TommyTheCat
Gonzo Scientist
http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
Some guy wrote a very interesting article/story. Sorry if this is a repost.
Some guy wrote a very interesting article/story. Sorry if this is a repost.
Talking to God
- Thread starter TommyTheCat
- Start date
- Replies 22
- Views 1K
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
TommyTheCat
Gonzo Scientist
Well, he's something. But as you see at the bottom of the page its from a "work" of his and it has a link to a play he wrote, so its just an inspired piece.
But, I think, its a very well written dialogue of ideas. It seems to be a simple medium to convey a message, yet it's quite pleasant to read. Hopefully the link is as good.
But, I think, its a very well written dialogue of ideas. It seems to be a simple medium to convey a message, yet it's quite pleasant to read. Hopefully the link is as good.
VTECin5th
Administrator
Wow.
Not what i expected, but a lot of things are similar to my beliefs.
Neat article... hmmm...
still neat.
Not what i expected, but a lot of things are similar to my beliefs.
Neat article... hmmm...
I'm not sure it's a piece of work, as he 'discusses' in the forum..
still neat.
big thanks to tonny the cat for posting this link
very enjoyable read, and very interesting concepts expressed...
very enjoyable read, and very interesting concepts expressed...
I found it to be interested but self indulging for the most part . It seems as if the writer wishes to lift him self that he might become God. If in part "god" in the parable looks upon us as his chilren or brother he would not define us as ants though he notes that there is no way to make it sounds all sugar coated, every creature a true god would create in this writers own words would be equal non the less growth upon the evolutionary scale we would be more of ginuepigs in a cage with a snake . Hese the parable is missing one prime point the foe. Gods enemy why is their no mention. I know the writer is atheist by his writting but has a glimpse god exist but an inate avoidance of what his own dimise would be if the church/god as current would be with no question to it.
ya know, people always ask me what i believe and why i dont believe in god and whatnot. and ive never really had a straight clear-cut answer. my general answer has aalways been something like "i believe in a higer power, but not at all how it is described in the bible". and its always been hard for me to express in words how i feel.
that article is describes EXACTLY what i feel/believe. everything that was said about religion, jesus, and god, is what i believe. mainly that jesus and the like are grossly exaggerated by religion, and the existense of god is not how it is portrayed. but in fact the result of a natural, explainable phenomenon. even if we dont yet have the means to yet explain it. also what was said about god's attitute and persona resemble (if not to the T) what i believe. that he is of a higher power but in no way sees himself as better then us, and doesnt set any guidelines for us to follow. where in the bible hes portrayed as someone who will send you into a firey afterlife for failing to worship him and follow his guidelines
Tommy, thank you. this is definitely worth a bookmark and a later read for further understanding...
that article is describes EXACTLY what i feel/believe. everything that was said about religion, jesus, and god, is what i believe. mainly that jesus and the like are grossly exaggerated by religion, and the existense of god is not how it is portrayed. but in fact the result of a natural, explainable phenomenon. even if we dont yet have the means to yet explain it. also what was said about god's attitute and persona resemble (if not to the T) what i believe. that he is of a higher power but in no way sees himself as better then us, and doesnt set any guidelines for us to follow. where in the bible hes portrayed as someone who will send you into a firey afterlife for failing to worship him and follow his guidelines
Tommy, thank you. this is definitely worth a bookmark and a later read for further understanding...
Celerity
Well-Known Member
The ecstacy that is being referred to as described by the Ramtha school of enlightenment, and is Celerity Approved, is that as the race progresses we find that we have changing needs from our mates.
Or, the change of the need for a mate.
And in modern times the needs of relationships have changed dramatically, and in our current generations, are very different than what each of our parents needed and accomplished.
Sometime between the hunter-gatherer and commanding-obedient stages of life there were other stages of equality and equal importance.
Now we, or at least me and my girlfriend, have reached an impasse in which we are both same levels of importance - We both hold jobs, we both pay bills, we both benefit from the surplus money (Money = the hunting weapons and gathering tool of modern humans) and we both prosper. When she has a kid, she'll be out of work for some time (both favoring my obvious greater pay while observing the childs needs for a mother) and she will return to work when it's possible - to help the family as a unit continue to thrive.
If I were to -make- her stay home, as my parent's did, we would not thrive as a whole and would instead be the equivalent of 2 people making minimum wages with a child to support.
Clearly, this is not beneficial to either of us.
But lets go beyond the basic needs and into something more complex (Not complicated) and far more beautiful: She has 10 times the talent and skills (And abilities) that her own mother has. This new way of life has benefitted her in ways that are sometimes neglected. She has a job that is not making coffee and answering phones - She is a talented and skilled professional in her field. At this time in our evolution, we are having difficulties making these two concepts jive (Her bosses are old-school, and believe that she shouldn't make as much as I (Again, because of the old-world rules where I am the bread winner). On the other hand, she MUST overcome this inequity to make it as a modern day woman.
And I benefit by making this happen, when I have a family, a nice home and get to keep my toys and personal life.
So the new world relationships have evolved as well.
Now, how about that Socio-political thing?
You know that I can write VOLUMES on this subject, but I will keep this brief.
There NEEDS to be at least 2 visions of things. Unilateralism takes us in one direction with one outcome - And is no different on a grand scale than is a dictatorship.
So you see, the paths of the human agreement will sometimes come close, sometimes merge, and sometimes split - enough of a split and a war will erupt, and after the war, the gap will be closed, or one line will be completely shut down until the surviving line has begun to split and the process continues.
More than 2 lines ? Sure. more chance of the split becoming becoming vast enough for a war. Or, those that fight one line, wind up weakening the other two lines until the first line to be fought is strong enough to overpower.
So 2 forms of thought for the masses. No less, no more.
I'll continue later, if you all want. For now, I have to work.
Or, the change of the need for a mate.
And in modern times the needs of relationships have changed dramatically, and in our current generations, are very different than what each of our parents needed and accomplished.
Sometime between the hunter-gatherer and commanding-obedient stages of life there were other stages of equality and equal importance.
Now we, or at least me and my girlfriend, have reached an impasse in which we are both same levels of importance - We both hold jobs, we both pay bills, we both benefit from the surplus money (Money = the hunting weapons and gathering tool of modern humans) and we both prosper. When she has a kid, she'll be out of work for some time (both favoring my obvious greater pay while observing the childs needs for a mother) and she will return to work when it's possible - to help the family as a unit continue to thrive.
If I were to -make- her stay home, as my parent's did, we would not thrive as a whole and would instead be the equivalent of 2 people making minimum wages with a child to support.
Clearly, this is not beneficial to either of us.
But lets go beyond the basic needs and into something more complex (Not complicated) and far more beautiful: She has 10 times the talent and skills (And abilities) that her own mother has. This new way of life has benefitted her in ways that are sometimes neglected. She has a job that is not making coffee and answering phones - She is a talented and skilled professional in her field. At this time in our evolution, we are having difficulties making these two concepts jive (Her bosses are old-school, and believe that she shouldn't make as much as I (Again, because of the old-world rules where I am the bread winner). On the other hand, she MUST overcome this inequity to make it as a modern day woman.
And I benefit by making this happen, when I have a family, a nice home and get to keep my toys and personal life.
So the new world relationships have evolved as well.
Now, how about that Socio-political thing?
You know that I can write VOLUMES on this subject, but I will keep this brief.
There NEEDS to be at least 2 visions of things. Unilateralism takes us in one direction with one outcome - And is no different on a grand scale than is a dictatorship.
So you see, the paths of the human agreement will sometimes come close, sometimes merge, and sometimes split - enough of a split and a war will erupt, and after the war, the gap will be closed, or one line will be completely shut down until the surviving line has begun to split and the process continues.
More than 2 lines ? Sure. more chance of the split becoming becoming vast enough for a war. Or, those that fight one line, wind up weakening the other two lines until the first line to be fought is strong enough to overpower.
So 2 forms of thought for the masses. No less, no more.
I'll continue later, if you all want. For now, I have to work.
Quoted post[/post]]
ya know, people always ask me what i believe and why i dont believe in god and whatnot. and ive never really had a straight clear-cut answer. my general answer has aalways been something like "i believe in a higer power, but not at all how it is described in the bible". and its always been hard for me to express in words how i feel.
that article is describes EXACTLY what i feel/believe. everything that was said about religion, jesus, and god, is what i believe. mainly that jesus and the like are grossly exaggerated by religion, and the existense of god is not how it is portrayed. but in fact the result of a natural, explainable phenomenon. even if we dont yet have the means to yet explain it. also what was said about god's attitute and persona resemble (if not to the T) what i believe. that he is of a higher power but in no way sees himself as better then us, and doesnt set any guidelines for us to follow. where in the bible hes portrayed as someone who will send you into a firey afterlife for failing to worship him and follow his guidelines
Tommy, thank you. this is definitely worth a bookmark and a later read for further understanding...
Religion is good and bad all in its sense. The Guidlines that are layed down for the most part by "god" are the moral values humanity has from birth. Do not kill , steal, lie , etc.. those are not things that need to be questioned. The things it tells us thus other wise are for our own well being but does not mean we will go to hell. Do not eat pork why its a filthy damn animal, but it sure does taste good.!
I would have to say he fears some thing and needs a means to explain what he fears. I think every person knows there is a high power .. just break through the bullshit the word/name for it is god,
but then in that same thought if god exist .. so would the devil.
Now in accordance with that passage we read its just read gives us that it must be a natural instinct from birth to have these things that might destroy us inatly , which i feel is completly wrong . he also seems to state these is a place for us when we die.. would that not be called "heaven"
I feel this guy is tipping from his athiest views but filling in the blanks he does not want to accept with his own.
He is most likly dying or on his death bead trying to figure it all out last minute before his last breathe..
Ive saw this many times .......
im pretty sure this guy is not dying, lol. hes for the most part actively on the forums on that site and responding and such...
only thing that kind of bothers me is how indirect he is with his responses. he wont answer if its real or not and thats kind of frustrating to me, just answer the damn question already! lol. weather it could be a hallucination or not, he could still say whether or not he actually (or thinks he did ) experienced this conversation.
only thing that kind of bothers me is how indirect he is with his responses. he wont answer if its real or not and thats kind of frustrating to me, just answer the damn question already! lol. weather it could be a hallucination or not, he could still say whether or not he actually (or thinks he did ) experienced this conversation.
only if you believe what the bible says, which i dont.
thats a possibility as well, i really just wish he'd come out and say whether its a fictional story or not.
i was just saying that what he described very accurately describes my perception of god and the events and things he descrobes make more sense to me then anything presented in the bible.
i was just saying that what he described very accurately describes my perception of god and the events and things he descrobes make more sense to me then anything presented in the bible.
TommyTheCat
Gonzo Scientist
GSRCRXsi, I dont think its pertinent whether or not the writer says its fiction or not. Even if he did, isn't it up to you?
b20fdr, I dont really like your line of thinking. I've heard it before, but mostly in ID vs Evolution. The part of "if there's a god, he needs an opposite (satan/demon/evil)" and that he might be describing a "heaven". Here's my poor illustration:
Two people might try to describe similar objects, one is talking about a skateboard and the other a surfboard. Yet because person A thought of the surfboard first and its been around longer, it *must* be what person B is thinking of.
So whenever someone believes evolution and something metaphysical (anything beyond science) they say you've "allowed for the existence of god". And from there they assert it is their god.
Slo86GT, no. Sorry, but you cant be an evolutionist christian. Both sides will tell you it doesnt work. To be a christian requires an acceptance of the entire Bible (as they've let you have it), and it conflicts with the findings of evolution. If you want to fudge how you define evolution or christianity, you've just denounced both of them. There are plenty of religious/spiritual evolutionists who could follow the teachings of christ but cant really be christian.
b20fdr, I dont really like your line of thinking. I've heard it before, but mostly in ID vs Evolution. The part of "if there's a god, he needs an opposite (satan/demon/evil)" and that he might be describing a "heaven". Here's my poor illustration:
Two people might try to describe similar objects, one is talking about a skateboard and the other a surfboard. Yet because person A thought of the surfboard first and its been around longer, it *must* be what person B is thinking of.
So whenever someone believes evolution and something metaphysical (anything beyond science) they say you've "allowed for the existence of god". And from there they assert it is their god.
Slo86GT, no. Sorry, but you cant be an evolutionist christian. Both sides will tell you it doesnt work. To be a christian requires an acceptance of the entire Bible (as they've let you have it), and it conflicts with the findings of evolution. If you want to fudge how you define evolution or christianity, you've just denounced both of them. There are plenty of religious/spiritual evolutionists who could follow the teachings of christ but cant really be christian.
but isn't the basic definition of a christian someone who follows the teachings of christ?
i've often wondered what books were considered by those in charge of compiling the scriputes into their present state to be too risky, or not valid to be included for some reason or another...
very interesting...
i've often wondered what books were considered by those in charge of compiling the scriputes into their present state to be too risky, or not valid to be included for some reason or another...
TommyTheCat
Gonzo Scientist
No, as I see it (and every person, christian or not, has their own view/knowledge/etc) is that christ had teachings. Yet he validates and believes in the old testament, except for different rules to live by for non-jews. The Jewish people are His blessed children and they have different rules than gentiles as how to live and therefore how we spend the afterlife. Now thats a little generic view, but its a simple distinction. So an athiest can live by christs teachings, but still avoid a god, or creationism, or lots of other stuff.
Recked, this is one account of Constantine and his doings:
http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm
Not sure if it says it or not, but it was about 50/50 split of the preists whether or not Christ really was the savior or a prophet. Which would change Christianity a lot, to say the least.
Recked, this is one account of Constantine and his doings:
http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm
Not sure if it says it or not, but it was about 50/50 split of the preists whether or not Christ really was the savior or a prophet. Which would change Christianity a lot, to say the least.