Superstition: I find some superstition mildy entertaining/amusing Luck: I suppose luck happens from time to time. Best luck I know of = L abor U nder C orrect K nowledge Voodoo: probably best left to those that don't mind playing with chicken feet. One thing I know for sure is that I don't know much. Fortunately, I don't need to know much. It stands to reason that who-ever, what- ever God/ Higher Power is or might be, that I am not it. If God turns out to be a woman, then there is probably a good chance that I could end up in hell and not really have a clue as to how I got there Seeing and how I may have gone for years thinking that the relationship was A- OK.... Superstition, Luck, and Voodoo, too much for my one brain cell to even consider whilst trying to focus on trading. Good trading and Living to All, plumlazy
Many observers have noted that man is not equipped to deal with the pace of his own development. We are all trained and conditioned not to resort to the base instincts that lurk inside all of us. Often, what is evil is dependant on where you stand. Attacker or defender; hungry or well fed; a close mate or lonely and wandering; secure and warm or insecure and cold; full of hope or mindless with despair. Imagine what 250 years from now will be like. I doubt if we can keep up with the pace of development. 50 years from now we might have the choice to extend our lives by up to 20 years and to choose the profile of our children. Like the world is not crowded enough already and people don't have too high expectations of what their offspring should be like. Man is a self destructive animal. In fact, by our own definition, we are all vermin. Now go wash your hands. :eek:
Thanks for the "context" darkhorse, and for your response to the question I put to you. I notice though you avoided answering it directly, but whether that was intentional on your part - perhaps because you feel the need to leave yourself some kind of room to manouvere - or not, please be clear about this...... I am not attempting to debunk or attack, this is simply the way I see stuff I would just say as an aside, I was rather astonished to read your description of your God as something extremely similar to "Q", that did suprise me, as it certainly dispells the notion of a "kind and loving God" but I feel it really makes my 'thought' more relevant than anything else I've read from you so far. Thanks again for taking the trouble to post it First here is my "context".... "The only God can be Thought Itself" Like we hold the phenomenon of consciousness, we have no choice but to hold the phenomenon thought. Belief in a God creator states omnipotence . We are in that case as God intended us to be. On the big question of whether we believe 'He' exists, that part is for each of us to decide. It will be a conclusion we all come to via the only possible means we have - our very thought determinations. It is from the two fundementals of consciousness and thought which enable me to make this post. It is a good..flawed....pathetic....bad ....interesting post, depending solely on the determinations or conclusions of the reader, using the only application available to her/him. The application of thought.. If the belief in God is described as a spirit or an innate understanding then this can only be manifested to the consciousness through thought. If it was an innate understanding then everyone must have it, just like everyone has consciousness. Therefore the argument must be that if there was a God then it is intended for us to receive any such understanding through thought and not possess it by default, for instance as life itself. By this contention and then for his own reasons, God made the natural state of thought itself capable of producing imperfect results for the very reason that it can generate a 'wrong' conclusion. We all can only get to our -beliefs - assumtions - knowledge from the use of thought itself. Recognition, understanding, reason, cognition, is arrived at from the very process of thought. If sub conscious thought is construed as innate, no matter how I try to reason against it, I could not be able to deny the existence of God, any more that I can stop myself from breathing. All of mankind does not believe in the same or one God, but ONE almighty God could have decided to make the act of thought perfect to him in so far as , we all innately knew he existed, in a similar way we know we have to breathe and therfore do it cognitively. There is a distinct and enormous gap from knowing that innately and believing it through thought ( even instinctively believing it would be belief / understanding / knowledge - derived through thought). If some people say that they have that understanding as an innate sense or "Spirit", then God may have decided that some would have it and some wouldn't. That understanding can only come from the conscious knowledge of its owner but, as this God decided that others would not be able to generate this same knowledge and understanding, he presumably intends that they should NOT have it innately, other than they should have this 'understanding' passed onto them by a different method ie. learning from those who have this bigger knowledge. After all, Einstein had a bigger perhaps innate sense of understanding about certain things in his time than some (though not all) of his contmporaries. He passed this on through the medium of science, so why not the medium of religion or even one's own personal belief in God as the lesson itself ? Does darkhorse for example have this different kind of knowledge given to him as innate gift from God? If he does then the root of it shows itself from his thoughts. It cannot manifest itself to himself or anyone else by any other means.Yet it's thought itself which can generate faults. Darkhorse believes from his thoughts and understandings that FasterPusseyCat is wrong and vice versa. The fact that two conclusions can be arrived at from the product of thought itself demonstrates that God as such, intended for mankind that it must be that way. Thought itself obviously generates 'faulty' results. There is no way any results from thought can be categorically stated as 'right' other than by external proof as a logical theorem or as a concept of truth within thought itself. Then for the existence of God the only external means available is to 'protest the truth'. Whilst a concept within thought is subject to the flaws that thought itself produces. Using the analogy of a car, if we are the vehicles ( I insist on being a limousine ! ) consciousness is the gas and thought is the engine, to get us along on the journey of life (yuk ), then it is intentional that - thought the engine - as wonderful and as powerful as it is, has 3 spark plugs missing. It is meant to be. {Some engines I submit also have their starter motors residing on another planet ). Apparently the only tools sent by God to repair the engine (if you don't believe then you must come to believe in the existence of God , before you end up in the great scrapyard in the sky) was ever only and is still shipped via human beings. The only method apparently is to change the engine ( alter your thoughts ). But the repair can only be carried out by the very thing that is faulty (thought itself). We go along in a vehicle faulty and downright dangerous, but it's the only way we can. If God chose to do things the 'hard' way, meaning mankind has to apply an imperfect method which he has bestowed upon us all - which is thought itself - to become to believe in God, then just as we can say he wants us to believe he exists we can say he also doesn't, as he expects to get an imperfect result from those who come to the 'wrong' conclusion. If it is 'right' to to believe in God then it can't be through using thought, because it is capable of rendering the wrong result. Ipso facto God would want it that way. Should he exist in the first place he wants people to come to the 'wrong' conclusion as well as 'right' one. SO: My thought...... Blind faith is the only solution for now, for those who must believe in a creator. Blind faith sometimes pays off, but thought itself is a truely wonderful thing also. If there were a God then it's the proper repair of the car that will be the ultimate payoff, if indeed there even is a payoff, something which can make thought just as inborn as consciousness, not the self acceptance of a duff repair kit producing defective results, which just maybe, is there only in the early stages of diagnosis, as a means to eventually better enlighten by being able to doubt and question those who use it now. Speak to the manufacturer (if you think that's what you are doing) and ask for a better repair kit, even if you get one it still manifestly will be faulty just like the one your trying to 'repair'. As it can only come to you from your thought ability. IF I believe it's existence itself which is God then If there is a different God to that, he must intend me to come to my 'existence itself is God' conclusion. If he wants me to come to a different one now or in due course, it can't be through thought which he's given me, unless he intends me to come to a so called wrong or a so called right conclusion. Evil, wrong, right, good, bad, etc are made known to us by the product of thought. If there is a creator then these products were purposely defective evaluations of our condition, produced by the very thing such a God gave us, aka thought itself. Hows that for a verbose dumpage !!
Man is also balanced with caring, thoughtful, life giving and affectionate nature, even if it might be based on self betterment. We are like vermin, we are also like the wind, sky, sun. There is a bright side too. That may be the design which will eventually light the way
Stu...not bad at all. Next time though, perhaps you can give us the full text instead of a brief outline
stu, a few more posts like that one and you may replace dark as the king of verbose dumpage. love that term, btw after reading many of dark's endless verbosity i sincerely believe that his position originates from fear, not reason. put simply, 'dark' is afraid of the dark so his mind is working overtime to quell those fears. what better way than to convince onself that a grand life awaits after death. i wish it were true i really do (who wouldn't) but...... :-/
Competition....yeah, a verbal slugfest! That's what we need (I love that term "verbose dumpage" as well. Going right into my arsenal of plagiarized wit and wisdom)
Oh boy, new stuff while I was away. Let's see, where to begin⦠Good job I have a big dick and heaps of money. Ah yes, the John Holmes approach. Hope it works out better for you than him. dark you sound like a cross between a southern baptist preacher & deepak chopra....nothing has been revealed, in fact, the "written word" is dam obscure, actually unintelligible the reader inserts his own meaning which means it's totally garbage....total unadulterated nonsense What wonderfully irrelevant statements. You should write Britney Spears lyrics. babeh babeh, ah got nuh-thin but innn-sultsss... Hows that for a verbose dumpage !! Stu, too much in your post to respond quote by quote thus my last line reference. Good stuff, not dumpage at all. First off, I appreciate the civil tone. A nice change from calling my beliefs hick nonsense. I did answer you directly, I just used more than one sentence to do it. No dancing around in that post, I was pretty much clear as a bell (my level of clarity can perhaps be gaged in relation to faster's animosity). My God is not like Q because my God was there first. The original is not defiled by the weak imitation. In fact I would say that Q, from what little I know of him, is more like the Greek idea of human gods with petty frailties (don't watch much TV but think I saw him once years ago on sci fi channel at 4 am after a party). I do see your point of surprise though: many are surprised to hear that all Christians do not see God as all warm and fuzzy. Is He loving? Yes. Is he kind and merciful? Definitely. But He is also sovereign, powerful, just and wrathful. I'm not giving any hidden wisdom here, all elements of God's character are laid out plain as day in the word, in actions as well as words. Humble Jesus meek and mild tore the pharisees apart without even trying. He parted an angry mob with little more than a glare. And that's only the tip of the iceberg, don't even ask about the old testament. Let it suffice to say that God is not a teddy bear and never claimed to be one. He offers love and mercy, and because the world is so stupid, they equate mercy with weakness. Or they take the opposite tack and paint him as pure fury, vengeance and destruction with no mercy whatsoever. They never put the two together, because that would be getting too close to the truth. When you only present one dimension of God's personality, you take away from His fullness and distort his character, making it into a caricature, which is all too frequently the goal. Most are only familiar with certain presented aspects, depending on who they have come in contact with and what peg they have hung their conceptions on. It's normal to get distorted information secondhand. Better to go to the source. Regarding what God would do or how He would reveal himself or what tools he would use, be careful not to assume too much. That's like taking a drive through the country and saying 'if there is a house over the next hill, it has to be a blue house' or 'if I stop for gas at this country store, the clerk will have a southern accent.' To borrow from Deniro, when you assume, you make an ass out of you. Not every time, but close enough to make a case. So don't rest too much on what God 'obviously would' or 'obviously would not' do. Regarding the thought stuff: seems we are right back with Kant again, just another version of his predicament: all perceptual intake is filtered through the senses, and we can never be sure that the senses can be trusted, so we can never trust reality. The answer is, it doesn't matter because reality is all we have, the question is moot and Kant knows it. Trust or bust. If you are dying of thirst in the desert and I come along and offer you a glass of water, are you going to question my motives? Are you going to wonder whether the water is poisoned? No, you are going to drink the water because the only other option is death. Similarly, Kant used his senses and his mental faculties to put together an argument and then took the time and trouble to share that argument. In otherwords, he acted as if thoughts and ideas and truths had absolute value beyond his own mind even as he questioned that fact. Using observation to discredit the value of observation? Talk about hypocrisy. Regarding the idea that 'blind faith is the only solution:' there is a subtle but substantive error in this statement. You assume that no believers have had direct contact with God, firsthand experience of His presence. This assumption is incorrect. Logic led me into the vortex, but He himself sealed the deal. You think believing is a tough nut to crack? Try denying God after feeling His undeniable presence plain as sunshine on your face. You also overlook the strengthening case phenomenon. If an incorrect theory is applied enough times, reality will eventually crack it open, break it apart (traders know this well). A correct theory, however, is STRENGTHENED by reality. The more you apply it, the more it reveals, the more it works. The stronger it becomes. Try denying evidence on all levels that gets stronger the more you know, that deepens with every passing day. The smarter I get, the sharper I get, the wiser I get, the deeper my faith becomes. Coincidence? Nosireebob. By the way (and this is not in relation to your recent post Stu, but to some stuff a lil' bit back): backpedaling to the idea that some folks are just born with a faith tendency: the 'wired for God' argument is basically an atheist argument in drag. In order to make the wiring argument, it is necessary to first assume God does not exist- in otherwords, to assume the atheist position in the first place. The wired argument is attractive specifically because of its 'above the fray' quality- it allows atheists to maintain an illusion of detached neutrality, while making believers look like victims of their genes. Say hey, make you look smart and your opponent sad and stupid, two birds with one stone. Too bad that dog won't hunt.