Is God willing but not able?

[Grantywanty]

And Lo the white men stepped from their ships and saw the Injuns, heathens every one. Some white men were afraid. Some white men decided to save the Injuns. And some Injuns were confused by the odd tone of voice the white men used when bringing the messages from their great books.

 

[Yorda]

So where was he before he came into existence ?

nowhere.

Were you born clever or did you have to work at it ?

i'm not especially clever, but i had to work at it.

 

[Myles]

And Lo the white men stepped from their ships and saw the Injuns, heathens every one. Some white men were afraid. Some white men decided to save the Injuns. And some Injuns were confused by the odd tone of voice the white men used when bringing the messages from their great books

But a wise old Injun said : " White man speak with forked tongue. He knows not of Gitchimanito".

 

[Myles]

nowhere.



i'm not especially clever, but i had to work at it.

So please vouchsafe unto us the kowledge of how something ariseth from nothing. For verily I say unto thee we are sorely troubled in our ignorance.

 

[Yorda]

So please vouchsafe unto us the kowledge of how something ariseth from nothing. For verily I say unto thee we are sorely troubled in our ignorance.

without ignorance (nothing, emptiness) there is no space for knowledge (everything, something).

in the beginning there was one infinite nothing. 1 ∞ 0. nothing wasn't empty because it was filled with infinity. infinite possibilities.

zero, infinity and "the one" are the Real Trinity. zero and infinity are the parents of "the one" who creates everything.

 

[Myles]

without ignorance (nothing, emptiness) there is no space for knowledge (everything, something).

in the beginning there was one infinite nothing. 1 ∞ 0. nothing wasn't empty because it was filled with infinity. infinite possibilities.

zero, infinity and "the one" are the Real Trinity. zero and infinity are the parents of "the one" who creates everything.

How does one come by such knowledge ? I have read of the "plenum void" Is that what you mean ?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

And Lo the white men stepped from their ships and saw the Injuns, heathens every one. Some white men were afraid. Some white men decided to save the Injuns. And some Injuns were confused by the odd tone of voice the white men used when bringing the messages from their great books.

**************
M*W: You are talking about my ancestors!

 

[Myles]

without ignorance (nothing, emptiness) there is no space for knowledge (everything, something).

in the beginning there was one infinite nothing. 1 ∞ 0. nothing wasn't empty because it was filled with infinity. infinite possibilities.

zero, infinity and "the one" are the Real Trinity. zero and infinity are the parents of "the one" who creates everything.

What sort of space does knowledge require ?

What on earth is an "infinite nothing". The position of a vacuum can be determined by its co-ordinates so, at least in theory, we could define the position of your nothing. Are you aware that mathematicans have moved on from your idea of infinity. It is by no meansas simple as you imagine,

If you wish to couch your answers in mathematical terms please do so in the form of equations which I can verify or show to be in error,

Talk of zero, infinity and the one being the trinity is devoid ofany meaning

 

[Grantywanty]

**************
M*W: You are talking about my ancestors!

Yes, I have always thought that the Europeans had such a lack of awareness about their own psyche. They often tried to convert - or forced conversion - to save people, but the attitude had so much hatred in it. Jamming this book that at least from Jesus has some emphasis on love into someone else is not love or loving. And the way they viewed the Natives did not jibe with what they claimed they were doing.

This was what I meant about 'odd tone of voice'. If the tone of discourse does not match the claimed intent of the discourse one could or perhaps should wonder what the real motivation is. As I would guess many of your ascestors wondered.

 

[Yorda]

What sort of space does knowledge require ?

ignorance.

What on earth is an "infinite nothing".

the nothing where everything came from... and the nothing is obviously infinite because there's nothing outside it.

If you wish to couch your answers in mathematical terms please do so in the form of equations which I can verify or show to be in error,

you know how math works: 6/3=2 because 2x3=6. therefore: 0/0=any number because any number times 0 is 0. same thing happens with infinity because zero and infinity are one.

anyway... that's how everything came from nothing. nothing divided infinite times so that it became anything (universe). even today, cells still keep dividing and humans keep multiplying.

 

[lightgigantic]

Myles

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in short, all information about god is established by qualified persons (saintly persons) - ie persons who are not merely moralists or philosophers but who have actually attained an elevated state of consciousness - commonly such information is also compiled into scripture

generally if persons finds believing something that is untenable ok (like say that a circle has three sides) that is a problem in itself (anyone vaguely familiar with the newspaper headlines from the past 6 years can understand why religion that departs from reason is a cause of concern )


well first they would have to actually offer an argument before a response could be suggested


only if it is indicated by use of a higher philosophy that one is operating out of a lower philosophy - and even then its not so much an issue of throwing in the towel but rejecting the lower to accept the higher


”
Saintly people and elevated states of consciousness. Who confers saintliness upon them ?

I think you misunderstand - I was talking about saintliness as a "state of being" as opposed to an official designation

How would I recognize such a person, given that my criteria might be different from yours.

first of all the criteria is not dependent on either you or me - suppose we were talking about the qualities of a person who has drunk water after feeling thirsty - IOW definitions of states of being is not an arbitrary category

I might conclude that such people were deluded.

if you stand outside the normative descriptions, your personal opinions have no value - much in the same way as the opinions of persons who lie outside the normative descriptions of physics (like high school drop outs for eg) don't have much of an impact on quantum mechanics

Elevated states: That is a claim often made by people who take drugs.

I guess to seriously investigate the use of the term you would have to see if it has any other application outside of drug users (after all, I have also heard drug users talk of seeing colliding atoms too, but fortunately a foundational understanding of physics enables me to put such claims in a proper context)

How about the tribes who eat peyote ( mescalin ) and subsequently have visions, just to take one of numerous examples. I can cite dozens more if you wish. Are you not just saying that you choose to believe some but not others, or do you regard all who make such claims as saintly.

there are also numerous descriptions of elevated states given in scriptures
eg

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

Religion departing from reason: Many would say that all religion departs from reason because the available evidence suggests that religion is based on blind faith.

as indicated above (the high school drop out vs phsyics) , if the persons making such claims lie outside the normative descriptions (ie "if you want to see X you must perform B"), that in itself is an unreasonable position

Offering an argument: It is sufficient for someone to say " I don't believe you, now prove me wrong " As you have made claims about the nature of god, the onus is on you to support those statements with evidence.

evidence?
is it possible to talk of evidence without coming to a certain standard of qualification?
perhaps you mean logic or reason?

Higher and lower philosophy: I am not aware that there are different levels of philosophy. Please explain what you mean. No prizes for guessing who gets to define which is higher and which lower.

its really a no brainer

if someone has the philosophy of filling their own belly that is lower than say someone who's philosophy is that of filling the belly of themselves and their family members (since it deals with a greater "slice" of reality"

I think you are practising what I would call "PHILOSOPHISTRY "

now that I have explained myself a little, do you still think so?

 

[Myles]

ignorance.



the nothing where everything came from... and the nothing is obviously infinite because there's nothing outside it.



you know how math works: 6/3=2 because 2x3=6. therefore: 0/0=any number because any number times 0 is 0. same thing happens with infinity because zero and infinity are one.

anyway... that's how everything came from nothing. nothing divided infinite times so that it became anything (universe). even today, cells still keep dividing and humans keep multiplying.

I am totally confused by your argument.We have a symbol for nothing which we write as 0. You say 0/0 = any number . This makes no sense. We do not divide anything by 0. When you write 0/0 how would you describe what it is you are attempting ? My description would be that you are dividing nothing by nothing , which means you are not carrying out any division at all. So to write 0/0 is meaningless.

You next suggest that infinity and zero are one. How did you arrive at this conclusion ? We use different symbols to describe them for the simple reason that they are DIFFERENT from each other.

As to cells multiplying, they multiply exponentially. It is not a question of nothing being divide an infinite number of times. It is a process whereby 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 4 bcomes 8 and so on. We can write the result like this 1, 2 , 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 , 512 and so on . There is a shorter way of writing this series but I don't think I can find the symblos on the keyboard.

The point you need to note is that nothing ( an imaginary cell ) cannot divide into 2 nothings. It would give us a series 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, and so on. This is , of course totally meaningless. I have just used it to illustrate my point

So if you are interested in how cells multiply, try starting with 1 as I have illustrated above. Starting with nothing will get you nothing. There are no free lunches.

My impression is that you have misunderstood something you have read somewhere. If you wish to suggest other ways of supporting you point, I will be pleased to hear from you and examine your argement.

 

[Myles]

Yes, I have always thought that the Europeans had such a lack of awareness about their own psyche. They often tried to convert - or forced conversion - to save people, but the attitude had so much hatred in it. Jamming this book that at least from Jesus has some emphasis on love into someone else is not love or loving. And the way they viewed the Natives did not jibe with what they claimed they were doing.

This was what I meant about 'odd tone of voice'. If the tone of discourse does not match the claimed intent of the discourse one could or perhaps should wonder what the real motivation is. As I would guess many of your ascestors wondered

.[/QUOTE

I think you are quite wrong. The Incas, for examople, were put to death because they refused to believe in the one true God. People like you would have us believe that they were butchered because they had lots of yellow metal. Have you no respect for the truth ?

 

[Myles]

Myles

I think you misunderstand - I was talking about saintliness as a "state of being" as opposed to an official designation

first of all the criteria is not dependent on either you or me - suppose we were talking about the qualities of a person who has drunk water after feeling thirsty - IOW definitions of states of being is not an arbitrary category


if you stand outside the normative descriptions, your personal opinions have no value - much in the same way as the opinions of persons who lie outside the normative descriptions of physics (like high school drop outs for eg) don't have much of an impact on quantum mechanics


I guess to seriously investigate the use of the term you would have to see if it has any other application outside of drug users (after all, I have also heard drug users talk of seeing colliding atoms too, but fortunately a foundational understanding of physics enables me to put such claims in a proper context)

there are also numerous descriptions of elevated states given in scriptures
eg

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.


as indicated above (the high school drop out vs phsyics) , if the persons making such claims lie outside the normative descriptions (ie "if you want to see X you must perform B"), that in itself is an unreasonable position

evidence?
is it possible to talk of evidence without coming to a certain standard of qualification?
perhaps you mean logic or reason?

its really a no brainer

if someone has the philosophy of filling their own belly that is lower than say someone who's philosophy is that of filling the belly of themselves and their family members (since it deals with a greater "slice" of reality"


now that I have explained myself a little, do you still think so?

You are not practising what I called PHILOSOPHISTRY; you are simply talking nonsense.

I won't deal with all your points because, to be honest, I don't know what you are talking about.

Saintliness is a quality. So, the question remains: how do we recognize someone who is saintly. Never mind normative/ schnormative. How is such a person recognized ? You say saintliness is not conferred , that is is a state of being. Don't you see that the recognition of such a state of being is tantamount to conferring saintliness upon those who are in such a state ? You have not answered my question. You have just re-phrased it.



As to higher and lower philosophy, I cannot help wondering whether you are joking. The commonly accepted definition of philosophy is love of wisdom/ knowledge. It has nothing to do with the numberof burgers one consumes.

You are quite at liberty to start your own branch of philosophy and call it something like the philosophy of ingestion. digestion and elimination. Just don't expect many people to discuss it with you.

With the best possible will in the world I cannot escape the belief that you are very confused. I freely admit that I am after reading your post. I do not wish to be unkind but I cannot think how else to put it

 

[lightgigantic]

You are not practising what I called PHILOSOPHISTRY; you are simply talking nonsense.

I won't deal with all your points because, to be honest, I don't know what you are talking about.

Saintliness is a quality. So, the question remains: how do we recognize someone who is saintly. Never mind normative/ schnormative. How is such a person recognized ? You say saintliness is not conferred , that is is a state of being. Don't you see that the recognition of such a state of being is tantamount to conferring saintliness upon those who are in such a state ? You have not answered my question. You have just re-phrased it.

already gave you an indication (a normative description to be precise - IOW how a saintly person normally behaves)
:shrug:

As to higher and lower philosophy, I cannot help wondering whether you are joking. The commonly accepted definition of philosophy is love of wisdom/ knowledge. It has nothing to do with the numberof burgers one consumes.

there is a wisdom required for burger consumption - its just not a particularly high grade variety

You are quite at liberty to start your own branch of philosophy and call it something like the philosophy of ingestion. digestion and elimination. Just don't expect many people to discuss it with you.

actually I was indicating the philosophy of only being concerned with oneself and how it stands as inferior in comparison to a more broader picture (like say allowing the needs, interests and concerns of other living entities to enter the picture)

With the best possible will in the world I cannot escape the belief that you are very confused. I freely admit that I am after reading your post. I do not wish to be unkind but I cannot think how else to put it

From my side I can't understand why you are having such difficulty with issues that most people could get straight off the bat - eg, higher/lower philosophy, providing a normative description in response to a query how something is qualitatively recognized, etc etc
:shrug:

 

[Grantywanty]

My post:

“

Originally Posted by Grantywanty
Yes, I have always thought that the Europeans had such a lack of awareness about their own psyche. They often tried to convert - or forced conversion - to save people, but the attitude had so much hatred in it. Jamming this book that at least from Jesus has some emphasis on love into someone else is not love or loving. And the way they viewed the Natives did not jibe with what they claimed they were doing.

This was what I meant about 'odd tone of voice'. If the tone of discourse does not match the claimed intent of the discourse one could or perhaps should wonder what the real motivation is. As I would guess many of your ascestors wondered

Myles' response.

I think you are quite wrong. The Incas, for examople, were put to death because they refused to believe in the one true God. People like you would have us believe that they were butchered because they had lots of yellow metal. Have you no respect for the truth ?

”

How odd Myles.
Please be specific about what I said that was wrong.
Here I thought I was being critical of Christians, admittedly focussing on less genocidal aspects of their behavior, but certainly not excluding them.
Please tell me how what I said indicated I want to deny the horrendous Church approved behavior of European Christians in relation to Native Americans. I believed and made public my opinions that European colonizers with Church participation and approval acted as abominably as possible in relation to Native Americans long before it was fashionable to be critical in this way and I took a decent amount of shit for it.
So please let me know how I am now saying the opposite.

People like you...

People like me?
Please let me know a little more about my category, Myles.

 

[SkinWalker]

I think you are quite wrong. The Incas, for example, were put to death because they refused to believe in the one true God. People like you would have us believe that they were butchered because they had lots of yellow metal. Have you no respect for the truth ?

Your post has created a logical fallacy with a couple of complex questions. First, you accuse the other post with "people like you" ad hominem, which presupposes without demonstration that the other poster *is* a member of this, as yet unknown, categorization.

Your second complex question is in the final question, "have you no respect for the truth?", which makes the assumption that the truth is as you say it is.

However, the evidence reveals that there were duel motivations for the destruction of the Inca people. Gold being the primary motive since it was the driving reason for the Spanish being in the New World to begin with. The religious excuses of convert or die was employed by the Spanish to justify their atrocities, which the even the Spanish probably recognized as wrong on face of it.

 

[Myles]

From my side I can't understand why you are having such difficulty
:shrug:

You are quite right. If only you had told me that I would recognize a saint when I saw someone walking on water. How simple it all is , now that you have explained normative, existential relativism.

You have also made me aware of how wise my little dog is when he eats his dinner. I wrongly thought he was just a greedy little bastard. I have changed his name from Fido to Saint Phideau. I shall be in your debt for ever. You have a wonderul way with words, for anyone who understands you.

 

[Myles]

My post:

Hi, this is not a joke.

When I was in my early twenties I read a book about the history of the inquisition/. The whole business sickened me but one instance referred to caused me to cry, something I am not in the habit of doing.

It concerned a man who was burned at the stake for believing that god's love is so great that in the end god will forgive Satan. What an understanding of god compared to that of his persecutors !


I think that says it all about bigots of every persuasion

 

[Grantywanty]

Originally Posted by Myles
Hi, this is not a joke.

When I was in my early twenties I read a book about the history of the inquisition/. The whole business sickened me but one instance referred to caused me to cry, something I am not in the habit of doing.

It concerned a man who was burned at the stake for believing that god's love is so great that in the end god will forgive Satan. What an understanding of god compared to that of his persecutors !


I think that says it all about bigots of every persuasion

This is not a joke:
you were rude, presumably misread my post, and referred to 'people like you', a nice bigoted phrase if I ever heard one.
Now you are talking about the Inquisition and bigotry. If this relates to my posts somehow please make it clear.