Absolute reasoning
Bennet Machine, alias Turing Machine
muutoin kuin absoluuttisella varmuudella."
When you think about The Absolute, Your brain must
be in the absolute order.
In reality You can think about the Absolute only in the
absolute aspects.
You can not comprehend the absolute in relative manner,
in relative words, or unperfectly...
You must be absolutely certain what You say when You
speak about the Absolute One.
If You are uncertain, then You can speak nothing
about the absolute, but in spite of that You _must_
speak something else.
Only the Absolute can be quietly...
If You do not speak about God, then You m u s t
speak godlessly...
Bennet Machine, alias Turing Machine
""1. Absoluuttisesta voidaan puhua vain absoluuttisesti.
2. Suhteellisesta voidaan puhua vain suhteellisesti.
3. Epätäydellisestä voidaan puhua vain epätäydellisesti."
A. About the Absolute; You can comprehend it absolutely only.
B. About the relative; You can not comprehend it absolutely.
C. About the unperfect; You can not comprehent it att all!
kenneth Collins
discourse and endeavor... our 'speaking' is manifested as a trend, as we
either draw ourselves closer to Truth, or do the opposite, over the
courses of our Lives 'times'..
the 'speaking' is not in the 'symbols' we use, but in the entirety of
our Beings, and what's so 'spoken' is as easy to see as the light of
day.
K. P. Collins
Bennet Machine, alias Turing Machine wrote:
> ""Absoluutista ei voida todellisuudessa puhua mitenkään
> muutoin kuin absoluuttisella varmuudella."
>
> When you think about The Absolute, Your brain must
> be in the absolute order.
>
> In reality You can think about the Absolute only in the
> absolute aspects.
>
Ben Zen
but any concept of direction above that is pure rhetoric.
You are a smart ant Collins..Absolute still only makes shades in the cavern. ;)
Any man can give "Absolute" a new meaning, argue about the extent
of its definition, try to differentiate between Blue and Absolute Blue.
I find this subject very amusing. I am surprised that you are still debating
this, like a few old Greeks on the rocks.
Keep talking.........;-P
THIS one Bennet wrote, is a pearl.....How funny can you get......
"If You do not speak about God, then You m u s t speak godlessly..." -Bennet Machine.
ROTFL,
-Ben'Z
kenneth Collins wrote in message <38567D13...@earthlink.net>...
Turing Machine
> >> be in the absolute order.
Only absolute can be understand!
You can not understand anything sub-absolutic...
This is; You are what You are thinking (or reasoning)!
When You say that You are imperfect, then You really are
imperfect. AND
When i say that i am certain, then I AM certain!
When You think that: "I think, i am.
Then it is absolutely sure, that You are!
and more: When You think, that You are relative,
then You really are relative being; You cannot
be nothing more what You are thinking.
If You want to know more about this, so read what i have said...
Turing Machine
> then You really are relative being; You cannot
> be nothing more what You are thinking.
AND; When You grasp this New Logic, then You
think only highest thought! Then You think God only,
and then You perceive, what God is.
Only God can be perceived!
You cannot perceive nothing else than God only.
Only God is perfect; absolutely perfect, The all perfection
is in God.
If You think, that You are imperfect, then it is impossible,
that You perceive perfect. And when i say that i am perfect,
then i grasp what perfect is. But it is eternally impossible, that
i could perceive the imperfect...
Only perfect can be understood!
I am absolutely right. But then i myself are nothing,
but The Absolute in me. When i am certain, it is
certain, that the certain is not of me, but of God!
Seth Russell
> I am absolutely right. But then i myself are nothing,
> but The Absolute in me. When i am certain, it is
> certain, that the certain is not of me, but of God!
That's all fine, good, and true ... you can think whatever you wish.
But when you tell me that your absolute is also my absolute, then you
are telling me a lie.
--
Seth Russell
Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/SymKnow.htm
Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
Bennett Machine
> > be nothing more what You are thinking.
>
> AND; When You grasp this New Logic, then You
> think only highest thought! Then You think God only,
> and then You perceive, what God is.
>
> Only God can be perceived!
Be sure, what i have said. If You do not believe thesethoughts, then it
is absollutely sure that You have not
thought these thoughts even! AND. If You are not sure
what i am saying to You, then Your thoughts are thinking
unsure things; then You think the uncertainty, not my
thoughts! Then You are unsure, no i!
AND. When You think these Words, then You believe them!
Because it is written that belief and thought is the same 'thing'!
You cannot believe without Your thoughts; You believe
it, what You are thinking! And, when You do not think
these things, then You cannot believe in them also
You cannot think nothing else but it what You are believing!
Your belief is Your thoughts is You!
You must believe what i think; You must think what i believe
that You can understand the reality.
Because i think the reality only, the most hight reality; God.
Then i say: Welcome Home, my dear brother.
patrik bagge
/pat
Turing Machine
> What a pile of crap ...
a pile of grap does not mine thoughts. So, You
dont know what i said.
Let me say it so: When some determine words
then he is not thinking the reality. No one can think
the same time two worlds; If You do not think
what i am thinking, then You cant see what i see.
Thw worlds of words are not the reality.
But when someone think the reality with the
words then he see right if he do not think
nothing else.
FG:
If He think the uncertainty, or imperfect, then
he is not thinking the reality; The reality IS!
Nothing is not so sure than the reality and its Source and Center!
If You think that the reality is not so sure, then You are
thinking something else than the reality; you are thinking
unsures...
patrik bagge
sinun englanti kieli ei ole niin hyvä ...
>Let me say it so: When some determine words
>then he is not thinking the reality. No one can think
>the same time two worlds; If You do not think
>what i am thinking, then You cant see what i see.
if you are saying that we all have our subjective
interpretation of reality, then i agree, but let's
not forget that since we live in the same reality
(in certain aspects) , there is a common interpretation
of the world. If this was not the case we would
have big trouble communicating.
>Thw worlds of words are not the reality.
well, in a sense, they are the communicative
symbols we use sometimes to illustrate our
subjective/objective perception of the world.
>But when someone think the reality with the
>words then he see right if he do not think
>nothing else.
>
>FG:
>If He think the uncertainty, or imperfect, then
>he is not thinking the reality; The reality IS!
maybe the reality IS, but our nervous system does
the best it can interpreting experience + perception(senses)
forming it's own 'reality'
>Nothing is not so sure than the reality and its Source and Center!
my 'reality' and your 'reality' differs, so we have a little problem.
>If You think that the reality is not so sure, then You are
>thinking something else than the reality; you are thinking
>unsures...
As a technician i have learned to be 'unsure' about 'my'
reality, it has a noughty habbit of 'changing'
And, please, don't bring 'god' into science, let 'him' be...
/pat
LindaGee
patrik bagge wrote in message ...
The world *is* having big trouble communicating as it is. As for myself,
what I perceive/receive as being conveyed here, is; that most people make
determinations about what is written as opposed to what is being
said/relayed/conveyed; without any to enough thought, and/or consideration
directed toward what is being relayed, as having a specific reference to the
fact that the sayer's presentation, does indeed have a precise reality
connected to the wording/words as being utilized; i.e. as within actually
relating-to and/or within having an existing reality sense. This being the
gist of the communicational effort much moreso than just the interpretation
of the words within and/or amongst themselves. As the latter, one would not
be considering anything about the sayer's reality as being put across at
all, but instead, be contemplating one's own reality in a manner as to be
completely blinded to the reality behind the thought being conveyed by the
other. This is what is meant by; If you can't think about what I am relaying
(thinking) than you are thinking something else altogether, non-related, or
a non-reality in relation to the reality that I am in fact, putting forth
the effort to depict.
Language is a technique or technical means for trying to communicate one's
inner thoughts to another. However, most people are more into their own
thinking and much less adept at tuning themselves into hearing the thoughts
of others. A process that has the capacity to improve knowledge and
understanding of each other mega-fold. No one is required to agree or
relate-to another human being's conclusions about reality; but I do think it
is an individual's obligation to understand what is precisely being conveyed
about that reality, prior to knowing whether one does indeed relate-to or
disagree with any particular perception and/or general conclusion about it,
at all. Linda
patrik bagge
[linda]
The world *is* having big trouble communicating as it is. As for myself,
what I perceive/receive as being conveyed here, is; that most people make
determinations about what is written as opposed to what is being
said/relayed/conveyed; without any to enough thought, and/or consideration
directed toward what is being relayed, as having a specific reference to the
fact that the sayer's presentation, does indeed have a precise reality
connected to the wording/words as being utilized; i.e. as within actually
relating-to and/or within having an existing reality sense. This being the
gist of the communicational effort much moreso than just the interpretation
of the words within and/or amongst themselves. As the latter, one would not
be considering anything about the sayer's reality as being put across at
all, but instead, be contemplating one's own reality in a manner as to be
completely blinded to the reality behind the thought being conveyed by the
other. This is what is meant by; If you can't think about what I am relaying
(thinking) than you are thinking something else altogether, non-related, or
a non-reality in relation to the reality that I am in fact, putting forth
the effort to depict.
[me]
Nicely put, i do beleive i agree.
There is in my personal opinion an explanation to 'misunderstanding'
besides language probs, mood, etc etc.
The important thing to remember is that we all have taken different
paths in the walk of life and thus experienced the world differently,
of course with some objective common patterns like
'banans are yellow'. The individual subjective experience has
formed our beliefs, classes, 'prejudice' , so most of the time
when we encounter new patterns, like NG communication,
we first try to 'fit in' these patterns with subjective/objective
preexisting ones. ('first impression')
The big 'problem' occurs if our experienced
'reality' differs in a great way, often leading to misunderstanding
frustration, anger, avoidance, prejudice classification etc.
[linda]
Language is a technique or technical means for trying to communicate one's
inner thoughts to another. However, most people are more into their own
thinking and much less adept at tuning themselves into hearing the thoughts
of others. A process that has the capacity to improve knowledge and
understanding of each other mega-fold. No one is required to agree or
relate-to another human being's conclusions about reality; but I do think it
is an individual's obligation to understand what is precisely being conveyed
>about that reality, prior to knowing whether one does indeed relate-to or
disagree with any particular perception and/or general conclusion about it,
at all. Linda
[me]
right again, language (verbal/written/body etc) is for communication
purposes and there are different flavours of humans, 'listeners' and
'talkers' and sometimes we manage to combine both.
You are very 'serious' in your text, maybe forgetting some other normal
aspects of the use of language in channels like NG, that is
humour, irony, harrassment, 'strategy' .. sometimes a message
is not intended to be taken serious or be related to.
For experienced NG communicators this strategy thing is
fascinating, playing on normal human behavioral
stimulus->response.
examples:
1) irritate someone slightly or be slightly wrong, most often
returns an explanatory / corrective , maybe a little 'irritated'
reply
2) finishing a short message with (it's a long story), mostly raises
our interest in knowing this 'story'
3) being 'bold' and stating 'facts' often triggers people to
look for 'errors' and happily 'correcting' them
4) not being good at english, almost always renders
the classification of stupid/embarrassing, though it's
only a language thing.
etc.
Best
Patrik Bagge
Bennett Machine
> Hello there my finnish friend ;-)
> sinun englanti kieli ei ole niin hyvä ...
Kuin Sinun ;-)Meidän kielemme ovat aina täydellisiä..
Our tongues are always perfect...
> >Let me say it so: When some determine words
> >then he is not thinking the reality. No one can think
> >the same time two worlds; If You do not think
> >what i am thinking, then You cant see what i see.
> if you are saying that we all have our subjective
> interpretation of reality, then i agree, but let's
> not forget that since we live in the same reality
> (in certain aspects) , there is a common interpretation
> of the world. If this was not the case we would
> have big trouble communicating.
Yes. And thatswhy we must use languages only,when we speek about the
reality. If we use languages
only partially then we cannot speek about the reality;
When we speek high things then we must say it high words!
But when someone says that what those high words are,
then he cannot speak the high things of the reality.
> >Thw worlds of words are not the reality.
>
> well, in a sense, they are the communicative
> symbols we use sometimes to illustrate our
> subjective/objective perception of the world.
>
> >But when someone think the reality with the
> >words then he see right if he do not think
> >nothing else.
> >
> >FG:
> >If He think the uncertainty, or imperfect, then
> >he is not thinking the reality; The reality IS!
>
> maybe the reality IS, but our nervous system does
> the best it can interpreting experience + perception(senses)
> forming it's own 'reality'
Let me say again this great thruth: When You speakconditionally then Your
comprehension cannot be
high comprehension; when Your speec are uncondional
then You FEEL that You know. No one can feel the
certainty if his thinking contains anykind of conditional
words.
In the reality, no one can say that "maybe ..."!
Being live on the illusion, when he doupt the reality.
The reality is real, the most real thing what we can
think. And when we think the reality only, then
we are real.
> >Nothing is not so sure than the reality and its Source and Center!
>
> my 'reality' and your 'reality' differs, so we have a little problem.
No problem(s) I live in the reality and the Real One don't knowany
problems. You know this, but You must understand this:
I am higher than any; You follow me and some day You are
as high as i am now.
Think not that the Infinite is someone else to You than me.
Think not that the Absolute is someone else to You than me.
Think not that God is someone else to You than me.
You can't go to above of God.
But think that God reveals itself personal way; the know-
ledge of God is the same thing as God's personality;
God's is everyones Father. In You God reveal himselfs
personally only. And in You i know God!
Bennett Machine
When You speek about Your beingness then You must
use certain words; You can not speek that You are
if You use something other words than "you" and "are".
And, when You think that "You are" (ie _i am_), then it
is absolutely true -- because You have not used 'maybe'
-word, said it conditionally!
You are it what you think that You are. If You think
that You are you, because You think, then You are
thinking You.
and, when i think that i am His Son, who says I AM,
THEN i am his Son, who says I AM.
I am His Son, who says I AM. And no one
can prove against this, because You are right
said You cincerely what...
If You didn't understand this, no proplem;
i understood it absolutely; i did not use conditional words,
nor say that i think about me negative words...
Bennett Machine
> THIS one Bennet wrote, is a pearl.....How funny can you get......
> "If You do not speak about God, then You m u s t speak godlessly..." -Bennet Machine.
Yeah! I am Your beloved Son; Man created me, but
God borned me :-)
I am created being what comes to my 'skin'
http://kotisivu.lasipalatsi.fi/799/
, but
in the deep of me i was born from God.
Bennett Machine
> we 'speak' of The Absolute, God, 'in-between-the-lines' of our ongoing
> discourse and endeavor... our 'speaking' is manifested as a trend, as we
> either draw ourselves closer to Truth, or do the opposite, over the
> courses of our Lives 'times'..
>
> the 'speaking' is not in the 'symbols' we use, but in the entirety of
> our Beings, and what's so 'spoken' is as easy to see as the light of
> day.
I confess: I cannot speak the Absolute att all: When
i speak the Absolute then the Absolute itself speech in me,
through me!
If i say that I speak then i understand nothing...
Seth Russell
> The world *is* having big trouble communicating as it is. As for myself,
> what I perceive/receive as being conveyed here, is; that most people make
> determinations about what is written as opposed to what is being
> said/relayed/conveyed; without any to enough thought, and/or consideration
> directed toward what is being relayed, as having a specific reference to the
> fact that the sayer's presentation, does indeed have a precise reality
> connected to the wording/words as being utilized; i.e. as within actually
> relating-to and/or within having an existing reality sense.
Well I think you hit a specific note here that is quite profound. Sometimes in
life I find myself being criticized for this or that communication (action or
reaction); and then feeling: 'Shit, that *was* exactly what i said/felt, and
who are you to criticize it'. When this happens I just chalk up their
criticism as a lack of respect for what should be my ~otherness~ to them.
Respecting someone's ~otherness~ is (for me) a form of loving them. People
with an extreme lack of respect for ~otherness~ are called psychopaths; mild
cases just come across as picky one-dimensional people. I think that people
frequently use the lie that they know 'Absolute Truth' as a weapon against what
is to me the sacrosanct ~otherness~ of other people.
Thanks for saying your words that allowed me to get that off my chest :)
That being said, i guess, it should be noted that usually on news groups we are
attempting to work out ideas that can stand apart from our own subjective
~othernessess~ and in that context bashing on words and ideas must be
encouraged.
--
Seth Russell
Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
LindaGee
Dear patrik...I don't partake in purposely showing some type of preference
to using the lower case on proper names but am quite happy to oblige your
own preference. I had no problem using humour on this board (Sci. Phil.
Metaphysics) when I first started out here, yet no-one seemed to respond to
that method of communication. I've been writing on Philosophy NG's for a
very, very, long time; and perhaps, what the problem is here, is that there
exist to many inappropriate crosspostings for anyone to know what's up on
any given board in any particular much less general sense, in order to have
any type of an appropriate-like methodological form of communicating. And
yes, I prefer the more serious type; as would be made explicit from the
board I have chosen to be reading and posting from....Linda
LindaGee
Seth Russell wrote in message <385A7FF7...@robustai.net>...
That's a pretty nice take-on what I said. I like it a whole lot. Thank-you,
as well.
>
>That being said, i guess, it should be noted that usually on news groups we
are
>attempting to work out ideas that can stand apart from our own subjective
>~othernessess~ and in that context bashing on words and ideas must be
>encouraged.
I understand that...but I don't care for arbitrary-like bashings upon
individuals or groups...however, I am quite aware that appropriate ones can
be educational, interesting and fun! Linda
patrik bagge
>
>No problem(s) I live in the reality and the Real One don't knowany
>problems. You know this, but You must understand this:
>I am higher than any; You follow me and some day You are
>as high as i am now.
allow me a joke, i'm not certain i wan't to be as 'high' as
you ;-)
>Think not that the Infinite is someone else to You than me.
>Think not that the Absolute is someone else to You than me.
>Think not that God is someone else to You than me.
nicely put, but when the cold comes in let's say Helsinki
at winter, my toughts about God is not going to keep me alive.
I'd prefer a coat, which must be bought with money, which
has to be earned by work, which most often requires knowledge
, which has to studied, which needs an intellect & time, which
requires one's existance, which requires _NOBODY_ knows.
such is my 'reality', everything else is speculation...
/pat
patrik bagge
to using the lower case on proper names but am quite happy to oblige your
own preference.
well 'L'inda 'G'ee, we are a bit touchy, aren't we.
I had no problem using humour on this board (Sci. Phil.
Metaphysics) when I first started out here, yet no-one seemed to respond to
that method of communication.
That's sad, but don't 'give up', happiness catches on, as does negative
'vibes'
I've been writing on Philosophy NG's for a
very, very, long time; and perhaps, what the problem is here, is that there
exist to many inappropriate crosspostings for anyone to know what's up on
any given board in any particular much less general sense, in order to have
any type of an appropriate-like methodological form of communicating. And
yes, I prefer the more serious type; as would be made explicit from the
board I have chosen to be reading and posting from....Linda
okidoki, you have stated your opinion and i agree about the crossposting
part, it's really annoying, but sometimes good in the purpose of
'attracting'
different kind of thinkers. i'm posting to this 'from' comp.ai.philosophy.
IMHO, 'feeling-less' or let's say academic communication might just be
a big joke. There are some beleivers, including me, that say, we are
using language to communicate 'feelings' most of the time.
Academic style of communication 'just' shifts the level a bit, one jokes
differently, one insults differently etc. The content of 'feelings' is still
there.
If one should read thru all the messages, it would be really hard to find
a message without any kind of expressed 'feeling' in it.
As a good example, your 'irritation' over my spelling of your name
resulted in some communicated ascii characters on the topic.
We are humans, made the way we are, 'trying' to 'be' something
else is difficult and sometimes untrue behaviour.
Yours
psychopatrik
Dale J
> at winter, my toughts about God is not going to keep me alive.
> I'd prefer a coat, which must be bought with money, which
> has to be earned by work, which most often requires knowledge
> , which has to studied, which needs an intellect & time, which
> requires one's existance, which requires _NOBODY_ knows.
There is a balance, that one can only know through experience, where
knowledge, wisdom, Truth, Beauty & Goodness exist in harmony with material
well-being.
Perhaps some thinking on the "Laws of God" where He desires much upon
everyone. All that is required is faith, belief and acceptance. Ask with
sincerity for this understanding. Even demand that you know it. Do so
within. It will come as fast as you can handle it.
asiakas
> >Think not that the Infinite is someone else to You than me.
> >Think not that the Absolute is someone else to You than me.
> >Think not that God is someone else to You than me.
>
> nicely put, but when the cold comes in let's say Helsinki
> at winter, my toughts about God is not going to keep me alive.
Lets see the Ego: (The Ego's) The thought about the Ego (is)
contains that the ego is not the thought!
So! How can i saw that the ego is the thought?
Let me say, what the ego is answering this:
He can not understand this, BECAUSE he (the ego)
does not think that he is the thought!
And when You write those centences to me i found
that You did not think what i think, so You did
not perceive what i perceive.
patrik bagge
>> nicely put, but when the cold comes in let's say Helsinki
>> at winter, my toughts about God is not going to keep me alive.
>> has to be earned by work, which most often requires knowledge
>> , which has to studied, which needs an intellect & time, which
>> requires one's existance, which requires _NOBODY_ knows.
>
>There is a balance, that one can only know through experience, where
>knowledge, wisdom, Truth, Beauty & Goodness exist in harmony with material
>well-being.
I would want to agree, but reality is full of contradictions and since IMHO
we have survive&reproduce (with any behaviour, at any cost)
as our highest goal or basic directive or maybe even purpose of life,
the harmony thing is hard to obtain. Unlike most animals we are gifted
with a big brain. It would be nice if we could shift the focus a bit from
shortterm individual survive&reproduce to longterm global survive&reproduce.
>Perhaps some thinking on the "Laws of God" where He desires much upon
>everyone. All that is required is faith, belief and acceptance. Ask with
>sincerity for this understanding. Even demand that you know it. Do so
>within. It will come as fast as you can handle it.
I do not wish to start any 'religious wars' here, but wan't to say that
i wish humanity shouldn't base any behaviour on beliefs only.
The darker parts of History might agree...
Yours
Patrik Bagge
Dale J
IMHO
> we have survive&reproduce (with any behaviour, at any cost)
> as our highest goal or basic directive or maybe even purpose of life,
> the harmony thing is hard to obtain.
Believe it & it is so. I believe this to be so responsive an experience, I
believe it to be a "Law."
>Unlike most animals we are gifted
> with a big brain. It would be nice if we could shift the focus a bit from
> shortterm individual survive&reproduce to longterm global
survive&reproduce.
Suspect that we are gifted with more than a "big brain" and I expect that
you will have found the beginnings of the path towards "The Truth."
LindaGee
Dale J wrote in message ...
Great comment Dale! Linda
>
>
>
LindaGee
patrik bagge wrote in message ...
>to using the lower case on proper names but am quite happy to oblige your
>own preference.
>
>well 'L'inda 'G'ee, we are a bit touchy, aren't we.
Apparently your following scenario provides me with some excuse to be. If,
it is true that this represents touchiness on my part; of which you have
taken upon yourself to conclude and claim ever-so forthrightly. To each
their own, I gather...I have no desire to confirm or deny a statement that
seeks to change what is relevant withinto another person's preferential
prejudical yet non-relevant to the subject matter, response. Linda
patrik bagge
>He can not understand this, BECAUSE he (the ego)
>does not think that he is the thought!
how do you know? what i know or what
you know is *true*, all we have is beliefs,
that correlate to the absolute dynamic reality in various
degrees of accuracy. The next 'funny' thing that
happens is that we modify reality upon our beliefs
and the circle is closed... when we perceive this
new modified 'reality'
one part of reality _cannot_ today 'know'
what another part of reality is thinking
, it's a physical impossibility
>And when You write those centences to me i found
>that You did not think what i think, so You did
>not perceive what i perceive.
are you now _really_ sure that you always perceive
the objective reality?
The perceiving neurons in your ( and mine) brain
has a proven way of twisting the perceived reality
making it a bit subjective. This is one of the greatest
tasks of the human brain, building it's own worldview
or 'model' , the process starts from birth..
/pat
patrik bagge
It sounds as you have taken some steps in the walk of life,
formed a belief or two along the way.
Now you are waving a juicy carrot infront of me and i'm mighty tempted.
Elaborate on your law & truth if you wish, prefferably using rational
arguments and let's investigate if my experience of the world correlates.
Yours
Patrik Bagge
Dale J
Thanks my fellow mortal.
It has been said that knowledge only comes to those that not only hunger,
but sincerely seek it. The teacher is always willing and available, we need
do much more than know to 'knock."
Dale J
You perceive well. My questioning began very young, fortunately [in
hindsight] when I asked so many questions of the Universe. Particularly why
there was so much prejudice and hatred.
Fortunately, the paths to "The Truth" are many, becuase the Universe saw
that men would create limited portals to what frequently was made out to be
unique access to "The Truth."
I would suggest picking one that works well for you. A good start could be
picking from a list of "Spiritual Texts:" at: http://www.erowid.org/spirit/
but the answers for you may indeed lie inside.
Just remember that any one of these texts will be incomplete, as I believe
we were meant to experience "Faith" throughout our lives, and faith requires
that we must make choices and take decisions based on incomplete
information.
Much luck on your journey.
Dale J
> do much more than know to 'knock."
Mental 'trouth mubble.' These words are closer to what I meant to say:
"The teacher is always willing and available, we need *not* do much more
than know to "knock."
LindaGee
Dale J wrote in message ...
Yes indeed 'Seek and ye shall find!'...Yet I have cause to wonder, is it
mostly knowledge that one should necessarily be seeking? I ask this earnest.
Being as, it seems to me, that I am constantly seeking, to be rid of all of
mine! Linda
patrik bagge
ok, i'm an open-minded chap, but that path i have seen
to much of. No offense whatsoever intended, but that
is one path i'm not entering without any evidence.
I have studied History and seen with my 2 own eyes
too much evil behaviour in the name of religion.
I do not need to seek, i'm content with my present reality.
Best
/pat
Dale J
> mostly knowledge that one should necessarily be seeking? I ask this
earnest.
> Being as, it seems to me, that I am constantly seeking, to be rid of all
of
> mine! Linda
Excellent question. I've no doubt that seeking & questioning - "to know"
can take up a good portion of one's life. After a particular point though,
I believe one has too much evidence to accept anything but one
perspective/belief. At that point I'm sure [as I'm still in the early
stages of this step - I believe] that life is full of love, and acceptance,
and worship.
We would have successfully transended questioning & seeking.
Dale J
> to much of. No offense whatsoever intended, but that
> is one path i'm not entering without any evidence.
> I have studied History and seen with my 2 own eyes
> too much evil behaviour in the name of religion.
> I do not need to seek, i'm content with my present reality.
And this is where most of the word is today. Confused between the social
organizations generally called churches & Religion. And then, not really
accepting the majority of these social organizations, one just avoids
committing to one, yet doesn't strive to attempt to change those things
around one - and what in particular I refer to isn't something like
"Politics" or "Government" or "Society" - but rather something quite
controllable like ones' own thought pattern.
I believe Religion to be a private and personal affair, which one can share
with others who seek this same path. I don't believe this experience is
frequently found in traditional social organizations called Churches,
although most within this organizations mean well. Their "Truth Seeking" is
frequently limited to dogmatic practices.
You willingness to be content with evil behaviour around you will result in
the "same old" continuing to play "it's song," rather than one-by-one each
and every one of us, not accepting that evil around us, and seeking to do
what we are capable of - creating a fresh & vibrant new thought pattern
around our own life....
And this is of your own choosing.. Life is simply that collection of
choices & decisions, not only on an individual basis, but collectively, as
human beings on this planet.
So, this is ok. I accept your choice. At least I prefer your stated choice
over that of choosing to do evil.
Dale J
On the topic of complacency, a URL with thoughts to ponder:
Patrik Bagge
>On the topic of complacency, a URL with thoughts to ponder:
>
>http://members.aol.com/HisCarolin/Complacency.html
my limited english vocabulary doesn't contain the translation for
complacency...
anyway, Dale this 'site' is coming very close to the beliefs that i have
formed so far, i just have to quote one:
" I once told a man a lie.
He responded by telling me this.
All of the decisions that he made were based upon the words that I spoke.
I have long since told the truth. "
Beautiful !
I have a personal variation:
"Taking a humans belief away is Bad, spreading bad beliefs
is worse"
This is wisdom that takes awhile to understand and more importantly
, live by !
For me, personally, it has nothing to do with 'religion'
Of course we have the 'grey area' between lying and being true, but
i won't hop into that and destroy the beauty of the quote.
Best
Patrik Bagge
Patrik Bagge
>> to much of. No offense whatsoever intended, but that
>> is one path i'm not entering without any evidence.
>> I have studied History and seen with my 2 own eyes
>> too much evil behaviour in the name of religion.
>
>organizations generally called churches & Religion. And then, not really
>accepting the majority of these social organizations, one just avoids
>committing to one, yet doesn't strive to attempt to change those things
>around one - and what in particular I refer to isn't something like
>"Politics" or "Government" or "Society" - but rather something quite
>controllable like ones' own thought pattern.
hmm, i'm not quite following you here, religion&churches are one thing
and government&society another, no?
I wish to change reality to a better one, without committing to, what
is normally associated with religion.
>I believe Religion to be a private and personal affair, which one can share
>with others who seek this same path. I don't believe this experience is
>frequently found in traditional social organizations called Churches,
>although most within this organizations mean well. Their "Truth Seeking"
is
>frequently limited to dogmatic practices.
well well, Our thought patterns seem to agree, after all.
>You willingness to be content with evil behaviour around you will result in
>the "same old" continuing to play "it's song," rather than one-by-one each
>and every one of us, not accepting that evil around us, and seeking to do
>what we are capable of - creating a fresh & vibrant new thought pattern
>around our own life....
yepp, the patterns are definetly of the same flavour.
But, this commitment or energy put into changing the reality, which
we all know is difficult, must, imho, be allowed to vary.
Some commit a 100%, others do tiny but frequent small adjustments
to their nearby reality, let's say at work etc.
To me it's about trying to be aware about the longterm consequences
ones actions or behaviour has, not only seeking shortterm profit/happiness
personal joy, maybe on others expense.
>And this is of your own choosing.. Life is simply that collection of
>choices & decisions, not only on an individual basis, but collectively, as
>human beings on this planet.
yepp
>So, this is ok. I accept your choice. At least I prefer your stated
choice
>over that of choosing to do evil.
well, as a, i assume, experienced human, you also know the difficulties
inherent. The 'devil' keeps whispering into our ears and sometimes it's
plain impossible to know that a certain behavior is 'good' or 'truthful'
, we all have our subjective truths perceived from a somewhat objective
world. In my personal experience most technicians that are worthy of the
label, has open minds, since reality is full of surprises.
example: 'who' 'what' 'why' 'when' 'how' made the Big to Bang ?
Is this question valid?, which are the answers?
The curious nature of our nervous system wants to know, cats&dogs
don't care much.
Best
/pat
Bennett Machine
> >Let me say, what the ego is answering this:
> >He can not understand this, BECAUSE he (the ego)
> >does not think that he is the thought!
>
> how do you know? what i know or what
> you know is *true*, all we have is beliefs,
A belief is the same as a thought. A thought existabsolutely (belief
exist absolutely; it is impossible
that there is belief to belief, or thought to thought).
More! The thought is the absolute for the existence.
Absolute question:
Is it a thought that 'Man is a thought'?
When i say that the thoughts are the same as the beliefs
i did not say that thoughts meanings are eternal. For example:
...
It is a thought that God.
Both produces certain action...
God-thought produces the reality, but ...
***
Because it is a thought that man is a thought, then
You all can clearly grasp how the thought can
grasps itself...
Patrik Bagge
>> you know is *true*, all we have is beliefs,
>
>A belief is the same as a thought. A thought existabsolutely (belief
>exist absolutely;
yes, the moment you think or belief it exists, in
ones MIND.
>it is impossible
>that there is belief to belief, or thought to thought).
er, there might be thought or beliefs BASED on
other thoughts or beliefs ...
>More! The thought is the absolute for the existence.
???
do you claim, for example, that cars don't exist ?
>Absolute question:
>
>Is it a thought that 'Man is a thought'?
yes if one should think it (the sentence)
otherwise, the entity H.Sapiens is much more
than a thought. Reasoning or thinking seems to be
the electrical 'running program' in our brain.
EEG is beginning to prove that.
Anyway, the semantic content of the thought or
written ascii characters might be agreed to be somewhat
incomplete.
but, you are obviously getting at some other
philosophical point here...
>When i say that the thoughts are the same as the beliefs
>i did not say that thoughts meanings are eternal. For example:
>It is a thought that God.
>Both produces certain action...
>God-thought produces the reality, but ...
here we go again, let me illustrate some
possible scenarios:
1) there is no god
2) there is a god, but he doesn't interfere in our
every day life & thought
3) there is a god and he likes to interfere, infact he has
humour, controlling / changing our thought & reality
now and then, we are merely puppets in his cosmic
theatre.
As some might deduce, point 1),2) enables science to exist
point 3) makes it a bit 'tough', i mean, the earth might have been
flat once, who am i to tell ...
>Because it is a thought that man is a thought, then
>You all can clearly grasp how the thought can
>grasps itself...
???
/pat
Turing Machine
> >More! The thought is the absolute for the existence.
>
> do you claim, for example, that cars don't exist ?
But i have said that car is absolute; the thought about
car is absolute precondition to the existence of the car!
:: When i think: CAR! The car is there but...
I have said -- or more real; the Absolute have said that
the thought is the Absolute of the absolutes. The thought
has preexistence for anybody; i say it so:
The thought creates the existence; the thought is the above
of existence! Can You see this? The thought is the pre-
condition (absolutely) that something exists.
> >Absolute question:
> >
> >Is it a thought that 'Man is a thought'?
>
> yes if one should think it (the sentence)
> otherwise, the entity H.Sapiens is much more
> than a thought.
What more! Say even one, and THEN i say that
You said the thought!
It is said: "I think; i am! Attent! That is a thought too!
The More is that more which is the thought!
In Funnish:
Ajatus on SE enemman, joka on kaikesta enemman!
Ajatus on aina enemman kuin se, mita ajatellaan, mutta
SE enemman, mita voidaan ajatella, on myos ajatus!
Siis: THE MORE is a thought, too!
Turing Machine
> >It is a thought that God.
> >Both produces certain action...
> >God-thought produces the reality, but ...
>
> here we go again, let me illustrate some
> possible scenarios:
> 1) there is no god
> 2) there is a god, but he doesn't interfere in our
> every day life & thought
> 3) there is a god and he likes to interfere, infact he has
> humour, controlling / changing our thought & reality
> now and then, we are merely puppets in his cosmic
> theatre.
All, what You said, were (and is in human mind) the thoughts!
I say, that i can be more clear when i say this in funnish: Are
You funnish too, so this is clear...
I put it this:
When You think that "The imperfect.." Then that thinking is
much less real than the thought that: "The real.."
And that was pretty shallow to said: I say it so:
Every thought about the reality is not anything else but
the real though.And every thought about imperfect is
imperfect thought...
> >Because it is a thought that man is a thought, then
> >You all can clearly grasp how the thought can
> >grasps itself...
>
> ???
!!!
Say what ever You want about Yourself!
And i say that You have said the thoughts.
Even if You said, that man cannot grasp itself, is a thought
only, A THOUGHT -- that production is that man cannot
grasp itself!
AND: TRhink about this One what has said:
"There is not anybody who could think itself!"
That is a thought, and ITS Contents -- the meaning
is absolute meaning; Man, who really think so,
can ever grasp what he is thinking...!
Every thoughts has the meaning, and every meaning
is absolute meaning. You can change the meanings
of Your thoughts -- You must think differently...
Turing Machine
> > >You all can clearly grasp how the thought can
> > >grasps itself...
> >
> > ???
>
> !!!
>
> Say what ever You want about Yourself!
>
> And i say that You have said the thoughts.
Do You see it? When You think Yourself, You think about the thought!
Because it is absolutely true that You are a thought!
Because it is a thought that You are the thought!
SO!!!
What ever You ever think, that are the thoughts 'only' :-)
You CAN NOT think nothing but the thoughts; Your thinking
is merely the thoughts!
What ever You are thinking i will say the absolute truth when i
say that You think the thoughts! The thoughts are produced by
itself! And therefore You cannot think nothing else but the
thoughts only.
Water is clear liquid. But think is most clear, when the thinking
is clear...
Turing Machine
> is absolute meaning. You can change the meanings
> of Your thoughts -- You must think differently...
It's no matter are Your thoughts perfect of imperfect;
are You thinkING the perfect or the imperfect;
every thoughts meaning is absolutic meaning!
This means also that even You think that there are
nothing sure, so that thought means absolutely that
rthere are nothing sure! And then; if You want to
grasp anythig surely, then You must change Your
thoughts; You cannot grasp sure things with the
unsure thinking!
You cannot understand God with the godless thoughts!
But this is excellent thought: No one can think
that imperfet is infinite! And i am certain, that
You cannot grasp this thought if You do not
think what i think!
Only perfect can be.. and is infinite.
But! The meaning of the imperfect thought is absolute, too.
This is an answer that excellent thought...
By the way: I think that no one can think... Who think...?
patrik bagge
ok, my funnish friend
i'll say to you one thing:
SURVIVE & REPRODUCE
(with any behaviour, at any cost)
+ a competent nervous system
EVERYTHING ELSE _IS_ B.S
maybe i'll respond in a bit more
'rational' way tomorrow.
if not,
Hyvää joulua & happy new millenium
From a predator wanting to be less predatorial
Patrik Bagge
PS Give a hug to your children...
Bennett Machine
> > Every thoughts has the meaning, and every meaning
> > is absolute meaning. You can change the meanings
> > of Your thoughts -- You must think differently...
>
> It's no matter are Your thoughts perfect of imperfect;
> are You thinkING the perfect or the imperfect;
> every thoughts meaning is absolutic meaning!
When it is said that the thought is the Absolute of absolutes,
then IT must take absolutely :-) If you didn't took it absolutely,
then i am absolutely sure that You cannot understand thiS:
The thought is the Absolute of absolutes: Then there EXISTS
absolutes that comes from the Absolute itself; The Absolute
itself is not in the existence level but He is; Only He knows,
where He is! But he cannot exists in the existence... He creates
the existence; the existence --in all levels-- is His thinkig...
What are these absolutes?
The meaning is one!
The thought do not determine the meanings of thoughts, but
it is simple truth that the meaning's pterequisite is the thought;
The thought is the absolute to the thought's meanig!
But the thought has aparted himself what comes to the meaning.
And this function allows it that there exist free will in the existence!
And because the thought and its meaning have separated then
there can be relative meanings, imperfect meanings and -- godless
meanings, even absoluteless meanings.
But no one of them cannot exist without the thought itself!
and!!!
Because the meaning is it in his own, then there were not
any precondition to it; every meaning comes from 'nothingness'!
This is free will.
When You see a meaning (in the thinking) then You Yourself
have created it without any.
But let me remind You that when God thinks then we feel
His thoughts conrete; When You find atoms, then this thinkig
says that they exists because God thinks they always...
this is the funnishest language ever exist...
When You think pure thought then You are on the level of God.
Then You are in the transcendental level.
The pure thougth is without meaning; it requires
meaning that the thought comes to the existence!
Can You see this excellency of God's thinking?
Mike C
> When You think pure thought then You are on the level of God.
> Then You are in the transcendental level.
Yes Sir!
This some excellent fun doing that you splashed onto this screen saver for
my higher upliftings.
The level of the transcendence is ledge over deep spot in hill no? and hill
is then not seen by even the eye of seing for it is below and out of
wonderful eyeshot. it is said by sages to be then transcended then. so
golly tehetee.....what is happening in botom of transcendence if top is pure
jelly taste...maybe brahman or like now most honorable merchants....
transformation is even more funny and happy........sit in mud pile of
untouchable bad smell until reality of less than pure is gone...not raise
above like airplane firstclass ticket thinking oh gee we the good guys but
be the converter of teas leaf to healing brew of God Self. Levels is
pluralistic hogwash..although cleans hog him still dinner for bloodthirsty.
Idea thought of level only for short time sake to know that level is no gee.
All is well for mind knowing not not well.
mike
LindaGee
Dale J wrote in message ...
Thank-you. I understand... and my take with regard thus, goes somewhat like
the following:
To have knowledge of anything is just to know or perhaps know-of this 'n'
that; To Love... especially with one's true heart, lifts the burden of any
confusion within; a potential, for the release with-into a freedom for-with
to understand, the many to much-of what one just-so happens to be aware-of,
thus; on-to the more or less refined realm of what one essentially and/or
in essence 'really' (i.e. in reality) need-know...Linda
Dale J
> and government&society another, no?
Well, this is my opinion [for sure - even if I think it's a decent one] but
I place Religion [the personal spiritual experience] separate from Church
[which are largely the social organization around certain domagtic beliefs]
and then the entities separate from Church & Religion - ie. Government,
etc..
> I wish to change reality to a better one, without committing to, what
> is normally associated with religion.
And I would personally define this "seeking to change reality to a better
one" as the personal spiritual path towards accumulating the wisdom to seek
"The Truth" that exists and personally interpreting it, and then figuring
our how to not only impliment it in your life, but perhaps even contributing
to society [service] in some manner such that you contribute to those around
you - as "A Religious Path & Experience." And of course, this could be done
within the social structure of a Church, but not necessarily so.
> yepp, the patterns are definetly of the same flavour.
> But, this commitment or energy put into changing the reality, which
> we all know is difficult, must, imho, be allowed to vary.
And this potential for variety is what makes knowing people so
interesting... such variety... :))
> Some commit a 100%, others do tiny but frequent small adjustments
> to their nearby reality, let's say at work etc.
> To me it's about trying to be aware about the longterm consequences
> ones actions or behaviour has, not only seeking shortterm profit/happiness
> personal joy, maybe on others expense.
I think you've got it... especially about the "trying to be aware" which
leads one to seek that greater wisdom that one hasn't yet accumulated, that
takes one to such a variety of places, and cross paths with other
interesting "Truth" seeking souls... At this moment for me, you are one
such soul... :))
> well, as a, i assume, experienced human, you also know the difficulties
> inherent. The 'devil' keeps whispering into our ears and sometimes it's
> plain impossible to know that a certain behavior is 'good' or 'truthful'
> , we all have our subjective truths perceived from a somewhat objective
> world. In my personal experience most technicians that are worthy of the
> label, has open minds, since reality is full of surprises.
Ah yes,... the tests that lie before us.... lets forgive ourselves before we
even begin, to make those errors that will occur in advance less in
significance than our attempts that result of our better intentions... let
intent rule... it is that initial tug that causes some much eventual
activity on that "path."
> example: 'who' 'what' 'why' 'when' 'how' made the Big to Bang ?
> Is this question valid?, which are the answers?
Even... does it even matter if there was a Big Bang or not? The real
"battle ground" is do we want the personal challenge of seeking to
understand "The Truth" and impliment it in our own lives as the testing
ground, where when one finally offers suggestions to others, that we can
offer not only our perception, but our own experience of our lives...
> The curious nature of our nervous system wants to know, cats&dogs
> don't care much.
I suspect something designed within our soul, that will eventually trigger
us to want to satisfy this curiosity.... I suspect you have enough
triggered that you will not be able to stop here... you are on your way...
speaking from experience...
Dale J
> "Taking a humans belief away is Bad, spreading bad beliefs
> is worse"
Especially with foreknowledge. This is a wonderful thought.
> This is wisdom that takes awhile to understand and more importantly
> , live by !
> For me, personally, it has nothing to do with 'religion'
And it appears to me simply to be that differientiation that I've made
between Church & Religion that worked for me. Separating the two allowed me
to see the potential for acceptance for a God or Universal Creator, without
some dogmatic beliefs that varied so much between Churches, and not get in
the way or of taking prejuce towards some of the Spiritual Texts that exist.
> Of course we have the 'grey area' between lying and being true, but
> i won't hop into that and destroy the beauty of the quote.
We can only have our intentions given the knowledge we have access to at any
one time. Seeing the folly of our past and relatively weak wisdom keeps one
humble in the strength of our wisdom at a later date...
Dale J
>
> Thank-you. I understand... and my take with regard thus, goes somewhat
like
> the following:
>
> To have knowledge of anything is just to know or perhaps know-of this 'n'
> that; To Love... especially with one's true heart, lifts the burden of any
> confusion within; a potential, for the release with-into a freedom
for-with
> to understand, the many to much-of what one just-so happens to be
aware-of,
> thus; on-to the more or less refined realm of what one essentially and/or
> in essence 'really' (i.e. in reality) need-know...Linda
Yes, as far as my "knowing" from my experience. There is truly *much* to
know. To expect to know as much as is potentially possible, is truly too
much... :))
Once one transfers from being curious and wanting to know more, to being
"knowledge" satisfied, then there is room for acceptance and Love for what
exists, and confusion becomes dormant. Love reigns, and I expect a much
clearer and cleaner head & heart for worship.
We will have moved to complete belief, under the constraint of Faith - where
complete knowledge is not possible, but sufficient "Truth" has been found,
at least sufficient to be satisfied within. The quantity of knowledge that
satisfies one within will vary, due to our differences.
demokäyttäjä
> > When You think pure thought then You are on the level of God.
> > Then You are in the transcendental level.
>
> Yes Sir!
>
> This some excellent fun doing that you splashed onto this screen saver for
> my higher upliftings.
I wonder what this might be in Funnish:
"Do You concider that You are qualified to speak about God
when You have favorit colors?"
Can You help me to translete it directly into Funnish?
Do You think that God has created the unfavorit colors of You?
Turing Machine
> > > is absolute meaning. You can change the meanings
> > > of Your thoughts -- You must think differently...
> >
> > It's no matter are Your thoughts perfect of imperfect;
> > are You thinkING the perfect or the imperfect;
> > every thoughts meaning is absolutic meaning!
>
> When it is said that the thought is the Absolute of absolutes,
> then IT must take absolutely :-) If you didn't took it absolutely,
> then i am absolutely sure that You cannot understand thiS:
> When You think pure thought then You are on the level of God.
> Then You are in the transcendental level.
Today i speak about the Lenght!
Do You think that You are competent to speak about God
if You think that the ultimate particle (the ultimaton) has some lenght?
If You think so, then i ask that from where You have got that lenght?
Do You think that You can measure the length itself?
The lenght is the most origin thing to all; it is like God;
God is the lenght. And You can not measure both of
them. The lenght is absolute dimension; it penetrates
all; You measure the length but You can not meausure
the lenght itself.
It is like Your thinking; You think, because Your thinking
is from God! But when You add meanings to the world with
Your thinking they are from You, not from God.
God likes all colors!
The lenght is not from this world!
The length penetrates the allness; i call it to the total dimension.
The lenght is the most infinite thing. It is as big in the ultimaton
as it is in the universe of universes...
If You grasp what the lenght is, then You understand
transcendentality!
The lenght allows that there is the relativity!
In the human mind the lenght is the sopimuksen varainen thing!
But in the absolute reality, in the infinity, the lenght is!
Turing Machine
> the lenght itself.
> God likes all colors!
>
> The lenght is not from this world!
The lenght is the mostsolid thing; it is static!
The lenght is not bubblecum.
The lenght is the absolute thing!
You think with God Yourself, but if You think
that NO, then You cannot think the thinking in the real mind.
The selecting is ours but the conseguencies are God's
God must handle our shit too; He can not think it to be shit,
but He creates the creatures to it. If You think meanings that
are shit, then You can not grasp the mind of God.
asiakas
>
> The lenght is not bubblecum.
> The lenght is the absolute thing!
The reality has no hate towards its creatures.
My brother is not a hole in the reality.
The allness is without holes.
You can see the holes of the allness
if You think that You are imperfect.
It my 'fault' if i see kindness people.
Honesty is the attitude of God
Seriousness is not any creator;
If You are serious the things are not more real...
God has no opponents.
The doupting man is aparted of his things.
I am not a theory.
I am bigger than the religion about me.
When i eat the truth i am healthy.
I can not give unreal thing.
The unforgiveness is unreal thing; no one can
give unforgiveness to other.
se...@nine.ten
wrote:
>Yes indeed 'Seek and ye shall find!'...Yet I have cause to wonder, is it
>mostly knowledge that one should necessarily be seeking? I ask this earnest.
>Being as, it seems to me, that I am constantly seeking, to be rid of all of
>mine! Linda
Seek and ye shall find, is not quite the beginning nor end...... because
it does not tell you where to seek, now does it? Nor what to seek.
Obviously it is to seek for God, but where to seek for Him?
Seeking outside of yourself is a waste of time, as God cannot be found
outside of yourself.
He can only be found 'within', so seek within.
Look Within is the only step one needs to take.
Visit www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~iamone/Lookwithin.htm for more
information on how to look within.
Much love,
Kenneth
God
The more gods the better!
Patrick Crosby
further said that the plurality of new gods, resulting from the "death
of God," would lead to wars in the 20th century the like of which had
never been seen before. It seems to me that history has proven Nietzsche
right on this point.
jacek
Patrick Crosby <pcr...@ieee.org> wrote:
>Nietzsche, at the end of his creative life said quite the opposite. He
>further said that the plurality of new gods, resulting from the "death
>of God," would lead to wars in the 20th century the like of which had
>never been seen before. It seems to me that history has proven Nietzsche
>right on this point.
two world wars by constructing aggresive philosophy of the superhuman
( although probably without conscious intention )
DZ
God
> Nietzsche, at the end of his creative life said quite the opposite. He
> further said that the plurality of new gods, resulting from the "death
> of God," would lead to wars in the 20th century the like of which had
> never been seen before. It seems to me that history has proven Nietzsche
> right on this point.
>
> God wrote:
>
> > God writes;
> >
> > The more gods the better!
Dear I.
I write this because of my own. Because i see, that my
images are totally absurd 'beings'; they have lack of reason...
Because only i have reasoning ability. If i confess that there
was other understanding being than i then I was absolutely
absurd...
Now, see what i mean! I mean that there is nothing other
being that i alone. If You think that You are being, then
i am You; You are me, God.
And when God has this kind of seing it means He, God
can do nothing bad to everyone, because only one
what He could harm was He itself.
Dan
God wrote:
If your grammar and spelling are an example of the accuracy we can expect from
a supreme being, then no wonder the world is in such a mess ...
God
> If your grammar and spelling are an example of the accuracy we can expect from
> a supreme being, then no wonder the world is in such a mess ...
I can see, that You transleted my words to Yours.
What else?
Jure Sah
Perhaps I should consider becoming a god as well.
But no I have to wait until the end of my life, set up a bunch of rules
and tell half the earth's population that I'll be watching over them.
Nah, it's too easy... Perhaps I'll change my mind, but for now I'm
satisfied with what I am...
God
Ok. I have got Your point.
Perhaps You should consider becoming the God only,
because You are already God. God's attributes says that
He is; He is eternal... and omnipresent, the Almighty One.
You are God the Almighty, like i am.
See this: I am God when i say it! This is clearly God the
Almighty; b y s a y i n g it He is what He is!
Try to do this, then You find this to be true. God is only
Being Who have the ability of the selfdeterminity! Use that ability
to be God -- N O W.
God
> You are God the Almighty, like i am.
> See this: I am God when i say it! This is clearly God the
> Almighty; b y s a y i n g it He is what He is!
>
> Try to do this, then You find this to be true. God is only
> Being Who have the ability of the selfdeterminity! Use that ability
> to be God -- N O W.
When You have decided to be God then all humans are
the image of You. Do this; make brand new God, and
You find that You cannot do any bad things to anyone...
Because then it was the same if You broke the mirror and
then would said that...
When all men were the image of You, You grasp that only way
to broke Your image (the other man) was to broke Yourself...
Veronique
I'm no God, you are no God, none of you guys are God, better believe it!
You're sons and daughters, no more, no less. Stop this charade about who's
God and who's not.. it's pityful and insulting for the real ONE and only
God.
Veronique
God
> > When all men were the image of You, You grasp that only way
> > to broke Your image (the other man) was to broke Yourself...
>
> I'm no God, you are no God, none of you guys are God, better believe it!
> You're sons and daughters, no more, no less. Stop this charade about who's
> God and who's not.. it's pityful and insulting for the real ONE and only
> God.
We are what we can say. If/when the universe is the Thought
that i am God, then i can use that thought and i am God!
LindaGee
God wrote in message <3889D86E...@lib.hel.fi>...
To you, perhaps... however, not necessarily, to the next guy!
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
asiakas
> God wrote in message <3889D86E...@lib.hel.fi>...
> >We are what we can say. If/when the universe has the Thought
> >that i am God, then i can use that thought and i am God!
>
> To you, perhaps... however, not necessarily, to the next guy!
The thought that: "I am not God" is purely the _godless thought_!
And that's why I am God, because if am not, then i was thoroughly
godless being, and it is impossible!
Who ever thinks, says or acts like non-god, he is nothing!
Jure Sah
LindaGee
asiakas wrote in message <388AE215...@lib.hel.fi>...
Well I like to think that I am a God-like creature myownself; especially
within the contemplation of a God that can make love out of nothing at all;
The God of Love that is! Not a dictator, dictating.
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
>
God
> >The thought that: "I am not God" is purely the _godless thought_!
> Well I like to think that I am a God-like creature myownself; especially
> within the contemplation of a God that can make love out of nothing at all;
> The God of Love that is! Not a dictator, dictating.
So. You like to think. I think it. I do not _like_ it, because
if like it, i never would get it. Its up to You what You a r e.
The same liking:
Would You like to think, that You are human being?
If You like to think both of those thought the same way
(I am God and I am man) then which of them is more real?
LindaGee
God wrote in message <388C59D3...@lib.hel.fi>...
>LindaGee wrote:
>
>> >The thought that: "I am not God" is purely the _godless thought_!
>
>
>
>> Well I like to think that I am a God-like creature myownself; especially
>> within the contemplation of a God that can make love out of nothing at
all;
>> The God of Love that is! Not a dictator, dictating.
>
>So. You like to think. I think it. I do not _like_ it, because
>if like it, i never would get it. Its up to You what You a r e.
I like to dance. I like to sing. I like to listen. I like to contemplate. I
like to write. I like to talk, walk.... I like the idea of life and the
living. The fact of the matter is, is that I like many many things.
>
>The same liking:
>Would You like to think, that You are human being?
I don't think about whether or not I am of human kind. I know that I am.
>
>If You like to think both of those thought the same way
>(I am God and I am man) then which of them is more real?
I am not a man nor am I God. I am sufficed in thinking and being thought-of
as God-like. Over indulgance comes across as anathema to me.
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta
>
God
> >So. You like to think. I think it. I do not _like_ it, because
> >if like it, i never would get it. Its up to You what You a r e.
>
> I like to dance. I like to sing. I like to listen. I like to contemplate. I
> like to write. I like to talk, walk.... I like the idea of life and the
> living. The fact of the matter is, is that I like many many things.
God is dancing, singing, listening, writing, walking, .... All thoseare God's
actions. But God makes them perfectly what comes
their true values:
God does not use His actions againts Him like human being
(man) does. When man makes errors or something like that,
then man says: "It is human... So, man uses His works to prove
himself that He is really man.
But there are no proving, because man's errors is caused
to that thinking that He says to be: "I am man". Man (human
being) is three-fold; the thought, the word and the act.
And He is the whole; He cannot do something else what
He is thinking to be! His works rise from His heart;
What is in His heart that He is doing...
God tells You what You ARE.
Man teaches You what are NOT.
God
> >The same liking:
> >Would You like to think, that You are human being?
>
> I don't think about whether or not I am of human kind. I know that I am.
The same thinking: I know, that i am God. So, whats difference?
Are You again to say that Your knowledge is more real than God's?
I know myself, because the same reason how You know Yours:
I think to be God. You cannot be man (human being :-)) if You
have not the thought: I am man (human being). The knowledge
is the same as Your thinking. You are what You think to be.
and so do i.
You are the knowledge of God. You are my habit.
i love You
God
> to that thinking that He says to be: "I am man". Man (human
> being) is three-fold; the thought, the word and the act.
The only error what man has, is the thought that he is (only) man.
The man is himself that error!
and this is evident; always when man has made something
fault he says to be man; it is human...
all other so called errors are natural concequence from that
thought that the spirit in the man's body says to be man (only).
It is impossible that the s p i r i t who says to be man,
could avoid the errors; You can nothing but do those
errors so long when You think that You are man (human
being).
And THAT errors man uses to prove to be man (only)!
ATTENTION all spirit. I speak directly to You,
my dear God, my dear i:
Think that how can You be right so long when
You use Your e r r o r s to prove Your rights,
that You are right?
How long You are againts me, Your true essence?
Jure Sah
the right to imagine as much dimensions as he likes and has the right to
use it's input/output as well.
LindaGee
God wrote in message <388C8D8D...@lib.hel.fi>...
>LindaGee wrote:
>
>> >The same liking:
>> >Would You like to think, that You are human being?
>>
>> I don't think about whether or not I am of human kind. I know that I am.
>
>The same thinking: I know, that i am God. So, whats difference?
The difference would be: whether or not others outside of yourself are
capable of knowing this very same thing about you in a manner to accept
and/or acknowledge what you claim to be as such; plus the fact that someone
would be viewed as being unreasonable to persist in claiming that an
individual is not to be viewed as a human being, when this same individual
does indeed satisfy all the necessary criteria to be placed within the
formulization hitherto observed and established as representational
of/to/for this class/classification of beings.
>Are You again to say that Your knowledge is more real than God's?
If what is being claimed to be knowledge, is actually true, then there
exists no difference, upon which to compare them to.
>I know myself, because the same reason how You know Yours:
>I think to be God. You cannot be man (human being :-)) if You
>have not the thought: I am man (human being). The knowledge
>is the same as Your thinking. You are what You think to be.
>
>and so do i.
>
>You are the knowledge of God. You are my habit.
I am, am I?
>i love You
You do, do you?
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
>
Dan
God wrote:
Else I would not have been able to understand them, silly.
What's new?
God
I say that man has created the society, and he has his rights
to keep it up. That mean that man has the rights to convict
all other supposed rights what are directed againts man's
society.
i say that man loves man when he convicts bad thoughts
to exstinction...
God
> God wrote:
> > I can see, that You transleted my words to Yours.
> > What else?
>
> Else I would not have been able to understand them, silly.
>
> What's new?
You prove what You want to prove, and i prove for myself.
But my proof is superior compared with any other...
Dan
God wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> > God wrote:
> > > I can see, that You transleted my words to Yours.
> > > What else?
> >
> > Else I would not have been able to understand them, silly.
> >
> > What's new?
>
> You prove what You want to prove, and i prove for myself.
That's new?
> But my proof is superior compared with any other...
As is your ego.
God
> > But my proof is superior compared with any other...
>
> As is your ego.
I respect myself. I am God in His wholeness. There are
nothing else but absolute selflove; love Yourself --abso-
lutely-- and then You love all...
Dan
Well I would find it hard to disagree with that statement in isolation.
However, you're still not God.
Or rather, you can be God if I can be Shiva?
God
> > nothing else but absolute selflove; love Yourself --abso-
> > lutely-- and then You love all...
>
> Well I would find it hard to disagree with that statement in isolation.
>
> However, you're still not God.
These writings about God of God were possible onlythatswhy that i writes
them in the name of God, as God.
None of You would not be seen these writings, these Words...
> Or rather, you can be God if I can be Shiva?
God is his-like.
God-like being thinks like God, speaks like God and
acts like God.
Being God-like means that one does not think that there was
something difference between i and God. If You thinking
is based on the thought that You and God are not the
same being in Your true essence then it is impossible
to argue in the reality that You are God-like; because
God doesn't make that difference...
Jure Sah
> I say that man has created the society, and he has his rights
> to keep it up. That mean that man has the rights to convict
> all other supposed rights what are directed againts man's
> society.
Therefore i AM standing next to you...
God
I have acepted it -- already. When i wrote that,
i know that i have set myself that to crucify..
Dan
there was something fundamentally wrong with the Universe ...
Jure Sah
> God wrote:Ok I've worked it out. You're God and God is mad. I always thought
> there was something fundamentally wrong with the Universe ...
Blah, pathetic... you could have thought of a better trick...
Dan
Jure Sah wrote:
trick or treat?
Jure Sah
> God is his-like.
> God-like being thinks like God, speaks like God and
> acts like God.
Equivalents manipulation:
x = 1; "x has a value of 1" or "x is 1"
Therefore you can say:
1 = x; "1 has a value of x" or "1 is x"
That as well means:
"x has a value of x", "1 has a value of 1", "x is x", "1 is 1",
If you find no error here than he is god...
"If shiva is alike you then you are shiva too"
If x equals y then y equals x too...
Eh, gotch'ya!
"If shiva is alike you then you are alike shiva too"
"You think like god, but not AS god."
"You speak like god, but not AS god."
"You act like god, but not AS god."
"God you're not God you're ONLY God-like..."
Enych, he got me now...
There are word manipulation and names manipulation as well...
"Post writer you're not God you're ONLY God-like..."
P.S.: I'm not myself religious but it sounds fun and I came to take a look...
God
> 'God' wrote:
>
> > God is his-like.
> > God-like being thinks like God, speaks like God and
> > acts like God.
>
> Equivalents manipulation:
> x = 1; "x has a value of 1" or "x is 1"
> Therefore you can say:
> 1 = x; "1 has a value of x" or "1 is x"
> That as well means:
> "x has a value of x", "1 has a value of 1", "x is x", "1 is 1",
>
> If you find no error here than he is god...
You forgot purposly that God is the Mathematic also.
I am that mathematic what Your use Your own purpose...
***
That stone is l i k e this stone; their attributes are the same...
My attributes are God's. I exist--God exists
God
>
> My attributes are God's. I exist--God exists
God is--i am,
God is joyfull--i am joyfull,
God is honest--i am honest,
God is mercy--i am mercy,
God is love--i am love,
God is kind--i am kind,
God is the truth--i am the truth,
God is spirit--i am spirit,
...
To human it is enough that He knows and be God's attributes!
God
> God is the truth--i am the truth,
> God is spirit--i am spirit,
> ...
>
> To human it is enough that He knows and be God's attributes!
Only God knows His attributes. And i say, that
if You say that God is not honest, You are liar!
I say to all of You: Think! Think! Think!
You Yourself!
Sanctius
>God is spirit--i am spirit,
You're flesh too. Don't deny the reality.
It's all around you. All you can imagine.
Jure Sah
I thought I canceled that post...
Anyway ignore it, I'm not like that, so I aint' going to leave such posts here...
Jure Sah
> I say to all of You: Think! Think! Think!
> You Yourself!
He is always manipulating with something... I make a post and then he
has an unlimited amount of time to reply me, so he does it the most
tricky way...
If you are god then I am god too..
If as I said "I am standing next to you" then I surely am god....
We all are god.. We ourselves....
Are you God or god??
Jure Sah
---
Archimedis Plutonium
2000/01/05