesn't always hold this message
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema. Corinthians 16:22
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Psalm 109:6-14
blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Psalm 144:1
here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus there are more
and much much much more plentiful than that is the ways in which the bible contradicts itself.
but clearly, I have no clue what I am talking about. clearly you have to be a scholar to see these blatant contradictions (among hundreds more)
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote: How do I have no clue what I am talking about? You're argument sucks man, it's stupid. I can use my brain, I don't have to be an expert on christianity to see the blatant contradictions.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3–5
And yet, how does the bible tell us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc.
"You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another." Mt. 10.22-23
"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema. Corinthians 16:22
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Psalm 109:6-14
blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Psalm 144:1
here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus there are more
and much much much more plentiful than that is the ways in which the bible contradicts itself.
but clearly, I have no clue what I am talking about. clearly you have to be a scholar to see these blatant contradictions (among hundreds more)
Forgive my criticism but that is pretty poor work of analysis. You just threw some quotes at us...
Thanks for the response Travis, I should have time to address it tonight when I reply to Epsilon. In the mean time, allow me to say that I agree with JP - what you've provided does not appear well thought out. I'm not exactly sure if you understand what you've said about Jesus, but you seem to arguing that his teachings have been corrupted in the sense that they are now moral, that they no longer agree with the basic principles of the Old Testament (whereas his actual teachings would have). I will give you credit for the unique view - that Jesus wasn't a moral teacher, and that his teachings had to be corrupted because they were so barbaric and immoral.
I suspect that this isn't your intention, but it is what you said:
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted... Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
An enlightened man wouldn't write contradictory stories that go completely against his most basic principles (How do you know his most basic principles, by the way?)
A quote from jesus (Matt. 7:3-5)
how about jesus on non-violence?...
here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus there are more
On July 19 2010 04:04 RolleMcKnolle wrote: never argue with believers its just gonna ruin ur day
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: If you don't like those definitions i gave, another broader definition is the ability to do work. For the second question i'd suggest asking that to a professor on a university.
But what is it that gives it this ability? There must be something.
Other objects when they react in some way with another, be it heat transfer, a shock, etc. This is related to the 1st law of thermodynamics and Lavoiser's. Every object or system has a defined energy given by its mass times light velocity squared, but being mass constant, changes in the energy - in this case called internal energy - of an object are only transferable with other objects or systems through work or heat.
On July 19 2010 01:35 Epsilon8 wrote:Yes, I totally agree with this. But until it is 100% refined we cannot say it truly understands anything. For example a new theory might evolve that totally debases our old theories and this is accepted as the new 'idea' of how reality is.
I believe we can... we can't say we understand all, but at least parts of the picture. When the earth was thought to be spherical, we can't say those scientists didn't understand anything, same when they thought it was an oblate spheroid. The general idea was there, most information was there, just a few details were missing. It wasn't 100% wrong..., ofc it wasn't 100% right either, but thats where data gathering and analyzing enters, and why science evolves with time.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: But do you know what are sciences' assumptions? Science starts from the assumption that things are knowable. If you don't make that assumption, you can't apply reasoning and there would be no point in trying to describe things scientifically. After that, that things exist and are somehow describable. Again, without these 2 assumptions, you can't reason any knowledge about anything, because 1) they couldn't be known; 2) they wouldn't exist; 3) they coudln't be described.
The best we could do, I think, is to say that scientific descriptions of some phenomena are very accurate and that their accuracy is a strong indication that some things are knowable. So as far as that goes, I'd say science can describe some elements of reality. But there are a lot of ways to describe reality and the physical laws of the universe are not the only way to do it.
Concerning the computer metaphor, isn't knowing how a computer works, part of knowing what it is? How can you know what a computer truly is if you don't know how it works and vice versa?
Btw, i'd like to ask you to define reality, and how does that fit the place you live in.
Science makes the assumption that : 1. All things are ultimately objective and based off of material things. 2. These objective and material things have 'inherent' laws that govern there interactions. 3. Consciousness arises from physical properties i.e. subjective experience and come from objective phenomena.
My computer metaphor was meant to explain that though we may have description A then can describe object B that does not mean there is any correlation between A and B. For example between Newtonian and relativistic physics. They can both describe the workings of reality very, very accurately but from a philosophical point of view they are completely different and even opposed.
From Newtonian physics we infer that objects and forces are concrete in time and space and have a fixed location. But form relativistic physics we can infer that time and space are not 'concrete' in the way we think they are. That is that two observers can only agree that something happened not at what time or what place it actually happened.
Though both these may describe the physical interactions similarly there philosophical implications are completely different. And it is from these philosophical implications that we derive our world view. These are what I am concerned with. If we argue that Science can accurately describe reality in its current form then we say that its philosophical implications are also correct which if accepted can have huge impacts.
This is just a small example. The difference between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics is vastly different and philosophical implications are huge. For example: Science has always assumed that objectivity is real and that things are knowable. What quantum physics tells us is that this is not possible and that our belief in an objective world may even be misplaced.
Clearly something must be knowable or science would not be capable of making predictions at all. To make a prediction it's necessary to know at least how the phenomenon works. What we can say is that for our reality science seems to have some knowledge about it due to the accurate predictions it makes, and that there could be more realities, to which science has not yet made contact. Correct me if i'm wrong please.
On July 19 2010 04:18 Gnosis wrote: (How do you know his most basic principles, by the way?)
Because it teaches them in the bible. That is, if I am to assume those quotes are even correct.
Given that Jesus was a holy and peaceful man, it would be obvious what his teachings are anyways. Love and understanding.
Also, if Jesus was real, I don't think he strictly adhered to what was in the old testament. It's pretty ridiculous and also goes against his basic teachings.
Anyways, I am looking forward to how you are going to tell me that those quotes do not contradict each other.
EPT
.
