|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
...if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.
- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)
I am a peaceful messenger of Einstein
Clever man Einstein. A personal god will always be a source of conflict. Ridiculous notion if you think about it.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Epicurus often has some pretty good things to say, generally, from what (little) I know. Certainly this is my line: either he is a callous ass who doesn't care about suffering even though he can intervene (God, I mean, not Epicurus...), or he is UNABLE to prevent it. I think I'd prefer the latter of the two -- if I was forced to believe in a God at all, that is
The counter argument to Epicurus is that God doesn't choose sides. If Baseball Team A is praying to win, and Baseball Team B is praying to win who does God choose? If Team A wins, they give thanks to God, but they really did for themselves. And vice versa. Furthermore, man cannot comprehend everything that God is, and everything that God knows. In the Ramayana, an Indian epic tale, this paradox of evil is addressed quite nicely. If Rama's father hadn't had him banished from his home because of his jealous wife, the Rakasha (spelling?) would not have been slain.
I do not necessarily agree with everything I say - just thought I'd put that out there
I don't understand why that is a counter-argument. If he doesn't choose sides, then he is "unwilling", right
I don't think unwilling is the right word to use in that case, I think unnecessary is. Like in the Ramayana you don't understand until the end why the "evil" was necessary.
OK but the Ramayana comes from a different tradition, arguably a much more complex tradition. The Judaic tradition (at least as portrayed by Christians and Muslims) is one of a unitary, ominpotent, ominiscient, all-compassionate, all-merciful, all-loving God... who nevertheless (apparently) sits by and watches 27000 children die per day of needless causes, when there are ample examples in the Bible of him intervening in human affairs.
In other words, frankly, the Judaic conception is logically inconsistent... that is, its own propositions contradict one another. The Hindu tradition is not really set out in the same way, so perhaps is not so open to criticism on these grounds (the grounds of internal contradiction).
I was just using it to illustrate what I was trying to say, and that was the first example that came to mind. I know more about Islam and the Eastern -isms than I do about Judaism and Christianity so I couldn't think of a Christian example.
Applying Logic to Metaphor is really a waste of time. IT'S LIKE DEMANDING YOUR DREAMS TO BE LOGICAL. They are not. Metaphors have a different language and the only thing that you should pay attention to is the emotion and the relationships within the metaphors because these things that we are metaphorizing (if there is such a word, i think not) are non-verbal, they exist outside our cultural and temporal knowledge. It's outside language. The universal knowledge hides in these visions and unless you decode it and unfold it in its mundane form, you will be lost in what the Jewish Mystics called Binah Consciousness. The darkness of mystery that never mixes with light. Like a woman never giving birth to a child. Binah Consciousness is Understanding that never results to KNowledge (Daat)
In other words, know they are metaphors for something real in the energy level or thought level and then you will see what it means. These stories are real,but they are not histories, they are instructions on how to manipulate the mind in order to AVOID suffering.
Well, it depends on your starting point. Seeing as most of the talk about religion around here seems tied up to ethics (for some reason, most of the time, anyway), then I tend to start from the question: "How does all of this square up according to my understanding of ethics."
The Judaic-Islamic-Christian God is an active personal God, anthropomorphic, such that we are in his image (ie, we would expect him to conform in some way to the rules of being a person... even if only roughly).
So I am going to judge Him based on ethics and ethical behaviour as I understand it applying to humans (what is ethics anyway if it does not apply to human behaviour?)
And in my view, therefore, the Judaic view of God is one of someone irresponsible.
In addition, I cannot understand why God would create his major creation, us, having as its hallmark feature a vast intelligence and ability for logic and rationality (among other things, obviously). And then say: "Oh but when it comes to thinking about Me, please park that all over there in the back out of the way."
Finally, not to be rude, but millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians disagree with you that it is all metaphorical. To coin a phrase, Who died and left you God (just using an expression -- not trying to be personal )
That is true, comparative mythologists are a rare breed. But I have a couple of heroes in the field
Namely Joseph Campbell, James Hillman, Pinkola Estes and Thomas Moore. These interpretations have been around a couple of decades. It's called Depth Psychology. The study of consciousness. Jung and Freud being their pioneers.
There is a lot of fragmentation going on by virtue of ignorance. The economy based religions that teaches these metaphors do not want their captured markets to shop elsewhere for metaphors. So it became monopolies rather than free markets. Priests need to eat and so they don't want you blessing your own food before you kill it, seriously. They don't want you professing love under a tree and declaring yourself united with god in marriage.
So all these things that you find absurd about religious doctrines are actually brought about by these supposed champions way way back hiding what they mean, so they can attain and maintain power. It doesn't mean that it didn't survive, it survives, this wisdom because the symbols are still there. The metaphoric symbols are transcendent.
Judaism introduced Ethics. It is being credited in philosophy as the originator of ethics in western world.
Now that is not to say that it is necessarily followed.
Judaism is not credited in philosophy as the originator of ethics in the western world. Clearly it has had a huge influence, but ethical systems are common to all civilizations that ever existed. The Celts, the "Old European" (pre-Indo-European) civilizations, the Anglo-Saxons, the Greeks(!), these all had ethical systems -- they had to have. It is a feature of all human society. But I was using "Judaic" in the sense of "conceptions stemming from the Old Testament, specifically Jewish, Muslim and Christian". And I was referring to the conception of God, and not of ethics.
There are some things which are to me ethical universals, invented by no one group. Judaic ethics are sorely lacking in many areas (views on women, for example). But universal ethics (like "If you see thousands of children wallowing in misery and can do something to prevent it, but don't, and at the same time claim to be all-compassionate, then you are dishonourable in some sense") are universal. No group needs to invent them, because they are self-evident
Well it is credited in textbooks taught in schools. AS for the actual originator of ethics, I would say, it evolved. I will look for that book, but right now I'm not in the mood to quote. But there was entire chapter about Judaism and ethics.
Textbooks are not necessarily reliable. Trust me. I have personally known people who wrote textbooks. A lot of it comes straight off the top of their heads...
It doesn't matter anyway. You yourself just pointed out that it probably evolved. That is probably right. I mean, I would think all human universals probably evolved. And a system of ethics (of some kind) exists in all societies and communities everywhere.
Perhaps being human we experience evil subjectively and we cannot see past the negative experience, when actually it is a phenomenon that requires attention. It requires action and understanding. It is there because no one is tending it. It is being neglected.
Evil grows when it is ignored. When evil is present, that means a good, an action of tending is being called to come into being.
You create heroes from disasters, and lakes form craters. To see evil for what it is, you have to suspend judgement and find the root. The root is usually a small seed of good waiting to grow in the right light.
That is a very minute expression of his philosophy and for lack of a better pun, a "Garden Variety" epicure.
The notion simple requires one to consider: with or with out the immediate visibility/presence of Creator -who is far beyond human understanding- the unequal force of good/evil rests in the human condition. (which today we call consciousness)
He was expressing the task of the human who considers either side.
The epicure is for the human to perceive and differentiate between singular or collective elements of both, thus not relying on the 'coming down' of omni but the raising up of the human to a much clearer place of understanding.
Three is a dark side to god as well in this dimension the ying and yang exist.
In another dimension there is only god .God is very, very personal as well.
Einstein's notion again was speculative.
I admire his attempt, but still as even he said -the two formulas for mysticism (scientific v romantic) will find conflict because the methods they use to come any determination is limited to their perspective.
The personal god ideology isn't new and was highly disputed long before he (or even Epicurus -who's perceptions of the universe were preposterous, according to all present scientific explanations).
What they -and many today- fail to realize is that even though all is Creator, the human limitation of that understanding puts them into a mixing bowl of consciousness, be it of self-deity or necessitated-deity, to rationalize or emotionalize their experience and lack thereof.
This statement clearly shows Einsteins clever, but confused desire himself to understand the elements that drip with causality. If there is reward/punishment aka justice, how can it be since Creator is all. What he missed was simply this: judgment is not negative or positive in its approach to either reason or sensation. Judgment is beyond the scope of the human condition.
This paradox is what holds humans back from being the actual entities they were fashioned to be.
well he was also confused with newtonian and quantum, he was a transition point. So you can imagine he would have that conflict in his world view.
Hi friend Rishy Rich
Did he appoint you? sorry to ask you
finally a sense of humour from you, good one. (no offense R)
Good one, that joke by parrsurrey...
I agree with cb
The entire universe was created on the principle of agency or choice. Just as we had a choice to come down to Earth for our mortal probation we continue to utilize such agency here according to the eternal confines and boundaries that God has put in place for our agency and protection. Yes, he created us and all creation, but we, through His power, have agency to use or misuse creation around us. All blessings are predicated upon the laws in which they are set. We are truly agents unto ourselves. Were it not so there would be not logical reason for creation in the first place.
Utter nonsense and an ongoing source of conflict as Einstein so clearly pointed out. Beliefs such as this - whilst providing you with a source of income without working - are guaranteed to cause conflict, priest.
Clever man - Einstein.
Just for the change can we have proof ? (Don't refute by saying that i don't have proof against your this little story and hence it must be true or have 50/50 chances. Duh...
I really appreciate the fact that you started off with a quote, from a very serious scientist, and broached the subject of science and religion together. Religion needs science. And, it is only this personal conflict within our own self, that keeps the two apart. He is right you know about how personal conception is the real source of trouble in religion.
He has another beautiful quote concerning this subject matter. It is in a book of mine. I should dig it out and share it with you. Yes, I think I will. I'll be back. Until then, thanks for starting an intriguing thread such as this.
who's in da house? "Ism" in da house!
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. it should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.
....If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."---Albert Einstein
I love that quote. What a great man.
Oh wow! Where did you get this quote. I am so surprised he said this!
Go to this site ref Einstein and religion.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-ei … eology.htm
It is in a book I own called, "Awaken the Buddha Within." Great book by the way. Sorry I'm eating lunch, so I'm a little sporadic getting back and responding. Thanks for asking. You know if you are interested in another great website on Buddhism, Google Lama Surya Das. He is a fantastic Buddhist Lama. I love his teaching style. He was raised Jewish and when he went off to find himself during College, he stumbled into Buddhism in Tibet. Very interesting man, ceciliabeltran. I think from what I've read of yours, you'd like his line of thinking.
It takes two to have an argument, and one to walk away. It is difficult to fight, and degrade an empty space.
You cannot run away when backed into a corner., Will you run away and leave me your house?
You can always walk away from a verbal corner by ceasing to respond. A physical corner; however, you do have to fight your way out of.
I don't have a house, I don't even have a lease, I'm just an occupant in my roommates appartment lol... but I can run away and leave you an empty space if you'd like
But I think you get what I was saying. When backed into a corner - there is no option but to fight. See any history book for religion backing people into a corner. WHich is what you get from a belief in a personal god - as Einstein was pointing out.
Source of conflict. Just wander through these forums.
So what? You choose to fight or lose what is dear to you. How is that a choice?
Nobody can take from you that which you are not willing to give away.
Virtue is living a life worth dying for - I'd give up my life instead of being forced into a new way of life. And that is my choice.
Dear me - how very, noble of you. Not sure what that has to do with choosing not to have a conflict though, but - umm - very, very well done.
You would rather die in conflict than give in. So - that is your choice - conflict. So you don't have a choice after all. And I hate to break it to you - but all sorts of things can be taken way without you being willing to give them away.
Only the things that don't matter.
You can explain things to yourself however you wish, I will agree to disagree, but my explanatory style is not on par with yours.
No matter how much of my liberty someone takes from me, they will never take my sense of self. Nobody will steal my values, or my beliefs. And in the end that's the only thing that really matters.
Good for you. What does that have to do with choosing not to have a conflict? That you would happily have both eyes poked out rather than give up your "values or beliefs" whatever they are? So what?
How does that address the subject we were discussing?
We've been having two completely different conversations. I was never talking about this thread, I was referring to the constant bickering and attacking that goes on here. Don't like it, don't answer - a person can't fight with themselves. I didn't want to reply directly to Deborah's comment (the one right before mine), because then it would seem like I was directing it at her, and I wasn't. So I applied to the first post instead, I thought I had removed the quote, but I didn't. That's where the confusion started.
You took what I said and put it in context of this thread. That was never my intention. I figured that's what happened, but I was curious to see where the conversation would end up anyways. More or less a dead end.
Ah - I was talking about the premise of the thread. We were talking at cross purposes then - and perhaps you are not as naive as I has presumed.
I don't generally consider myself to be naive - but stubborn to the point where it is sometimes my undoing, yes
our positive traits are intertwined with our negative ones, just like Einstein's E=MCsquared. The Duality of ENERGY is chaos and order at the same time, depending on how you view it.
People are drawn to the forums because they simulate the events in their heads. It's like watching your thoughts go by. It is an incredible place to contemplate the nature of man, her/his illusions and her/his basic universal power.
Mmmm. I don't like that definition of virtue, to be honest. Don't we already have a definition of virtue (and I'm not talking about sex ). Virtue is doing good, in other words, taking care of the less fortunate and the weak, not lying or cheating (at least, not without good cause), etc. Your definition is way off the mark, if you don't mind me saying so. Not to wheel out an old chestnut (or to mix my metaphors), but by that definition Hitler was virtuous
I said worth dying for, I didn't say having the illusion that it was worth dying for.
Mmm. I like this comeback. I guess my answer to it though is that is all fine and dandy for someone like you who is probably sane and sensible, and, indeed, virtuous, but I could well imagine an abortion doctor assassination planner considering themselves virtuous, or for that matter, people who drive planes into high buildings... Better, in my view, to be damn specific about what is meant by the word... lots of people have died believing themselves to be virtuous... Dulce et decorum est... for example
No matter how airtight a definition, there will always be somebody that doesn't deserve it that thinks it applies to them unfortunately. Homo sapiens seem to have this innate sense of entitlement that is way overinflated in some people.
But I understand what you mean.
True. MASADA was a choice. And a costly one. Sometimes people do the most absurd things just so they will not lose. But to allow yourself to lose sometimes is the winning move that will turn the tides to your favor.
because you will win something more valuable (like time, energy, self-respect you know or even a few more days to live and see the clouds float by, kiss your little girl goodnight.)
exactly, I hate having to go down the low road, but sometimes that's the language they speak and then some miracle happens and they get it! On that note, Einstein's predicament with the atom bomb mirrors many things going around in this social experiment.
He discovered a formula for understanding and transcendent knowledge and it was used to escalate something that is quite the opposite.
You can extend a hand of peace but if the person is in an internal war and is in chaos, she or he will not recognize it and see it as an evil trick.
Evil sees only evil.
How true this is, you see this a lot in patients who suffer from Clinical Depression, Bipolar Disorder, one of various Personality Disorders etc. That is one of the difficulties in treating some major depression and personalities disorders - it is almost impossible to get them to see that it isn't you that is the problem.
Also, social experiment is right - maybe I'll forget my thesis on language and consciousness and do it on forum psychology instead! haha
What an interesting thesis you have! I so envy your topic! It's fun!
Have you done any research on Joseph Campbell and James Hillman? It seems so apt to your topic.
I haven't touched on either of those two because Joseph Campbell is a Mythologist, and James Hillamn's work is more applicable to the psychology of religion. I am not doing very much philosophical work into the area of consciousness (which is too bad, because that's really interesting too) . My research is more on the neurological side of consciousness, and the structures of the brain that are important for consciousness, as well as the effects degrees of attention have to learning and memory. Where language comes in is in determining how much of a contribution language has to our ability to be self aware. I'm hoping to show that structured language is not a prerequisite for self-awareness, and that you do not need to have a concept of mind to have one. In effect I'm hoping to show that we are not the only sentient species on Earth. A lot of headway has already been made with the Bottlenose Dolphin, and attempts are being made to declare it a non-human person.
I've posted this in another forum, but I'll post it again here :
It has actually been scientifically proven that dolphins, specially bottlenose dolphins, are sentient. They display complex emotions, can recognize themselves in a mirror, have demonstrated empathy, and are the only other mammals that have sex for pleasure.
I'll suspend my judgment on whether they are non-human persons because I don't know enough about the research they've done, but it is quite interesting.
I mean why are there attempts being made to have it declared a non-human person?
Because as a non-human person they will be entitled to the same humanitarian rights that we are - it is an effort to make illegal things like dolphin culls which could come under charges of genocide if dolphins' were considered non-human persons.
I disagree that it is ridiculous. If we are able to conclusively show that dolphin's are capable of the same complex thoughts, emotions, and self awareness that we are, they deserve the same protection of rights that we are entitled to.
I don't think we are far enough along to prove that they are indeed sentient though, and that we are jumping the gun, but if we can show their complexity, I see no reason for why they should not be non-human persons.
Their brain is the second largest mammal brain, second only to humans.
Actually don't they have a larger brain? I was in the museum the other day and was surprised that the human brains were second in size to their brain size. Look at their foreheads!
I say its ridiculous because whether they are 10% less sentient than we are, they are still sentient. And by all measures they possess more altruistic behaviors than we do.
The amount of stories of drowning people saved by dolphins because sinking ships are numerable. I have people whose cousins have been saved by dolphins from drowning. So it is ridiculous for me.
But I understand what you're saying because people's livelihoods are going to be affected. And their lives! Do we save dolphins or people? How do you give them their zone in the sea. These are big questions.
But for me, it is a big step for mankind to legally recognize the right of a non-human sentient creature to live.
I misinterpreted you, I thought you believed granting them non-human person status was ridiculous - which I disagree with. So we do agree lol
Brain size isn't what we compare, it's proportional brain size that we compare. Sorry, I forgot to specify. The brain size/body size ratio in cetaceans is second only to humans is what I should have originally said. In bottlenose dolphins the ratio is between 4-5, in humans between 6.5-7.5. The frontal lobe of the bottlenose dolphin is quite large compared to other non-human mammals, and this is important because the frontal lobes are responsible for complex thought.
Well, in the creative business it is common practice to get to a new insight by connecting separate fields and bridging them. As a matter of fact, The research that I am doing is along the lines of your thesis. My contention is, the language of symbols and dreams communicate consciousness that is not based on language. Like an awareness of self.
The visual language of our dreams and artistic expressions communicate emotions and relationships independent of language. Hence the weirdness and lack of logic.
I actually have neurological maps for popular religious symbols. It seems that the consciousness of man is talking to itself about itself.
Like "this is me, these are my parts and this is the best way to use me". I am delaying writing it into a hub because well, i spend so much time in forums (which is a cue to say time to write another hub and actually get my research going). I do have a deadline I keep pushing. So we are all procrastinators here. I have a workshop to conduct here in lower manhattan and I haven't done anything! (ahhhhh)
But I will cue you in when its out. Need your thoughts on the matter actually.
Haha, ya... I am procrastinating too. My Personality and Religion exam is in 7.5 hours lol.
I can't post my own hubs on anything relating to my thesis because it's intellectual property of my university; however, I'd be happy to comment on yours!
And also it is always the "I" that's the problem. You know somebody is insane, so you must speak in the language of insanity to lead her out of it. You can't insist a person to be sane for your comfort. The person is insane!
But easier said than done, right?
I'm of the mind that this has been taken out of context and since I don't know the rest of the text it would be silly to say anything regarding Einstein's message.
Having decided this I'm being silly enough to say there is no bone for atheists here as this is not questioning the existence of God, only that of a personified God.
Semantics, You mean the personified god that 13 billion christians believe in?
Yea, I didn't know you're only denying the Christian God and the likes of him.
Oh - the doesn't affect anything, has no interaction, never steps in, does not need to be preyed to, did not create anything, cannot be seen, heard or found and did not give any rules to anyone, no one built any churches to it, does not make any difference if it exists god - god ?
Sure - I will buy that one.
Call me a believer.
well all those are for man's own convenience not god.
100% of US cancer patients have eaten potatoes. Within the world, about 99% of all cancer patients who did not eat potatoes had at least heard of potatoes. I have, therefore, concluded that the concept of potatoes causes cancer.
I am a peaceful messenger of Mr. Potato Head. Please do not eat potatoes.
Atleast we are peaceful all of a sudden!
I just envisioned a thousand tanned Irishman w/ semi automatics, shooting tater tot bullets into the sky and some fellow w/ a makeshift ketchup & salt cart. weird.
Pomme de terre ou akbar!
what is with ou akbar and the constant changing of profile pics?
it began with the insinuation that myself, you, OD, Myth et. al were forming a 'HubGang' against a certain not-to-be-named individual (no not Harry Potter's nemesis). I rebutted that this person thought it was a Hub Forum Jihad against them. You know digial characters flying in the air, etc. Out came the "HubPages ou akbar" statement and has kinda stuck in my head.
The photo thing. Yeah, no. Can't decide on which one I like "bestest".
Speaking of photo things, which OD profile pic do you like best? This account or the other one? Ha-ha!
Saying "you know who" is the same as saying my name.
Creepy is as Creepy does.
It doesn't get any creepier then this.
only Creepy would know, now wouldn't they?
Thanks (...) for responding. Cheers.
No..it is called not being stupid..cheers
She who must not be named? Like it.
Still - she who must not be named is pretty touchy, so you can expect a recital of qualifications gained and esoteric texts translated from an ancient language any time now.
Plus the ferry schedule to Italy from Greece..... which is the same as going to France,.... 'cause they are connected you know.
I'm the touchy one?
He who spouts hate and spews ridicule in every post.
He who offers nothing that informs or supports his "Theories"
I am a peaceful dis-liker of Mark Knowles
I love my family, my friends and Oreo ice cream.
The Great Audi is God forever more, plus the Beamer and the Porsche'
totally the black and white, but this one has a girl and it looks authory.
Oh...ohyes, I remember now...
The hub gang *nods*
I thought the concept of a personal god was that it was personal. Ie: between me and god only...
That doesn't make sense from the beginning. Being ABLE to do all things and control all things doesn't mean one does.
There are many things I can control in the lives of my grandchildren but I leave a lot up to them to experience and learn by.
You didnt designed your grand children, u didn't decided their DNA codes, u didn't bound their rationality...Because you couldnt
But If theres a God, then It must have designed us as he intended...
Every thought, every action happening in this cosmos is totally controlled by god.
I can see how that could be true but I don't believe it. There are evidences of micro-management on the part of God but I don't see that it's a constant thing. Besides, that makes it sound like God is just a giant-sized, way better version of us that's in charge of the world like we would be in charge of something. That view makes God way smaller and less than "he" really is.
What doesn't make sense, is what you just offered.
If you were "omnipotent," loving and caring you would create your children as perfectly as you are and a world within which they could live which is perfect.
There would be no "problems."
Its all a big joke, the cosmic joke, all is you, all is god.
Its just too good, gods sense of humor is phenomenal.
Try and think in this way, all is you.
What do you define this god you mention to be?
If all you have to offer is "opinion," forget I asked this question.
I could not consider you to be a credible "hubber" in ref. to this god thing.
You'd be just another "guessing" follower.
I like this comment, except the last bit (the last sentence) which I don't. In fact I think it is odd
Ok, I didn't know you were arguing it from that type of view.
No, it isn't ridiculous unless you distort the meaning. If one chooses an interpretation that makes no sense, then it will make no sense. Einstein's words as quoted are wrong unless seen through a specific point of view that people choose to discredit God. Some people do believe that way, I've met a couple. People believe a lot of nonsense, the fact that some have odd beliefs of how something works doesn't discredit what they believe in. Kids for a time may believe there were little people in a TV, doesn't mean TV doesn't exist.
As far as I am concerned, the idea of a personal god is nonsense. And - as Einstein pointed out - is guaranteed to cause conflict.
What do you mean by "personal god"?
Personal God, an annoying concept really. It's much easier to think of God as some sort of force but that's apparently not true.
Discussing God with someone who doesn't know/experience "Him" is like you giving a book report on a book I read. Or explaining the atmosphere in a room where something has happened and the recipient of the explanation wasn't there. Or like describing the feeling that suddenly comes over you when your child is in danger but they're off on a camping trip and you have no direct knowledge.
Or the cold dread that comes over you a few minutes before the phone rings and someone tells you a friend has just been killed.
Poor analogy, you need to compare gods with things that are invisible, not with real world objects that we can see and feel.
What is this god thing you speak of as if you know and understand it?
If you cannot factually define "it" you are blowing smoke out of yer "bunghole."
Some times you make stupid remarks, designed simply to annoy, other times you are simply boring.... either way plssss stop being such a pillock.
I am only annoying to those who have no logical response to my very "logical" questions.
The "adhominem" attack you just posted, seems to me, to qualify you as being one who has no logical response.
I cannot be insulted.
When insult seems to be the purpose of a response, I chuckle and consider the source.
You are entertaining tho! TY....:-)
What if "god" is a highly advanced entity who made a mistake in "our" creation?
We certainly can create things, as humans, that we could not imagine creating 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. Certain hobbies, once reserved to the professional with advanced tools, are now within anyone's reach. It is not beyond imagination than in another 100, 50, 25 years we could have "create your own life" kits.
So if the "creator" could create life there is no reason for that creator to stick around after creation to see how its creation was doing. It does not even have to be an eternal "creator" so long as it can create life that can self-sustain.
From that perspective we could all become "god" to some life-force (or our children or grand-children) when technology allows it.
Should we expect total devotion from our creations?
Yeah, we got screwed & neglected at our early 'Homo Erectus' stage.
Oh well, maybe we can manipulate some other race of beings in the near future, for revenge. Ha-ha!
I remember worrying about one of my boys when I saw the drawings he created. I worry about God when I look at the people he created. (But no, I don't believe God literally reached down for some dirt and made humans; this is just one of the things that crosses my mind sometimes.)
Total devotion? It seems to me more like something for our benefit, the way things work the best. Of course, people get it all screwed up usually. If we were devoted to being one with all other people and love, we wouldn't be having wars and hate. When we 'create' children, the plan is for them to grow up and be able to manage on their own. I wonder if anyone's child has ever grown up and not thought any differently than the parent? I've never met anyone like that.
My problem with Einstein's statement was just in the fallacious if-then. Someone (OD maybe?) made the point that if God COULD create all perfection, why wouldn't he? I don't see why he would have, maybe it would be too boring. Besides, I think we're all (human race) God's science experiment.
Just thinkin out loud.
Yours is an excelent analogy.
But I suppose that when we creat something it would then be in our enviroment however large that may be.
If I created something that shared my environment; I might want to keep an eye on it to make sure that it doesn't burn my house down? .. or eat all of my blue bell icecream.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Einstein was far from religious, but he was also not an Atheist, he did not deny thet there could be some form of god out there, and indeed often refered to a personal God (Although msot religious people fail to understand that this is not a religious position).
Einstein was a clever man, which is why he skirted conflict with religious groups.
Einstein had a transcendent view of G-d. He called the universe the Mind of G-d. I will not bother to repeat myself why he may be right. But yeah, I think he's on to something there.
Hinduism has concept of 33 crore gods and they don't even mention work/stature of each god(I can understand population was not even 3 lakh when they invented 33 crore gods). Again recently this number is contradicted by many people and now this number is drop down to 33. There are many points on which Hinduism can be easily contradicted. For example, lord shiva who is considered as god of destruction failed to recognize his son ganesha and moreover failed to give ganesha's human-head back. There are lot of contradictions it's just that people are not open to it.
Myths like these are metaphors for events in human consciousness. Its not meant to be taken historically. Shiva is passion and when you are at odds with Shiva, you conjure her destructive face in your being. When you see that your hate is actually the shadow of your love, she will reveal her benevolent side.
I find Hinduism to be powerful metaphors for achieving self empowerment. But again, religion is an evil that needs tending. You need to bother to know these things before the teachings can help you.
Ironically my name is named after lord shiva (i.e. Mahesh) LOL...
Coolness. You know the Mystics also say that name that you are called sticks to your consciousness and influences your personality because the phonetic sound is recognized by your brain to mean something.
Like AHHHH means breath
RRRRRR means some kind of motor
HEY! means look at me, and so and and so forth
So your name with be Water attends to Fire. You are very logical and you probably can be very objective, having mastery over emotions. just a little party trick I pull from time to time.
and you have no idea what the name represents
Shiva is an awakened one who knows his source and the source of ll is god ,Home.
Really ? What made you think so that i don't know what it represents ? (Typical religious assumptions)
Still mad at me, Mr Mishra ?
Long time no see, ha. What happened to your claims of god particle ? Found official journal site of person who first mentioned god particle and that proves your point ?
Really ? I thought you'll say that he's father of karthik/ganesha and is known as god of destruction. First time i've heard about this awakened thingy. Looks like someone was into hibernation
You have heard abut it but don't know god as you don't believe in god.
Shiva is considered as the first yogi, the first enlightened or awakened one on this planet .
Learn there is a lot I can teach you.
Would you like me to stick my tongue out at you all the time? Be nice.
I am interested in this. Could you tell me a source? As a myth it's fascinating.
A little bit here.
http://www.ishafoundation.org/news/colu … eb2009.pdf
He supposedly shared this knowledge with the Sapta Rishis- 7 sages, who spread it to the rest of humanity.
It is a misconception that Hinduism is polytheistic. They believe in one transcendent God, all the rest are avatars of the same God to illustrate his many faces in a way a human mind can understand because the "Beyond" defies ordinary language. The stories about the different avatars are not usually believed to be actually occurrences, but illustrations of an important message.
I've to disagree with that cause my experience with hinduism is different. Some hindus think of this as hierarchy of gods and female goddess "durga" at the top of creation,so there we have polytheistic religion. Some think of "vishnu" at the top of creation and rest of the gods are discarded. And there are people in India worshiping multiple gods without considering who is at the top of creation.
Right,but there is a lot of talk these days about last avatar of vishnu "kalki" which is considered as last reincarnation before next matrix-reload(err i mean creation rewind).
The elephant head also symbolizes an awakened or enlightened one, he dies and comes back stronger ad far more intelligent.
Every human has god in him.
From god comes all and goes back to god.
Indeed? Judaism is credited?
Ironically, the clause of Judgment for ones deeds in pre-Mosaic and (more recently) post-Mosaic is reserved for those of 'faith' not good/evil deeds. So the omnipotence factor puts Creator without necessity -which is what he designed humans to be. However, according to Judaism -even the Talmudic version- the entering into that necessity (knowing the two sides) forced humans to consider judgment of both cause and effect.
I always thought that the dichotomy of knowledge of good and evil was separating two extremes of opposing camps causing conflict. rather than as the tree of life shows in its diagram that hese extremes are like pulses to a process of concept coming down to experience. Realm of Light goes down to Realm of Action.
I don't like this line of reasoning. I promise I am not being oppositional (or argumentative) just to be difficult. It's just I think some things are simply evil, and rather than being assimilated in some way, or balanced with Good, or seen as yin and yang, they should be vigorously attacked.
I agree, evil needs tending, otherwise it grows.
the idea is not to separate your own evil from your good. Your evil is a result of a desire for good that is untended. The tree of life is very personal. when you attend to your own evil, you create good.
why consider either?
since both are lacking.
good is just as evil as evil is just as good, yes?
i dislike quoting but:
(rrrr....i need to eat, you reeled me back in)
I agree, hence the idea that they are but facets of a process.
good as i mean it means deliberate action to create order.
they are like the action of drinking water, the gulping is the alternating allowing of good and restricting it in order for water to pass down through the passage.
All things/energies are passing through passages hence the illusion of evil and good. The wavelike motion shows the alternating presence and absence. What is absent and present? it is merely absence of awareness and presence of awareness alternating for consciousness to flow. just like water flows down the throat when we drink. the pacing of light(knowing)so as not to flood darkness (mystery) and create another( greater mystery) darkness (endless light where nothing can be comprehended).
(That said, I want to eat. and i promise myself to do a 12 step program on forums and its time-suckage.)
I don't mean "my" or "your" evil. I find it hard to believe that anyone posting on this thread possesses any real evil.
It is a dangerous thing to go using terms like evil without distinguishing relatively minor things from MAJOR EVIL.
The world is full of major evils. It is our RESPONSIBILITY to judge those as such.
I find the word "evil" is being used entirely erroneously here. I doubt highly you have any evil inside you. Go read an account of the Rwanda genocide. That'll give you an idea of what I am talking about
yes, that would be hard to understand but i'm hungry and you are still under the impression that specifics are separate from the universal. the evil in rwanda is an individual lack/evil (disorder, chaos) that was untended so it grew in such a scale that americans can now philosophize about it.
your evil. (meaning the things that cause you to be disorderly, chaotic, to suffer and so on and so forth) if you have recognized what causes you to be evil as defined by the parenthesis, then you would be orderly and at peace, empowered to actively tend to the evil of others and then it grows. Now multiply that to a thousand individual rwandans and you will see some change.
i know one woman restarted cambodian economy by healing herself, sharing this with other women and so the women is healing the evil that transpired there. she said : if the women are ok,the children will be ok and the nation's future will heal. This is ONE woman who was raped multiple times, her children were murdered and all her belongings were taken away. she was not an intellectual, she was just a woman who tended her own wounds that she became an expert in healing similar wounds and so she shared it and her personal healing grew outside of her. that said. bon appetite
Also, I have no issues with oppositional, it is great mental exercise to bridge to sides of truth two achieve coherence.
Oh wait, I misread you. now that I read it again I go back to Oh, interesting.
I have never actually researched the origin of ethics, however considering the fact that the human race has grown from co-operation and community, Ii find it hard to believe that Judaism is the origin of ethical behaviour.
Einsteins personal God was the belief that there was more connecting nature than could be observed by man.
Religion is an irrational explaination of things we don't understand, Einstein merely talked about how it was foolish to believe that we understand everything. Einsteins personal God was usually mentioned in relation to scientific methods which were wayyy beyond my own personal understanding.
I didn't really mean to get so morbid. Some happier examples may be the feeling evoked by a favorite song or the way your mood is elevated by being around someone who is in a very good mood. I know experiments are being and have been being done of the effect different types of music has on people. Too many still refute the idea of 'gut feelings' but I'm sure we all know that really happens.
Condescending platitudes? Example?
I certainly didn't feel any condescension toward you or anyone else.
Maybe I see what you mean. But I was only telling how difficult it is to come up with the right words to explain.
I know what you mean. I was just being facetious.
Simple. I have a strong connection to the rest of existence. I have an even stronger connection with some people, and places. I can connect at will to what I "think" you are calling god.
Does it have a personality? No.
What do you mean by "personal god"?
Do you connect with all life as one conscious being or do you still think you are the only favored conscious life?
I never claimed consciousness. What does that even mean? Are you conscious?
Please define that word - "conscious"
Your life. If you are alive, you have consciousness. Ability of life to survive and adapt to the environment.
So - means nothing then. Alive = consciousness. Why not just us the word "alive" instead? Adapt. Did not adapt - was not conscious. Dead - was not conscious.
Do not understand the question now.
I see what you mean now about awareness of mortality.
you are questioning the need to separate the consciousness as an integral part of life which is a good point.
Do you even understand evolution? I don't think you do. All of those books and you still don't get it.
I would bet you are still clueless in recognizing the conscious thoughts in evolution are what leads to the physical characteristics and changes.
Maybe you are just a subconscious mechanism repeating what your heroes write. Nevertheless, you are still conscious, I guess. lol
Sorry - you have lost me. What are you talking about? We were not talking about evolution were we? Subconscious and unconscious are surely the same as conscious? Are they not? No need for distinction.
Unconscious is still subconscious. A person can be unconscious and still be alive subconsciously, the heart beats subconsciously, you don't have to consciously remind your heart of when to beat every beat of the day. When a person is dead, they have no observable subconsciousness or consciousness. I just don't understand how you recognize humans having consciousness, but don't draw the link of other life being designed by consciousness.
There are two separate meanings of unconscious..one like you said..subconscious.
The other meaning for unconscious..is existing without realizing it.
Existing without realizing? Explain please.
I just did..read what I said about my brother..above..you replied to it with a LOL..
Here you go http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/40861?page=5#post949917
Maybe this time you could actually read what I wrote.
Which has a better chance to survive the environment, a conscious person that doesn't know they are conscious because in a coma or a plant which you don't think has a level of consciousness?
Wow, have you understood anything I or anyone else has said to you?
There is no such thing as a conscious person who does not know they are conscious.
It didn't enter the one ear to have the chance to go out the other.
There are many people that are conscious yet unaware of but a small portion of their consciousness.
I didn't mean to interject amid queries, but I like clarity and detest poor wording. Anyway, I think Marine is implying that life - in all forms - are singular capsules from multiple cells that stem, adapt, and evolve from one grand form of universal consciousness.
From there, it is up to y'all to debate about religion & science...and everything in between. These things can get ugly...
Consciousness is..Self awareness..when the mind knows it exists and is aware of those outside of self.
You can be alive and in a coma, with no consciousness. I know because my brother was in a coma for three days before he died.
He was on life support, a machine that beat his heart...made him breathe..etc. He could not do it on his own. He had faint brain waves meaning he was alive.
lol That is the religious definition of consciousness, I was giving a logical one. Consciousness doesn't require a mind, only conscious cells. I don't think consciousness requires a brain, only a membrane. Possibly there is outside of observation as a mind rather than a membrane or brain guiding consciousness.
to cut that long biology book short, yes that would be the conclusion.
That's the true and medical definition.
Your definition is the true one? Logical?
Yours is the one that sounds religious.. mine is based on true definition.
Yes very religious, only a religious one would claim their definition as absolute when there is no absolute definition.
"Enlighten" me on how my defintion sounds religious? I believe all life is conscious, you believe only humans are conscious. Who is the religious one?
She didn't say only humans were conscious at all, you extrapolated and assumed.
She has said it before.
You "extrapolated" and assumed, whatever the hell extrapolated is.
Please, show me where I said this.
Anything that is aware of itself and it's surroundings is conscious..anything that isn't aware is not conscious.
The definition she provided that you responded to did not infer that only homo sapiens possessed consciousness. Perhaps she has said it before, but there is no hint of that in the definition she provided.
Extrapolated means to take the data you have and project what you don't know based on trends.
So didn't you take the data you have and make an assumption/what you don't know that I haven't seen her write ideas as such in previous conversations? Extrapolated?
Her religious disposition is irrelevant to her definition of conscious, regardless of what she may or may not have said before.
In another thread...Marine stated that Flowers are conscious the same as we are.....I opposed that view.
Evidently she has never taken a biology or a psychology course.
By her definition she is also a mass murderer considering how many conscious cells she kills every second.
I find this interesting. I have always "FELT" Marine is female and even asked about it. Marine claims to be male...but I trust my feelings....apparently you sense this too..
Again..WOW...before posting these illusions on the forums..you need to do a little studying.
I base this on 6 years of school, getting my Masters in Nursing. I had to study every field of Medicine....
That's not according to any biology book.
That isn't the religious definition of consciousness, that was the psychological definition of consciousness. Consciousness is having the capability to know what "I" is. It is looking in a mirror and knowing that it is you that is reflected, and not another person standing in front of you facing you. If the membrane does not know it exists, than it is not conscious. Consciousness is not merely just existing, it is knowing that you exist. Consciousness takes complex process, which a membrane alone cannot do.
lol consciousness doesn't require knowing who "I" is. That would be awareness of your consciousness. The membrane and cell do the basic functions of every lifeform with consciousness which is to survive, adapt, reproduce. Consciousness is required by all life for survival, not just humans.
What is this mysterious membrane you are speaking of?
The cell membrane. You have had how many years of school?
6, 3 more and I have a PhD in Cognitive Psychology.
I'm not wasting anymore time with you, besides you have your plants to talk to.
I'm far greater the expert than you, I know what I'm talking about, I'm confident of that. What makes you so sure you are the expert?
She will argue this till doomsday. This is about the third thread she has made these statements on...I think most people just scratch their heads...There is one so far that has agreed with her..but...I'm sure pods have two peas...
Bleh, I have tolerance for people up until the point of chosen naivety and ignorance. Then I wish I could shoot lasers from my eyes lol
yes she will and sane people like crmhaske will get it.
lol, I have an exam tomorrow in my Personality Theory course, and I'm procrastinating from finishing the last few study questions
This is much more interactive than memorizing Erikson's Life Cylce Theory and Fowler's Theory of Faith Development haha
I know what you mean. I need to do 12 steps and may have to banish myself from the internet for a few days. This is so entertaining and actually futile if you think about it.
I am not interested in what you have to say. Please don't start..If you think I don't get your drift about the sane people getting it, think again. I studied biology for years. That is not consciousness. Now you just attacked me by implying I am insane.
Direct your insults to yourself. You have a history of following me and commenting when I'm not speaking to you.
Such a loving person you are.
Deborah, I apologize for "implying you're insane". But you're insane for thinking that I would follow you around. We gravitate to the same topics, ninny. Ok, if you want me to stop talking to you, then don't talk to me or about me. Ok? I am super fine with that.
I am glad a new Hubber is bashing marine beside you. She's nice and she's loaded with knowledge. But, old hubbers doing the forum rounds snicker about your volatility. It's true. Nobody likes temper tantrums. Nobody respects threats. And that's what you do. You lose your head over the silliest things and report people so that they will get banned or warn them like a punitive god. People are just heckling uncool behavior. You can't make it go away by threatening them. They will continue to do it behind your back. We are here for laughs and mental gymnastics. I wish you would be normal, so I don't have to cringe when I see your face on a good topic. But your presence will not affect my topic choices. I will just have to bear that my favorite topics are yours too. SO we can either agree never to address each other or talk about each other and talk around each other.
OR we can have normal discussions about the same topics we like and agree to not like each other but be civil. I will even not try to point out the flaws in your argument unless its misinformation because that's when you think you're being insulted. But you start talking about me or to me in this way, I'm going to start talking to you in the manner you deserve. Like now.
Oh and the school credentials...not cool at this age. Get new credentials and affiliations from established organizations in science and philosophy. Get an article published in a newspaper or scientific journal. THOSE are the credentials that actually hold weight. Not subjects you've taken in school. NOT COOL, Deborah. you have no idea how silly you make yourself out to be. Such a shame because you do have expertise in Kabbalah and your med background is adequate. Do not humiliate yourself further by throwing your school credentials around to win an argument. You don't know the kind of credentials other people have.
I bet she feels bad when she cuts the grass....
There is danger that the grass may trip her as she passes by.
So lipids and proteins..why don't you state what you mean..there are many different definitions of membranes.
A cell is not conscious, neither is a tree, or a fern, or a mint leaf. A butterfly, a fish, a bear are conscious. You are right, the "I" assumes self awareness and is not part of the definition, but conscious is to be aware of the difference between the you and the everything else.
Oh, well thing is there are stages of consciousness. You are obviously right in what you know. That is the psychological definition but it is also a religious definition in as far as Buddhism is involved. But where I am coming from is from a biological standpoint.
Here is where we are always reaching a sort of deadlock. And no matter how I explain and give sources, it is just not accepted. Something about the idea that cells have a rudimentary consciousness is incomprehensible to many people.
But it is the case. I cannot repeat myself over and over and I will just like to lead you to the study of epigenetics. It shows that the membrane not the DNA is adapting. The DNA is the memory, not the brain. This is repeating itself in our neurons where it is the membrane that decides when it will absorb a chemical.
What this means is,the membrane made of chemical proteins is the substance that "feels" its separation from its environment. So it (as the established biological model for consciousness) has the ability create a model of reality. The protein membrane can do this, albiet in a scale relevant only to its food, comfort and survival. It is empowered to move in the direction at least away from harm or towards food. So is it conscious, the answer is YES it is conscious that it is separate from the environment is an entity that is self-contained and can move. Does it know it is thinking, we cannot know that because obviously that requires that we will have our day being eukaryotes.
So I am not dreaming it. I can give additional sources. But Epigenetics will be the place to start.
I don't disagree that what you say is true, but to use the word conscious would require a re-definition of what that word means. At this point we aren't arguing psychology, religion, or biology. We are arguing semantics.
This unfortunately happens A LOT in the sciences.
As I said your definition is accurate but I was speaking from a biological definition and so the deadlock that always happens. This conversation has many past lives, in many forums. Different names, same arguments. I think I'll just write a hub about it.
I took biology science for 6 years. It is my undergraduate..We studied evolution in plants....Plants do not have consciousness as you stated...
Mark, what do you mean by this?
I can connect at will to what I "think" you are calling god.
Yes, that sounds like what I mean to but for me it's something beyond words. More like existence itself, being but of course more than just our being alive. Tell me what you mean by that okay?
Thank you for deleting that ramble. I could barely make it out other than you want it but you are not sure what it is that you want.
Easy - everything is connected. I think we can both agree to that?
So - I can become aware of this connection and "feel" it at will.
is attempting to see the difference:
uber, active, sub, un, hyper-active, vexed, etc.
All of it is still consciousness.
The unit or creature perhaps defines the expression of consciousness based on necessity -with or without a glucose based organ...
if consciousness evolves, it can only evolve into variations of that stasis. Thus, will always be limited to that stasis. Even an act of natural selection or meteor from the sky won't change the organic system it is or its purpose.
(possibly why i dispute some evolutionary claims of hybrid/morph genetics jeje)
91crmhaskeposted 3 minutes agoin reply to this
I'm far greater the expert than you, I know what I'm talking about, I'm confident of that. What makes you so sure you are the expert?
The only thing you are an expert in is making up your own silly definitions from your overpriced education in which you learned little to nothing. Your buddy debo agrees with your made up definitions. Are you both religious? You both have even more illusions of me being female, trust your religious intuitions.
This does not in any way qualify you to know anything about consciousness, sorry.
And for the record, I'm in Canada so my education is government subsidized. And with my scholarships and government grants, I haven't paid a cent.
lol No wonder, it's funded by the government. Government never gives anything of individual education. Keep studying. You lack consciousness in recognizing that evolution of plants display consciousness such as natural and sexual selection.
She does have spiritual knowledge something you have no idea about.
Calm down prophet, keep feeding her and she will buy your $2.00 ebook which is holier than both the Bwatgita , the Quaran, and the bible. At least it's ebook rankings say so.
Ebook is electronic book if you don't like it stop writing on forums ,its electronic.
I send her a copy or doing a numerology reading,reciprocated ,she will understand and appreciate it.She likes my style.
Sent you a copy earlier and only got attitude as you couldn't understand it.
78Deborah Sextonposted 20 minutes agoin reply to this
In another thread...Marine stated that Flowers are conscious the same as we are.....I opposed that view.
Ignorance and a lies. I at no time said that plants have the same level of consciousness of humans. I said humans have a raised consciouness over other observable life.
I will try to find the thread. You argued with me for days on this.
I have always said there are different levels of consciousness. The higher conscious life has the most capabilities. I think consciousness evolves at levels, not all at one time.
This first correct thing you've said in this thread.
But anything without a brain does not have consciousness. End of story.
You are wrong. Why do you think that it requires a brain for consciousness? Plant evolution is impossible without a level of consciousness.
Well, evolution is not an act, really. But I know what you mean.
I would view it as phenomena, a consequence of life's desire to retain knowledge and to continue to live.
"Evolution is an unconscious act." maybe the word "process" instead of "act" would be better if you both like it; evolution continues, it has not halted.
At evolution being an unconscious act. Maybe you are an unconscious host of evolution is the reason you think it's an unconscious act.
it is not an act marine! you don't act evolved, you evolve as result of a choice. it is a phenomenon. SOME PEOPLE act evolved but are as primitive as the texts they are confined to reading.
if you know what i mean
I do I do. They let the text and education title define their mind.
Yup, and at 24 I make twice as much as you do.
Materialism breeds ignorance. The government didn't teach you that did they.
I don't care about affluence or material possessions whatsoever, but I also don't have to worry about what happens when I retire because my RRSP has already matured.
Now just cover your depedency and importance of life on your materialistic values by lying. Even when attempting to claim you aren't materialistic, you mention your RRSP and how fortunate you are to be able to retire so young. A lower level of consciousness or lack of awareness?
I have no intention of retiring young.
But I am capable of being equally as rude as you are. It doesn't go anywhere - you are the one my friend that appears to be in arrested development.
Marine, I know you enjoy this kind of insulthon, but it attracts negatively charged particles.
That's true..some people do ACT evolved..but really have black hearts and hate for others.
It's typical of the midlife passage. Those who fail to develop a sense of integrity in mature adulthood hide behind a show of disgust, misanthropy, and contempt for other persons and institutions, and have a self-contempt owing to little sense of comradeship with those who lives and achievements mirror human dignity and love. These people have the hardest time stepping down when their time comes to let the newer generation through.
You have the worst case of anthropomorphism I have ever seen.
Sexual selection by plants..Gosh I hope my roses don't start..Hum---- my other plants
If you don't understand sexual selection in plants, what other parts of evolution are you clueless in?
That's a theory and it's not held by many. This stuff started in 1983 after there was a book on it.
Let's stick to reality.
How can someone be allowed to be a doctor or nurse that doesn't understand or believe evolution? Medicine has had an evolution. How can you claim to understand the design of the body/biology, yet you can't comprehend that evolution designed it? Why be a nurse or a doctor anyways, why not just rely on your religious belief to heal?
Yes there are different levels of consciousness ,the highest being god consciousness something you have no idea about marine yet you insist you have awareness
There are different levels of consciousness .
There is also god consciousness.
91crmhaskeposted 1 minute agoin reply to this
I have no intention of retiring young. But I am capable of being equally as rude as you are. It doesn't go anywhere - you are the one my friend that appears to be in arrested development.
Why not, so you could gain more materialistic posessions?
If I could retire today, I would.
lol and what is this arrested development you think i'm in?
IE and Rishy, do either of you agree that omnipotence does not mean you are controlling everything? I realize Rishy was looking at it from the point of view that God specifically designed each gene, molecule, atom, quark, thought, and all that of every single thing.
But the two do not actually equate, nor does one require the other. Omnipotence does NOT require that point of view and the idea of a personal God doesn't have to mean that. Einstein must have been dealing with people who defined it that way but it doesn't make it so.
As Mark asked back several pages, "What do you mean by personal god?"
Mark Knowles wrote:
I can connect at will to what I "think" you are calling god.
Yes, that sounds like what I mean too but for me it's something beyond words. More like existence itself, BEING but of course more than just our being alive. Tell me what you mean by that okay?
Thank you for deleting that ramble. I could barely make it out other than you want it but you are not sure what it is that you want.
If I pretend posting something like that was just an attempt to practice humility ...
Will you pretend to believe me? Please?
Easy - everything is connected. I think we can both agree to that?
Yes. Does that change anything for you? How did you become aware of such a thing?
So - I can become aware of this connection and "feel" it at will.
Is there ever a time when you choose not to do so? Is there any particular reason you WOULD choose to do so?
HERES ANOTHER ONE:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side.
OK then, for those who feel I am volatile and snicker.. back at you for being wimps who don't stand up for yourself. for the bully who sees themselves as being all knowing.. for those who state you follow such written Kabbalah as Bahir, being the Dogmatic Kabbalah, then turn around and state you follow the Oral Tradition (two different things) and isn't it also funny how my fans went from 130 to 151 after I created the thread "The Name Jesus" with notes to me stating they want to know more.
Having my Masters in Nursing I have to update each year..and my grades and credentials, along with my fingerprints have to be on file with the FBI
Just checked and my fans are now at 153...
congratulations to the you as this is your domain for validation, nurse. Now go and give some sick person her meds as that is what you are qualified for (as far as you keep on mentioning).
After this, I am no longer going to dignify your pettiness and insecurity. You want to be an expert in Kabbalah, do me a favor. Let it reach Malkhut in your being and transcend yourself.
You are so annoying, even the peaceful muslim is sarcastic towards you.
It was you who said my credentials are out of date. Bullying people is unkind..hating people is wrong. It's sad you claim to know everything and are so full of hate.
Allow Paarsurrey to speak for himself..you're always into someone else's business. And actually he has paid me many compliments
your astuteness in assessing nuances of words said to you is as literal as your interpretation of the sacred texts you purport to know. Oh well, that too is valuable. People with no or little knowledge of the sefirotic tree will find your work valuable, and indeed it is.
Now stop impacting your credibility by acting like a silly girl.
If you know what you're talking about people will see it.
MOST importantly, this is about Albert Einstein's G-d. He did not share your beliefs about G-d, because well he's Einstein...and by the way, he is a real JEW.
And Deborah, you are the bully around here. Bullies threaten people and demand them to stop talking. People who tell you the truth are just people who tell you the truth. Now, can we get past this? I'm sooooo way past my budget for pettiness.
Back to the topic.
Albert Einstein believed in Spinoza's God who does not meddle with the lives of men. He was more interested in how everything works in Creation.
But full of Grace of course
What time is it where you folks are??? I just turned on my computer for the first time today, and people are already at it???
It would be great if one thread on this whole site was not mixed with vitriol and fighting... I mean, fighting over the topic is one thing, but frankly this is not what I can see here...
A personal god is one who does intervene in the lives of humans. I can not enumerate the 'rules of engagement' for you. Capricious? No, I doubt it, though it may look that way from our point of view.
Right. Which is what Einstein was saying. This belief is the cause of conflict.
And goes back to what I first said - This idea is ridiculous.
Not exactly what Einstein said - his statement was more along the lines of what Mohit just said. A personal God does not require that.
The fact that 'it causes conflict' is irrelevant to its veracity!
Of course it is. Look at all you religionists fighting over it and sharing god's love. Sure - you believers pretend that never happened.
"...if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God."
The very idea is completely ridiculous.
All is the Light or god even man .Its is true that every thought and action is that of gods because all is god.
The reality is that this dimension we are in sucks ,its hell.
This reality is gods manifestation into physical matter ,to experience himself,it a big game in one way. but painful , no one is spared of pain.
Nobody can take from you that which you are not willing to give away.
That's an absurd statement, of course they can. Unless you're only claiming it only as refers to abstract things.
Look at all you religionists fighting over it and sharing god's love. Sure - you believers pretend that never happened.
You're not a religionist and you seem to be always 'in the fight' so what's your point?
Pretend what never happened? Fighting? And fighting for or over something doesn't make anything true or untrue.
For anyone who believes God is not personal, do you mean no god intervenes in human affairs? When things happen that seem like God intervening, do you think it's only coincidence every time?
Why do you think the idea of a personal God is ridiculous? Because of the fact of evil and suffering in human life? Because you've never met anyone in real life who claims experience that you find credible?
I know some think the only things that are real are the things humans can prove through our senses (with the aid of human-made machines and such also of course). For those who think there's something more, whatever it may be, whether inside us or out, what do you call it and could it be what others call God?
The below is what I think when I say or hear someone else say personal God:
1. A creator that chose to create mankind and is aware that She/He/It created mankind
2. A God belief system that includes the passing of judgment after death
3. A God that one prays to, and addresses by a name (whatever that may be)
4. A God that has a special interest in the fate of mankind
It is possible that I am missing something, but I think that this illustrates it enough.
I do not believe in a personal God because I do not believe that 1, 2 or 4 is true, and I do not do 3.
I believe in a unifying consciousness that is within us all, but it is impersonal, and indescribable by language.
Because it is ridiculous. Laughable actually. And look at the conflict it causes.
Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.
'G/god' is a personal agenda which is what is misleading humans.
Really, either side of Ism is misleading because both lacking.
We forget spirit-body or body-spirit is connected by the mind.
This is where the issue is. The body & spirit desire to be united eternally, but the mind is playing a third wheel and can't see it is just a tool.
Good/Evil is the knowledge of the difference.
The intervention of Creator is required to remove that blockage -either by renewal of the mind or dispersing the three from each other so the spirit is not lost.
You bring up a very interesting point here 21, and that is concerning the "spirit-body or body-spirit is connected by the mind."
If you so chose, you might be interested in The Gospel of Mary Mag. The entire Gospel is one of such message. Apparently, from what I am understanding, Jesus tells Mary that the true way to heaven or to the "heavenly realm" is through the knowledge of enlightenment.
Like Albert Einstein stated,"arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity." There is a union between our spirit body and our minds. Most of us however, get lost in the great divide of translations and theology. Why Christians choose to ignore this message, and dismiss it as the "devils work" truly floors me.
Personally I think Albert was right on the money. Have a good day all, I'm off to study. Be well.
1. I think God is a creator in the sense of being EXISTENCE - life arose from that. I do believe God is a sentient whatever God is, but of course, sentient is not the right word. Goes way beyond any such thing. Just like Mark said earlier, no personality. I don't think God lacks a personality, I think God is way beyond such bounds.
2. Judgment to me would be the natural consequence of whatever you are. If your 'spirit' or part of it is flammable in the sense of being susceptible to whatever 'spiritual fire' is, it won't last.
3. Prayer I believe in. It isn't what I always heard prayer is though. It's a connection, not a dialogue, monologue or any such thing.
4. Special interest in mankind? This is what gets into the whole idea of intervention and where God always surprises me. Either whole floods of coincidences or intervention. Changes in my own self and my own perceptions that I didn't expect (and sometimes didn't want). Jury's out for me on this one still.
What was that thing you wrote about petty remarks?????? What was that you said to 21?
Ah, I remember...
What a laugh.
Did I give a direct opinion?
How about this petty remark? Part of your practice???
Do tell us again how that goes? What was that you said about petty remarks? Seriously, I'm sure everybody wants to know.
I'm still waiting for your enlightening answer, from the last post. Do hurry back with it.
can't spell;) give you A for Attempt to be witty.
This is like reading celebrity divorces! Lots of interesting stuff and never really getting to the truth.
I don't know - I think the entire thread bears testament to the original premise.
Clever man Einstein........
Yeah ryt...the funniest part is...Einstein, The most intelligent Jewish mind ever ,didn't find Judaism nor Kabbalah to be interesting
I have a tendency to agree with Einstein's premise as well.
Yes, truth is abstract, Deborah. I don't see many abstracts about truth being discussed, however.
As I don't see any remarks of pettiness either.
Still waiting debbie dearest.........!
somebody evolved? can it be proof of evolution?
Please stop showing hate debs.
Thank you for doing as you are told.
nobody hates you, deborah. You however hate jokes.
Pettiness and hate.............., chick practice what you preach.
What was that you were saying about making petty remarks?
Can you say fake and shallow?
I was going to let your remarks slide because I understand your state of mind..until you mentioned my mom. Don't be the idiot you are. My mom is dead. Don't say another thing where my family is involved. NOW do you understand?....shut up when it comes to them.
Well i hope she asked for forgiveness before she passed.......... having someone like you as a daughter, well I'd be on knees everyday.....! Cheers.
My dearest sweet shemale companion.
I told you not to say anything about her again...
You're the nastiest and creepiest person I have ever known.
Good luck...... ....
It's an addiction, this thing you have with fighting with someone. Because there is no reason you're doing this out of free will.
I don't believe I was speaking to you. I certainly have no desire for you to speak to me.
I will not stand by and have her mouth off about my mom. I was taking her calling me a liar and hypocrite..but my mom was the best...I won't stand for you coming to me saying something..go to your friend not me..you are always trying to mind my business...It's an addiction with you...
After I wouldn't approve your comment on one of my hubs, you got angry and have taken your hostility to the forums since.
I can post all your compliments you wrote on my hubs before I refused that one.
I've asked you many times to leave me alone.
Huh? what are you talking about? *shakes head*
Go to sleep, maybe it will give you clarity. Nobody hates you. The more you put importance on yourself in this way, the sillier you get and the more people will make fun of you.
Relax, Deborah. It's just a stupid forum. People make fun of everybody, not just you. You make fun of me too and that's okay! That's all cool if you know that its really about word wars and witty exchanges, people just want to crack jokes.
People are not evil. They're just bored.
If you want to be left alone, stop trying to get people's attention. Don't talk about me and I won't talk about you. Don't talk to me and I won't talk to you. But you can't help yourself, you just want some kind of negative attention everyday.
Stop already. you gain NOTHING by defense or offense.
This has always been my 'gripe' with you.
constantly needing acceptance, reassurance, acknowledgment for only yourself. This is the fruit of pride.
What is it to you what, destruction of your enemies? For them to leave you alone? To destroy them, you must destroy your self. To make peace with them you must lay down your weapons -carnal or not. How can the Spirit protect you when you won't let Him? Silliness. You must have the weapons to fight with. If these are your weapons you are never going to win any battle in your mind, against your supposed enemies and certainly not prove the Spirit -in any way, shape or form.
I know most do not care for my tongue because I cut past their agendas of ritual, law, selfishness, anti-truth, etc and in this case pride, vain beauty and charm. Stop being such a spoiled little girl and be a woman of peace once and for all. Charm and beauty may work in your profession, but it doesn't hold any weight in the KoH.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that is the reality from reading your posts. Yes, I am a sarcastic philosopher at times and fully admit it without hesitation. I openly detest religion and science because both together or individual are lacking in every area of Truth and actual logic. And that is all I see coming from your hands. Only agreeing for a moment with those who agree with you then mocking those who don't and then challenging your enemies without so much as a box of Kleenex to help in your defense.
Uhg, humans. No wonder He said he was grieved He had created humans. And I am one of them.
it is silly, because no one knows this woman but you and your family. You take everything personal.
yes you are!
I have taken much critique with a grain of salt...
You do care.
You are very interested and you know it, that is the fruit of it.
Your enemies are destroyed when you lay down your life to Truth. Not your truth but the Truth. Until then, you are a slave to the mirror of Vanity.
Sorry darling, but that is the root of it. Vanity of yourself.
I was like that once, many years ago. An arrogant, ornery/peevish, self seeker of a man. Thank the Spirit, he nearly broke me to pieces uprooting that tree, else would still be like you to this day -and all those religionist/scientist wannabe believers...
Your every post and comment reeks of fear, doubt and spiritual weakness. Time to grow up and be led by the Spirit, else die with the rest of the 'believing/unbelieving'...
unless you are courageous enough to pray with me...I'll leave you to it. Good hunting.
That statement was quite "below the belt".....bet you're proud of yourself.
What was that "SIR."
By the way, Homeland Security thanks YOU very much for making idle threats online. You do realize that they don't like that very much. Well since my husband Michael works for DARPA, well i just emailed a few friends.
Good luck back at you........
That was a horrible, way out of line thing you said. Still, I don't know what her letters/acronym mean. Is it really a threat?
Yeah. It is. So I reported her. Like I said.
Sorry you think my comment is horrible, but threats are real..........
Homeland security, loves investigating idle threats. I thought everyone knew that.
You clearly do not know our history. Do you?
Better yet, instead trying to analyze me, I'm sure she would actually appreciate your commentary. Her email can be found on her profile.
But it is incredibly clear, that you do not know of her past history with me. Or, you wouldn't be asking these questions.
I thought your goal was to," motivate and encourage others to overcome obstacles in life." If YOU did know her past hate mongering and silly antics at my expense and others expense, you'd might be back on track with your goal. As it, your failing.
Correct. But I still want to know what was threatening about her statement?
Can you not read?
I thought your goal was to," motivate and encourage others to overcome obstacles in life." If YOU did know her past hate mongering and silly antics at my expense and others expense, you'd might be back on track with your goal. As it, your failing.
Let me go find the posts again, and......... what? What for YOUR interpretation of what is a threat and what is not?
However, do let me accommodate.
It's not that important that I need the whole history. I just wondered what the initials were supposed to stand for, that's all. Nothing else.
I think it has something to do with this, "Project a forceful image of what you wish the person to do. See it as an arrow
That enters the person's forehead through his third eye and into his mind/brain."-Deborah Sexton
I think history is important.
Off again to do more encouraging. How are you weathering in that aspect of your hubber goal?
Try hub hopping, it might work better than this attempt.
Whoa up, IE! It's okay...thanks for answering my question. No need to dig at me for my goals in life! . I agree history means a lot. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
I think erratic sleep schedules are bad for one's sanity. That's my opinion.
I believe it's the build-up of many statements, donotfear
It must be something she felt. Because Nurse Betty has been threatening everybody who in any way shape or form disagree with her.
It's all silly really. I admire the woman for the amazing ability to make people notice her. If only she uses the skill positively.
We discussed it for days here and on two other threads.
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence."/ Ann Landers
"If you don't want people to laugh at your beliefs - you shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
Does that apply to people like Jim Jones and the Guyana tragedy, the Waco, TX debacle of the mid 90's, and many, many others like them? It seems that emperical evidence in these cases would have allowed some blind followers to save their own lives.
However, let me clarify that the intent behind Ann Lander's words was "destroy." Purposely destroying I don't agree with unless it's to save a life or something very drastic to make them see truth right now. But on the whole, shining a spot light on facts isn't going to hurt beliefs in the end. It will help them be based on facts instead of lies.
I'm just sayin'...
If we start to follow this quote then we're back to medieval age...
Everybody's free to delude themselves, Skylar. Meow!
That's true, being counter-productive in thought via delusion, is simply being elementary in mind. ...Life goes on, with or without. Roar!
Why are you always trying to upstage my antics scat!
kidding Obscure. you're free to copy cat anytime.
Speaking of personal dogma.
Do you know why the Lollipop Guild were always pissed at Edgar?
Cuz even knowing it was out of order, he kept ringing those damned bells!!
Let's not forget the Einstein also said "god does not play dice with the universe."
But Einstein said he's not acquainted with God so he could easily be wrong. Have you ever heard of a book called "The God Who Risks"?
That is the problem with being a Germanic Hebrew physicist.
Public value/opinion outweighed his limited moral device and thus mandated an explanation for that limitation -which he could not supply through various methods of approach.
So, better to make an atomic expression, than get caught up in the status quo of good humor boy meets zealot. 16 million fellow humans suffered at his lack of courage and conviction. Today, his work controls the 'proliferation' agenda and has gripped the united world into a stasis of fear.
Conflict? Yeah, there was some serious conflict. Good job Albert!
You know what, donotfear, read it yourself.
However, you might want to change your profile goal.
You are just getting yourself involved in something, YOU clearly do not have a clue about. Like allllllllll the HISTORY.
When you have finished doing your own research, then I'll give you my time. until then, I'm off to do some encouraging.
It is actually kind of ironic because back when I was doing my undergrad I was having a pretty intense religious debate with a couple people in my livingroom, and one of my roommates whose bedroom was adjacent to the livingroom went on youtube and blasted that song
Wow. I blew it. Here I'm attempting to add something to the conversation when I should have gotten a tub of popcorn, settled on the sofa, and watched the fight.
Carry on ladies!
Oh sorry about that. I totally take responsibility for shaking my head in disbelief.
This thread is no longer about Einstein. I think it is pretty much settled that he did not believe in a personal G-d.
You were only peripherally involved as far as I can see.
One can always tell when a Forum thread is dead when it takes a sharp, high speed turn into La La Land.
by Kate Swanson10 years ago
I just read in the newspaper that one of Einstein's letters is being auctioned.In it, he says, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of...
by Castlepaloma5 years ago
It is a theory that all things are connected by love, in turn makes Good sense. It is Uncommon sense to claim all love and soul for each of the Religions, claiming their God as the only RIGHT GOD and for all that is...
by Castlepaloma7 years ago
Please understand Its not my interest to debate, to down or be against anyone or belong to any group. I'm a fearless, loving and respect all people. Here is just a thought.Christian upside is they run much of the world....
by Holle Abee7 years ago
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/colum … 80%99s-godI thought what he said to the Besso family was very interesting - and it was said near the end of Einstein's life.
by Luke M. Simmons20 months ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
~There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion: philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued.~ Religion if correctly understood is based on the Word revealed from the Creator-God Allah YHWH...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.