Guest end3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well, after looking at wiki, my elementary thoughts were those of 2000+ years ago. ahh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think Christians are performance artists who have forgotten that they are pretending. Having said that however, I don't believe they are alone in this. Shakespeare said... Agree. We all are performing. We all have illusions of ourselves, others, the world, reality, etc. We all even carry different levels of delusions as well. The difference though is that some feel the need of at least trying to reach closer to what "really is there" instead of sticking to fairy tales out of comfort. It's easier to stay in the dream zone. And it's not easy to look for the "real" Reality, only to discover that it's illusive and probably never can be fully understood. Agreed Hans. I think our reality, in some respects, is quite absurd and horrifying. But I think if we each have the courage to try and understand, and see things as they are then our own manifestation in the world will be less absurd and horrifying. Exactly. I think courage is the key word. When I lost my faith, I realized it was all about honesty. Not honesty to other people necessarily, but honesty to myself. I couldn't keep on building arguments and excuses for lies that I couldn't find any natural support for. If the world contradicts the existence of something, then the attempts of deluding oneself is the ultimate dishonesty. And courage is definitely also very important. One has to have the courage to break the lies. Not an easy thing to do, and it has been painful at times. "If all of life is a stage," the honest questions I have to answer are: "To what audience do I play?" and "What do I wish to gain from my audience?" The sobering and honest answers change with each and every audience! As with "the audiences," life is both glorious and wrenched! Getting sucked into either audience leads one into costly dead ends! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 MM - my church took that fairy tale one step further by saying that it didn't rain until the Flood. No, really. I can only imagine the horror and fear, the unending pain, the absolute terror, of the entire world as the storm-god slaughtered all of them. Every man, every woman, every little child, all screaming for mercy--many to gods who had nothing to do with the flood, many who might not even have heard of this particular little tribal deity. Afterward, that little provincial tribal god felt remorse (meaning, he realized he'd made a mistake: this ineffable, utterly infallible god had done something wrong!) and swore to his bride that he'd never hit her again. Ever. To prove it, he gave her a rainbow to wear in her hair, so she could look at it when she was at her most fearful and know that her husband would never again injure her like that. And Christians use this myth as a story of divine grace. I see it as a story of the horrific abuse of God upon his bride--humanity--and the "honeymoon phase" after his beating. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well, after looking at wiki, my elementary thoughts were those of 2000+ years ago. ahh well. End, I really do believe that you are capable of more than you might give yourself credit. And besides, I think some of the ideas from 2000+ years ago are still valid and relevant to us today. I am especially fond of Aristotle's causes. ----------------------------------------- Saner, I have a difficult time understanding you sometimes. I didn't follow that last post of yours for instance. But I wanted to drop in and say... Hey! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This just occured to me. I think I am starting to understand a little more from another perspective. You take what you believe to be as true and then fit what you see to that standard or you take what you see and derive a standard from that. I guess I can see the frustration on your part by me "fitting" my reality to a standard, i.e. Christianity. This is a difficult proposition for me as I have been doing the former for so long. So bear with me. Interesting propositions with each., but cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Increasingly it seems to me that mechanists doing battle with vitalists is really sort of tragic. So why are the machinists pissed at the violinists? Is it a union thing or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted April 13, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted April 13, 2012 I guess I can see the frustration on your part by me "fitting" my reality to a standard, i.e. Christianity. Perhaps you overreach a bit at times (reverse osmosis???), but I believe that is the purpose of mythology (religious systems). It provides a framework on which to hang experiences of reality and assigns them meaning or value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This just occured to me. I think I am starting to understand a little more from another perspective. You take what you believe to be as true and then fit what you see to that standard or you take what you see and derive a standard from that. I guess I can see the frustration on your part by me "fitting" my reality to a standard, i.e. Christianity. This is a difficult proposition for me as I have been doing the former for so long. So bear with me. Interesting propositions with each., but cool. Finally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I guess I can see the frustration on your part by me "fitting" my reality to a standard, i.e. Christianity. Perhaps you overreach a bit at times (reverse osmosis???), but I believe that is the purpose of mythology (religious systems). It provides a framework on which to hang experiences of reality and assigns them meaning or value. In my rountine analysis here at work, there are internal vs. external standards....kind of goes to AM's and my ongoing argument about God, internal vs. external. The immediate thought that moderately resonates is my internal standard was foobarred by an external standard at a young age......which goes with the age of accountabliity thoughts where your internal standard should override the external........i.e. Grace should override the Law. Wow, a breakthrough today. Awesome.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This just occured to me. I think I am starting to understand a little more from another perspective. You take what you believe to be as true and then fit what you see to that standard or you take what you see and derive a standard from that. I guess I can see the frustration on your part by me "fitting" my reality to a standard, i.e. Christianity. This is a difficult proposition for me as I have been doing the former for so long. So bear with me. Interesting propositions with each., but cool. Finally! Why didn't y'all tell me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The internal standard method supports Christianity and reality in many ways.... The Holy Spirit being internal vs. the external Law Internal standards are like the analyte but not exacty the analyte (we are created in God's image) An external standard (the world) being unpure. Diet....you are what you eat. So the question is, how do you account for reality giving you the purity, the example, needed for a standard way of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The internal standard method supports Christianity and reality in many ways.... Eh? Just when I thought you made a breakthrough you assert this. The Holy Spirit being internal vs. the external Law Internal standards are like the analyte but not exacty the analyte (we are created in God's image) An external standard (the world) being unpure. Diet....you are what you eat. So the question is, how do you account for reality giving you the purity, the example, needed for a standard way of life? What do you mean by "the purity, the example"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The internal standard method supports Christianity and reality in many ways.... Eh? Just when I thought you made a breakthrough you assert this. The Holy Spirit being internal vs. the external Law Internal standards are like the analyte but not exacty the analyte (we are created in God's image) An external standard (the world) being unpure. Diet....you are what you eat. So the question is, how do you account for reality giving you the purity, the example, needed for a standard way of life? What do you mean by "the purity, the example"? When I measure something or quantify it, there has to be a standard to measure against, or compare to. So with an external standard, you calibrate the instrument(s) with a standard of known purity/certified purity....typically NIST.(National Institute for Standards and Technology) Standards have to be adjusted for various things. They are not always 100% pure. So if I am calibrating with a known standard, I might have to dry it first to compensate for the water content, or would multiply/compensate for synthesis impurities. So I would weigh an amount and multiply by .99 if it was purchased as 99% pure when it comes to my lab. So with Christianity, or life, (or analytical chemistry), you are relying on a model, or standard to measure by. A human father or God would represent the external standard in this case, God being considered 100% pure and a human father, although created/synthesized in the image of God, being less pure. Edit: Same goes with analytical masses. You purchase them, but you darn sure don't want to touch them so they will remain "unblemished" . They are used to calibrate analytical balances. And you can buy different class weights to calibrate with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think I'm having a hard time with you mixing science, religion and metaphysics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Why didn't y'all tell me... You heard what we said, but you were not listening... (Matt 13:13) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well guys, I'm out. I don't know when I'll be back. My best to all of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well, after looking at wiki, my elementary thoughts were those of 2000+ years ago. ahh well. End, I really do believe that you are capable of more than you might give yourself credit. And besides, I think some of the ideas from 2000+ years ago are still valid and relevant to us today. I am especially fond of Aristotle's causes. ----------------------------------------- Saner, I have a difficult time understanding you sometimes. I didn't follow that last post of yours for instance. But I wanted to drop in and say... Hey! . If understanding my post matters, PM me Legion and I'll explain. It's really good to hear from you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Increasingly it seems to me that mechanists doing battle with vitalists is really sort of tragic. So why are the machinists pissed at the violinists? Is it a union thing or what? The machinists are pissed because the violinists have fingerboards without frets and just fiddle around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think I'm having a hard time with you mixing science, religion and metaphysics. All I am saying is that in analytical chemistry, the "external standard method" is remarkably close to comparing ourselves to the OT Law or God in that you have a external known standard, moral in this case. And the same can be said about the "internal standard method" except that we compare ourselves to an internal standard, the Holy Spirit. This really is more straight forward than the lignification example. So what do you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think I'm having a hard time with you mixing science, religion and metaphysics. All I am saying is that in analytical chemistry, the "external standard method" is remarkably close to comparing ourselves to the OT Law or God in that you have a external known standard, moral in this case. And the same can be said about the "internal standard method" except that we compare ourselves to an internal standard, the Holy Spirit. This really is more straight forward than the lignification example. So what do you think. I just don't see it that way. Many of the men who wrote and edited the Bible had evil. They included their evil in the Bible. Bible passages are all too often in conflict with each other. People try to repress such contradictions through theology. However there are thousands of Christian sects with various interpretations. It's the opposite of "standard". The results are clearly not moral. As for your Holy Spirit you have no way to know it isn't imaginary. Neither does anybody else. It's like alchemy rather than chemistry. You don't want science, you want magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think I'm having a hard time with you mixing science, religion and metaphysics. All I am saying is that in analytical chemistry, the "external standard method" is remarkably close to comparing ourselves to the OT Law or God in that you have a external known standard, moral in this case. And the same can be said about the "internal standard method" except that we compare ourselves to an internal standard, the Holy Spirit. This really is more straight forward than the lignification example. So what do you think. Your like mixing elmers glue, paint and, soda and trying to make a point. It ain't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I think I'm having a hard time with you mixing science, religion and metaphysics. All I am saying is that in analytical chemistry, the "external standard method" is remarkably close to comparing ourselves to the OT Law or God in that you have a external known standard, moral in this case. And the same can be said about the "internal standard method" except that we compare ourselves to an internal standard, the Holy Spirit. This really is more straight forward than the lignification example. So what do you think. Your like mixing elmers glue, paint and, soda and trying to make a point. It ain't working. Valk, the reason no one is making much of an issue with this post is they know I'm right. It's a slam dunk. And with all the knowledge here, there ain't many that understand analytical chemistry and that would have a clue what I am talking about. Very interesting that today's most modern analytical methods match a 1700 year old book. I'm waiting for a real refutation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Valk, the reason no one is making much of an issue with this post is they know I'm right. Or... people are just tired of arguing bullshit with you. But hey, the first thing that comes to your mind must be the right explanation, never anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Valk, the reason no one is making much of an issue with this post is they know I'm right. Or... people are just tired of arguing bullshit with you. But hey, the first thing that comes to your mind must be the right explanation, never anything else... Like bullshit responses. Someone say something intelligent. Surely you know the analytical methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Like bullshit responses. Someone say something intelligent. Surely you know the analytical methods. And you're always right. In your whole life, you've never been wrong, so you can't be wrong in this either. Isn't that great? You're the "always right" man. Good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts