posted October 31, 2007 02:45 AM         

quote:

---

Christianity is "rehashed" Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, which in turn "reahashed" other stuff.

---

Is it really "rehashed" or could it be that truth endures and never changes? Perhaps it keeps being repeated because it is truth?

Oh, it may be spoken in different terms but the message ( the truth ) remains the same.

Just because some idea or notion is new does that make it truth?

Isn't truth tested by time?

posted October 31, 2007 09:26 AM         

quote:

---

***edited to add I thought Satvic was saying this was his belief, which I was giving respectful open-minded consideration. I re-read what he said and I was mistaken, he was simply saying there are those who may have this belief.

---

Thank you MysticMelody for understanding this.

posted October 31, 2007 12:46 PM         

Sattvic - You first post inquires "What is God?". You next post sounded condescending to me because you already seems to have made an opinion that seeing a God in person is not my truth. Well then please make I statements. Instead of making general statements and contradicting yourself.

Very often we do that we judge and loose the contunuity of things.

I know perhaps you have great heart with an inquisitive mind. But play attention to detail.

To experience God we have to be patient and still. Perhaps it adds clarity to what I was coming from.

Marriage, child birth, watching the lawns, breathing, etc everything is being taking granted by all of us. Pray tell if I am wrong.

Nosis, I saw your posts on Krishnamurthy. I instantly loved what he had to say. One of favourite as well.

posted October 31, 2007 01:11 PM         

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity is "rehashed" Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, which in turn "reahashed" other stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it really "rehashed" or could it be that truth endures and never changes? Perhaps it keeps being repeated because it is truth?

Oh, it may be spoken in different terms but the message ( the truth ) remains the same.

Just because some idea or notion is new does that make it truth?

---

Very Good, Mirandee. You paraphrased my post well. You quoted me, and then went on to make the exact same point (less carefully and effectively) that I made in my post, as if you were disagreeing with me, making it look (to anyone who didnt read my post) like I was saying the opposite of what I was saying. Did you read my post, or just zero in on that sentence? "Rehashed" was Fayte's word, not mine. Why not quote her use of the word, and make it clear you are disagreeing with her, not me? I put it in quotes to imply my disdain for the connotation. I went on to say that wisdom is wisdom; it is the same in all places, and that my concern was not to be original, but wise. I've expressed this point several times in the past, and I dont need it told back to me as if I didnt just say it. Talk about making a guy feel like his voice is unheard. Come to think of it, talk about "rehashing".

rehash: 1. to talk over or discuss again
2. to present or use again in another form
without substantial change or improvement

[Webster's Ninth New Collegiate]

-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

Fayte,

hypothesis: 1. a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 2. an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument...

... hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explaination

hypothetical: being or involving a hypothesis; conjectural

[Webster's Ninth New Collegiate]

We should all be sorry if our knowledge is merely theoretical.

We should all strive to test those hypothesis
by analysis and experimentation,
in order to arrive at a point of certainty.

posted October 31, 2007 01:20 PM         

quote:

---

You next post sounded condescending to me because you already seems to have made an opinion that seeing a God in person is not my truth. Well then please make I statements. Instead of making general statements and contradicting yourself.

---

posted October 31, 2007 01:27 PM         

>>>> made an absolute statement

Did I miss something

posted October 31, 2007 01:28 PM         

quote:

---

Did I miss something

---

posted October 31, 2007 01:30 PM         

You don't know what my truths are. There lies the problem also.

Did you mean to say "Perhaps you took ...."?

Get rid of the moon in your name and you will do well

posted October 31, 2007 01:44 PM         

What is the "the elite club" discussions?

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 31, 2007 02:04 PM         

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 31, 2007 04:15 PM         

quote:

---

Fayte - I have found you speaking nothing but naked truth here.

---

quote:

---

To experience God we have to be patient and still.

---

quote:

---

Marriage, child birth, watching the lawns, breathing, etc everything is being taking granted by all of us. Pray tell if I am wrong.

---

And folks do take for granted those things which can be taken from them in an instant...eyesight, walking, breathing, and so forth. How many do as I do every day, and meditate awhile on the joys of sight, of hearing, of breathing deeply, of even walking, albeit myself with a cane...
How many folks truly take in mindful moments to revel in the sheer glory of the commonplace wonders and blessings of life?
So I shall keep doing as I do every day...and people can laugh at me and call me strange, say I am being childish, for savoring the holding of hands of my beloved, for foot rubs and smiles. For being able to get up in the morning, for for watching ants, and bees, and waiting for a bud to burst open, and sitting in the rain, and dancing in my stumbling way in the moonlight and flying kites and blowing soap bubbles, getting up at the crack of dawn to savor the sunrises and sit at evening to take in the glowing burning embers of the sunsets, to buy literally bushels of popcorn and seed to make a day of feeding the birds. To walk in mudpuddles, to catch snowflakes and look at them with a magnifying glass, to nap against a tree, to pick wild flowers, and love the golden dandelions others hate. Snowdrifts, leaf piles, the wind, the waves, the stillness,..........oh so many wonderful things!

Laugh at me I say to those who find me freaky! I see things you all miss! I have joys you will never understand as you bemoan your lot in life and trying to keep up with the Joneses and hold on desperately to your youth and health. Always on the go, never taking time to appreciate what really matters.

HSC

quote:

---

... hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explaination

---

quote:

---

We should all be sorry if our knowledge is merely theoretical.

---

quote:

---

We should all strive to test those hypothesis
by analysis and experimentation,
in order to arrive at a point of certainty.

---

quote:

---

Since we are discussing a subject that is one of faith, belief, and theory.....

There are no absolutes...no empirical evidence that can be tested to validate the truth.
So by that token if we must give proof...
then this thread is already dead.

---

quote:

---

in order to arrive at a point of certainty

---

quote:

---

We should all strive to test those hypothesis
by analysis and experimentation,
in order to arrive at a point of certainty

---

posted October 31, 2007 04:21 PM         

quote:

---

What analysis and experimentation do we use to arrive at that point of "certainty", of absolute empirical evidence?

---

posted October 31, 2007 04:39 PM         

quote:

---

Fantastic question Fayte, but can we answer? While explaining paranormal/supernatural stuff (which includes God), the "logical science" fails to take into account - or fails to comprehend the right parametres - that constitute the "personal experience" factor. What makes each person spiritually enlightened in this personal factor, which ironically a "general logic" can never explain because it cannot be contained.

---

posted October 31, 2007 04:47 PM         

quote:

---

But perhaps that is the point..no one gets it handed to them on a silver platter easy grab it free for all. We find what we need when we are ready, when we are no longer afraid to let go of what we think for at least a moment.

---

You speaketh the truth and nothing but the truth.

Spiritual enlightment is like (as an example) climbing (say) Mount Everest. With all the hardships and fatality rate, while someone asked Sir Edmund Hillary why he keeps going back to climb Mount Everest, he said "You haven't seen the view from the top, have you?". This hold true here too. Unless a person takes the same route of spirituality they would never come across what I (or you or them) have encountered, so an explanation would be futile in most cases. So I believe providing a conclusive evidence is next to impossible.

posted October 31, 2007 05:02 PM         

quote:

---

You speaketh the truth and nothing but the truth.

---

quote:

---

Spiritual enlightment is like (as an example) climbing (say) Mount Everest. With all the hardships and fatality rate, while someone asked Sir Edmund Hillary why he keeps going back to climb Mount Everest, he said "You haven't seen the view from the top, have you?". This hold true here too. Unless a person takes the same route of spirituality they would never come across what I (or you or them) have encountered, so an explanation would be futile in most cases. So I believe providing a conclusive evidence is next to impossible.

But there is also a bigger picture when it comes to spirituality - that the end point is the same for everyone.

---

posted October 31, 2007 05:22 PM         

That is true of YOUR definition of God.
You do not listen to other people's definitions.
Like a Pharisee, you wont redefine it for yourself
and you wont allow others to redefine it for themselves.

You could dispense with the word "God", and substitute a variety of terms in its place. There are indeed some things which may be infered about the Infinite from the nature of the Finite. We may not be able to prove the existence of whatever it is you have in mind when you say "God", but we can prove by reason that the inference of certain propositions regarding the nature of the All is incontrovertible; at least as incontrovertible as many of the most firmly established laws of dynamics we observe in the physical world.

----------------------------------------
Why should we be sorry if our knowledge/understanding is only hypothetical at this time?
--------------------------------------------

In the words of Andre Gide,
"We should always remain dissatisfied,
so as to always be changing and growing."
And Schopenhauer,
"A little suffering is always necessary.
A ship without ballast cannot go straight."
We mustnt be so self-satisfied
that we rest on our hypothesis,
and do not proceed to the frontiers
of analysis and experimentation.

------------------------------------------
Do you have proof? Does anyone yet?
------------------------------------------

No.
Not of the sort of God to which you are referring.
On this matter, Fayte,
we will remain in total agreement,
no matter how much you persist.
Those visions of God, those glittering idols,
are precisely what I want to see subject to the flame,
that we may test, what is fool's dross,
and what is proper gold.

--------------------------------------------
I do not see a reason for shame or to be sorry about it.
Are you ashamed?
--------------------------------------------

Who said anything about shame?

Oh, right, you did;
there you go again,
exaggerating in the direction of the negative.

Please, dont put words in my mouth.

--------------------------------------------
Since we are discussing a subject that is one of faith, belief, and theory.....
---------------------------------------------

No, Fayte.
We are not discussing a subject of faith, belief, and theory...
You are insisting on discussing that subject.
I am trying to rescue Christianity from the Dark Ages here,
and you can't take your eyes off the past.
Maybe you want to dwell on the Dark Ages,
and on that time when you were 8 years old?
The first time I heard that story,
I was impressed with your precosciousness.
After the fifth time of hear it,
I'm only impressed with your obsessive dwelling on this dark incident
which apparently contains some degree of nostalgia for you.
The same with alot of the other "loops" you post,
and post, and post, ad naseum.
First I'm impressed with your scholarship or something,
and then, pretty soon,
I'm just impressed with your repetition of things
which people did not even remotely refer to,
but which you seem to feel the need to bring
every conversation around to,
I guess, because you have nothing much else to say.
Why are you bringing your own sh-- into this discussion, seriously?
It is not about the "God" you cant stop hating;
the one you dont even believe in.
Its not about rejecting the word with all the other definitions,
Its about redefining God for yourself!
I've said this a dozen times now, for your benefit,
but will you insist on talking about all that other bull,
which you constantly talk about not wanting to talk about?
Maybe you want to promote this view of
"Faye, The Heathen Rebel"
I dont know. But its pretty tired.
Time to put it out to pasture, waddaya say?
Most of us are rebels here, kiddo.
And, evidently, some of us are putting ideas out there
too radical for even you to get your head around.
Contrary to your personal philosophy,
we are not sheep, or chimps, or shemps,
or whatever the heck you like to call people
to make yourself feel bigger than them (I forget).
You are a small, scary woman sometimes, Fayte.
I got nothin' but tough love for you.

-----------------------------------------
There are no absolutes...no empirical evidence that can be tested to validate the truth.
So by that token if we must give proof...
then this thread is already dead.
---------------------------------------------

This thread is a magnificent Dragon of the East.
You want to turn it into a snarling dragon of the West,
so you can ride in here like Saint George,
skewer it for the easy target that it is,
and pronounce it dead.

But it is not that easy target you suppose.

------------------------------------------
...just how does one test the hypothesis concerning God?
What analysis and experimentation do we use to arrive at that point of "certainty", of absolute empirical evidence?
-------------------------------------------

Now we are back on track...

Good question.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
that your mind is open, and you really want an answer to this.

First, we redefine the word "God".
We do not postulate something "out there".
We gather the precepts of philosophy,
those gems gathered over time,
which catch our eye time and time again.
We arrange them in order according to
the self-same Reason out of which they arose.
This our jewel-encrusted temple, built to the Most High.
Does this process end?
What is it to prove a thing,
when every thing directs you
to some new thing beyond itself?
In this case, proving is an ongoing process,
but because progress is made,
it is indeed a process of proving.
You see, in a sense, the very fact that we are proceeding,
that our view leads to other perceptions,
that it does not choke and die in the lab,
but integrates organically with the universe, -
not leading to a closed system,
on which we may slap the label "proof",
but, leading to ever more frontiers of discovery;
this is how we know that we are on the right track.
Everything confirms the principles of true wisdom,
we see them reflected everywhere,
and as we increase our understanding,
there are more and more of them,
all reflecting off of one another.
This is how we "prove" them.

"The proof is in the pudding," as they say.