The original post, that is, hmm sorry. :)
On 12/9/2012 5:40 PM, James wrote:
RP, I have been considering your post and have taken it in the view of a
biological perspective. It is one that I do think important but I am
still left wondering why to attach such significance in an exclusive
sense. It may be that I am overthinking the concept, it is one that I
hold respect for but not to a degree of conclusiveness. Is there more I
should examine?
Browsing the TimesOfIndia recently I found talk about the common views
on China and worry over world dominance. I imagine there are vicious
clashes between them and the Arab speaking regions, it seems unfortunate
perhaps like being surrounded by strong interests on each side. I
obviously have little political world knowledge. :)
On 12/9/2012 1:15 PM, RP Singh wrote:
Religion is first and foremost about prayer and worship. There is no
need for that but we must accept a morality code and adhere by it ,
there should be a feeling of love for one's fellow creatures and
tolerance towards them.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, archytas<[email protected]> wrote:
Given what they have done with some decent spiritual messages Allan, I
sometimes think of 'them' as Xstains. I was born into the tradition,
but thought it was twaddle by the time Sunday school was interfering
with soccer and cricket. I have no doubt we should focus more on
spirituality, fellowship, hospitality, goodwill and sensitivity to
others. I just don't want to base this on a pack of lies, banning
women from hierarchies, prejudicing gays and xenophobic stuff about
outsiders and being part of god's chosen. It's hard to think like
this without being prejudiced against the 'worshipers of the blue and
white striped rabbit' and purveyors of godswank. The inner danger is
becoming religiously anti-religious. I'm actually rather touched by
good aspects of some of the stuff.
I have no idea why we are clinging to this rock - but I don't want it
to be about being amused by Aussie pranksters making hoax calls or
murals celebrating vile killing such as one finds in the Vatican.
Science clearly provides us no answers to our spiritual plight and
religion as I witness it internally is largely about future memory
with less myth in it and less reason to take religion as we might
otherwise take opiates.
A colleague working in India is saying his students are reading Mein
Kampf - more or less replacing the word Jew with Muslim and agreeing
the plot entirely. We could do with some sensible religion and
economics to fill the void that leaves people this vulnerable.
Knowledge of thermodynamics or the biochemistry of life isn't going to
do that for us.
On Dec 8, 10:01 am, Allan H<[email protected]> wrote:
xtian aka christianity
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, rigs<[email protected]> wrote:
It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line
about Pilate! :-)
On Dec 6, 4:09 am, archytas<[email protected]> wrote:
Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used.
I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get
back to
reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from
'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants that
pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct.
Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of re-evaluating
against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god.
Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science
misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know more. The
spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its history
of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to learn
in terms of grace and fellowship.
On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H<[email protected]> wrote:
it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that you
can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash after
youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone.
Allan
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning
my hands. I
use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more
difficult dirt on
my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often
I wear
gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for
the tip.
I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead
of stone,
you're right.
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used for
getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic ,,
any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over
from
fixing my maxi egg coddler.
now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it
work?
Allan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott<[email protected]>
wrote:
The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find
the God
concept
much more to the point. :)
I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then
matter -
though.
This sounds very man-made to me. ;)
As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much
more
vivid
than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's
true. But
the
children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is
really
good.
Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about?
2012/12/4 Allan H<[email protected]>
a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting
evidence..
Allan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh<[email protected]>
wrote:
You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of
Creation with its series of universes.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H<[email protected]>
wrote:
That is not true the beginning can be pretty much
pinpointed .. as
for
parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing
to support
the
other than it sounds good. There is more evidence
supporting the
spiritual
realm than parallel universes
Allan
Matrix ** th3 beginning light
On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh"<[email protected]> wrote:
In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is
beginning
and
end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in
parallel
and
continuously many universes are being born and many are
dying ,
but
Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time
, just
like
the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The
difference is
that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is
non-dual.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee
Douglas<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are
not
true.
I
distinguish between two things, matter and spirit.
Mattter is
all
that
is
physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also
energy. To
me
there
is
no paradox of who created the creator. Before the
begining there
was
only
God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of
the spirt
of
God.
That is all matter comes from spirit.
On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey
wrote:
Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy
component
to
it
because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion
in them.
But I
could
also envision pure motion without involving any
atoms...like a
vibration in
the fabric of space,
On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas
wrote:
Heh except of course that when it comes right down to
it.energy
is
matter
and matter is energy.
On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey
wrote:
The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be
circumnavigated by the possibility that the original
creator
was
not
matter,
but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much
faster and
much
easier
than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy
patterns
could
have
evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by
selective
processes to
reach intelligence similar to how most scientists
believe that
patterns of
atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.
Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they
manipulated
atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the
information
required
for
life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex
intelligent
beings
able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle
of where
they
came
from, where they are going and why they are alive.
Meaning and
purpose could
then be given to our fleeting moment of existence.
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas
wrote:
....... All we have in respect of this is to posit
creation, begging the question of what created that
in an
infinite
regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in
which
creation
myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth
comes
closer.
On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh<[email protected]> wrote:
Neil , even after re-transposition how long could
the brain
live
--1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the
universe
,but
ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end -
time of
the
universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and
nothing
else.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas
<[email protected]>
wrote:
What survives is the gene - subject to mutations
etc. We
are
already
'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind
could
be
transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our
bodies
are
currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new
substrate
could
have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's
'hope'.
Such
substrated minds might link in super-intelligence
and be
...
read more ยป
--
--
