right and wrong in the bible

[billyjack]

I suspect that billyjack's definition of the word 'reality' would includes everything, including God if he exists. To say that God "exists outside of the universe" or that he "exists outside of those planes of reality accessible to humans" might be a more precise choice of words.

I will agree with you there.

again: if god is outside of the reality accessible to humans, then how do you know of this god?

even if you use the potter/pot shpeal, this still doesnt tell me how you are aware of god's personality. . . i can look at a pot all day, and this wouldnt tell me that the potter loathed sex before marriage, admiring other potters, or eating beef on good friday.

and who says a creator has to be seperate from his creation. there is no doer behind the deed. the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed, the deed is everything. (N)

[Redzeppelin]

again: if god is outside of the reality accessible to humans, then how do you know of this god?

1)We were created with a "God consciousness" in our hearts.
2)He left us His divine revelation called the Bible.
3)Jesus told us in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit would come and guide believers into the truth.

even if you use the potter/pot shpeal, this still doesnt tell me how you are aware of god's personality. . . i can look at a pot all day, and this wouldnt tell me that the potter loathed sex before marriage, admiring other potters, or eating beef on good friday.

See above. (And, it's any sex outside of marriage - not just before.)

and who says a creator has to be seperate from his creation. there is no doer behind the deed. the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed, the deed is everything. (N)

The Creator must be separate from His creation - the creator cannot be the art - He creates the art.

[Zirkle2007]

Just a little add-on to the God being outside of reality topic. Another reason we know there is a God is because of how humans are created. Humans are born with some knowledge of whats right and whats wrong. Where do you sugest that this comes from? Evolution and all the things that want to rule out our Creator can't even explain this! All you have to do is look at a human being, inside and out. I don't understand how anyone who closely examines this could believe in anything but God. It takes way way more faith to believe in no God, than it does to believe in God.

[Bakiryu]

Not really. Humans beings are born with no knowledge. Their learn from their parents and other persons. People create gods because they need some purpese or sense in their lifw, not because god really exists.

Why is it 'God' anyway? Can't it be 'Goddess'?

[billyjack]

1)We were created with a "God consciousness" in our hearts.
2)He left us His divine revelation called the Bible.
3)Jesus told us in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit would come and guide believers into the truth.


The Creator must be separate from His creation - the creator cannot be the art - He creates the art.

1/ the reasons given for the knowing that god exist even though he is outside the realm of reality that is knowable to humans is 2/3 bible talk, and 1/3 coherent. so i will talk about the coherent, god consciousness in our hearts part.

how do we know this to be a god consciousness and not just part of our normal consciousness. could it be that the bible said that the consciousness was godly and therefore this god consciousness in our hearts is really another appeal to the bible. . .

2/ the creator is only seperate from his creation in language and symbols, not in reality. any anyways, the art analogy doesnt hold up. i created my body via my genes creating it, but i still call myself my body. creator and art are not two seperate entities.

[Redzeppelin]

1/ the reasons given for the knowing that god exist even though he is outside the realm of reality that is knowable to humans is 2/3 bible talk, and 1/3 coherent. so i will talk about the coherent, god consciousness in our hearts part.

Careful there: you originally asked how I know "of" God - not whether I could prove He exists. I know of God through His revelation of Himself (the Bible); as well, I know of God because Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would be sent to help people in their understanding of God; I did not imply that the Bible "proved" God existed - I answered your question as to how I know of God.

how do we know this to be a god consciousness and not just part of our normal consciousness. could it be that the bible said that the consciousness was godly and therefore this god consciousness in our hearts is really another appeal to the bible. . .

The "God consciousness" exists within us whether the Bible exists or not; we're hardwired to know that there is more to life, more to this existence, then ourselves.

2/ the creator is only seperate from his creation in language and symbols, not in reality. any anyways, the art analogy doesnt hold up. i created my body via my genes creating it, but i still call myself my body. creator and art are not two seperate entities.

You did not "create" your body; you had no choice in its conception, and you have no control over its growth or regulating processes that renew you at a cellular level constantly. When you draw a picture, "you" are not that picture; it is a separate entity from you.

[hyperborean]

The "God consciousness" exists within us whether the Bible exists or not; we're hardwired to know that there is more to life, more to this existence, then ourselves.

We are not hardwired to know anything...our parents told us that there is something else out there. Without our peers brainwashing us into believing in some divine being, we would never know it existed.

[Redzeppelin]

We are not hardwired to know anything...our parents told us that there is something else out there. Without our peers brainwashing us into believing in some divine being, we would never know it existed.

So you say. Your contention is wrong.

[billyjack]

Careful there: you originally asked how I know "of" God - not whether I could prove He exists. I know of God through His revelation of Himself (the Bible); as well, I know of God because Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would be sent to help people in their understanding of God; I did not imply that the Bible "proved" God existed - I answered your question as to how I know of God.



The "God consciousness" exists within us whether the Bible exists or not; we're hardwired to know that there is more to life, more to this existence, then ourselves.



You did not "create" your body; you had no choice in its conception, and you have no control over its growth or regulating processes that renew you at a cellular level constantly. When you draw a picture, "you" are not that picture; it is a separate entity from you.

1- i will give you that, my mistake.

2-what you call the god consciousness i call something entirely different. i would call it consiousness. no need throw the god in there. doing so is like putting god in front of horse apple, calling it a god horse apple. its still a horse apple.

3- ah, but i do have control over the growth of my body. its just not a kind of control that i can put into words, so therefore you say i dont control it. but i cant put opening and closing my hands into words, or digesting my meals, or beating my heart, or growing my fingernails or hair into words nor do i have to think about them, i just do them--but these are all still things that are called me, and so therefore i must be doing it.

the artist is his art. we are what we do. where is this imaginary line between that which is done and who does it? show me it...

[Redzeppelin]

2-what you call the god consciousness i call something entirely different. i would call it consiousness. no need throw the god in there. doing so is like putting god in front of horse apple, calling it a god horse apple. its still a horse apple.

Our "consciousness" is not what I was referring to. The "God consciousness" is the awareness we have at a deep emotional level, that God exists. Our sense of wonder when confronted with the sublime, and our indignation at wrong are both evidence of this consciousness; as well, the greatest of human endeavors - Mozart's music, Shakespeare's writing - are manifestations of the human desire to surpass humanity - to approach absolute truth and beauty. That is a function of the God consciousness IMO. The Bible tells us that all men have been given this awareness.

3- ah, but i do have control over the growth of my body. its just not a kind of control that i can put into words, so therefore you say i dont control it. but i cant put opening and closing my hands into words, or digesting my meals, or beating my heart, or growing my fingernails or hair into words nor do i have to think about them, i just do them--but these are all still things that are called me, and so therefore i must be doing it.

You cannot choose to grow younger; you cannot choose to halt the development of your body/brain/emotions without doing serious damage to yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, the ability to destroy ourselves does not mean we have control over our growth; it just means we can stop it or retard it. Whether you like it or not, your body will get old and die - regardless of how much "control" you think you exercise over your body. It does what it pleases in terms of growth. You may tell it how to move or behave, but not how to grow.

the artist is his art. we are what we do. where is this imaginary line between that which is done and who does it? show me it...

Art is a thing; human beings are not things. Shakespeare wrote plays - we consider them art. Shakespeare is an artist, but he cannot be confused as being "art" himself. Your blurring of the two together occurs only in language.

[billyjack]

- Mozart's music, Shakespeare's writing - are manifestations of the human desire to surpass humanity - to approach absolute truth and beauty. That is a function of the God consciousness IMO. The Bible tells us that all men have been given this awareness.



You cannot choose to grow younger; you cannot choose to halt the development of your body/brain/emotions without doing serious damage to yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, the ability to destroy ourselves does not mean we have control over our growth; it just means we can stop it or retard it. Whether you like it or not, your body will get old and die - regardless of how much "control" you think you exercise over your body. It does what it pleases in terms of growth. You may tell it how to move or behave, but not how to grow.



Art is a thing; human beings are not things. Shakespeare wrote plays - we consider them art. Shakespeare is an artist, but he cannot be confused as being "art" himself. Your blurring of the two together occurs only in language.

1-shakespeare, mozart, and allan watts creations are not around to surpass humanity and find absolute truth and beauty. they are around to show humanity how beatiful it is as it is. these artist are like optomitrist. their job is to make us see how beautiful things already are by adjusting attuning our focus a little bit.

there is no absolute anything. every solid has space, every sound has silence, every truth has lies. you yourself said that in our plain of reality, there must be contraries to make things work--theres isnt an absolute anything.

2- i am not saying i make a conscious decision to control the biological functioning of my body. what i was saying is that my lack of conscious decision doesnt imply me not controlling it none the less. when i take a swing on the baseball diamond, i am not consciously going through every aspect of my swing, if i did i would never hit the ball. rather, i am letting my unconscious do the work. to understand what i say, you have to realize that i dont jsut consider me to be the consious, thinking me. i think me also includes the contrary of that, the unconscious or superconscious and non-thinking me. you know that in hindu philosophy their god is seen as not consciously controlling anything, but just doing everything spontaneously, just like we spontaneously grow our hair or beat or hearts.

3-on the contrary, the blurring of the two exist only in reality. its in language that the doer and deed are seen as seperate. just showing that what you call reality and what i call reality are two seperate things.

[Redzeppelin]

1-shakespeare, mozart, and allan watts creations are not around to surpass humanity and find absolute truth and beauty. they are around to show humanity how beatiful it is as it is. these artist are like optomitrist. their job is to make us see how beautiful things already are by adjusting attuning our focus a little bit.

I've read one of Watt's books - it was interesting, but it doesn't place him in the same rank as the other two giants listed. Sorry.

there is no absolute anything. every solid has space, every sound has silence, every truth has lies. you yourself said that in our plain of reality, there must be contraries to make things work--theres isnt an absolute anything.

No - I said no such thing. I believe "good" is quite understandable without "bad" - I believe "bad" takes its meaning from "good." We don't need contraries. That we can learn from them does not make them essential - only instructive.

2- i am not saying i make a conscious decision to control the biological functioning of my body. what i was saying is that my lack of conscious decision doesnt imply me not controlling it none the less. when i take a swing on the baseball diamond, i am not consciously going through every aspect of my swing, if i did i would never hit the ball. rather, i am letting my unconscious do the work. to understand what i say, you have to realize that i dont jsut consider me to be the consious, thinking me. i think me also includes the contrary of that, the unconscious or superconscious and non-thinking me. you know that in hindu philosophy their god is seen as not consciously controlling anything, but just doing everything spontaneously, just like we spontaneously grow our hair or beat or hearts.

Your unconscious does not swing the bat - your swinging of the bat is a consequence of a decision your mind made and the resulting messages sent by your brain to parts of your body that enabled it to coordinate the action of hitting the ball. It's not like Star Wars where you "let go, Luke! Stretch out with your feelings!"

3-on the contrary, the blurring of the two exist only in reality. its in language that the doer and deed are seen as seperate. just showing that what you call reality and what i call reality are two seperate things.

There is a distinction between creator and created. I am not my deeds.

[billyjack]

I've read one of Watt's books - it was interesting, but it doesn't place him in the same rank as the other two giants listed. Sorry.



No - I said no such thing. I believe "good" is quite understandable without "bad" - I believe "bad" takes its meaning from "good." We don't need contraries. That we can learn from them does not make them essential - only instructive.



Your unconscious does not swing the bat - your swinging of the bat is a consequence of a decision your mind made and the resulting messages sent by your brain to parts of your body that enabled it to coordinate the action of hitting the ball. It's not like Star Wars where you "let go, Luke! Stretch out with your feelings!"



There is a distinction between creator and created. I am not my deeds.

1) i thought you might object to me throwing watts in there.

2) i am not going to search the archives to quote you, but you did say what i said you said, you must have slipped?

i agree, being able to learn from things does not make them essential. after all, you learn from the bible. . .but, contraries are more than merely instructive. contaries keep things working. the bad weather nourishes the habitat and the good weather does as well, but in different ways. without the former-drought, and without the lat-floods. hence, contraries are essential. prove this incorrect.

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

[Redzeppelin]

1) i thought you might object to me throwing watts in there.

Why wouldn't I?

2) i am not going to search the archives to quote you, but you did say what i said you said, you must have slipped?

Sorry - you'll have to do your homework and find the quotation, because either here, or elsewhere, I made it clear that contraries are not essential; people advance the idea we need evil in order for us to appreciate "good" - I contest that, pure and simple.

i agree, being able to learn from things does not make them essential. after all, you learn from the bible. . .

What's the point of this statement? Is it some sort of "dig" because I'd be very disappointed if that was what you intended.

but, contraries are more than merely instructive. contaries keep things working. the bad weather nourishes the habitat and the good weather does as well, but in different ways. without the former-drought, and without the lat-floods. hence, contraries are essential. prove this incorrect.

We're talking about two different things; I understand that contraries exist on earth, and I acknowledged that they do hold a necessary function; however, my point is that we do not need evil to appreciate good - good can exist without evil, but not vice-versa. I was making a philosophical point, and you're presenting natural examples. It doesn't work that way.

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

The reaction occurs because of the decision/desire to hit the ball. If you really don't want to hit it - guess what? - your body will not override you and swing the bat anyway.

[kilted exile]

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

Ok this example you are using is just wrong. If it was truly an unconcious action the batter would constantly be swinging at every pitch that comes towards him, irrespective of location - a batter like that would not be in the league for long.

A batter always makes a concious decision about where, when and how to swing the bat: Is he looking to get just a base hit to continue the inning? Does he want to pull the ball into a specific gap between the fielders? is he looking for a bunt to advance the runner? etc What makes the professional so good is that he can still process all of these things and still do what he intended correctly