~ Beliefs Based On ... ? ~

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a mix of things, I can't pick one over the other, since they're intertwined, in a way. Science has yet to prove that God does not exist, and if God does exist, then he created science, and therefore the two should go hand in hand and not conflict with each other.

Let me make my position clear...
Rather than pussyfoot around and be ultra diplomatic, I have decided to challenge my beliefs via a hard line position.
I understand that it will come across as arrogance to some, but so be it...

Diplomacy is not an autistic strong point...
I am after a greater prize than learning how to cater to emotional needs here...
I am serious about cracking this philosophical chestnut to the best of my abilities with the intention of greater personal philosophical enlightenment...

But to be clear...
This is a hobby for me...
Not a desperate attempt to find meaning (where there is none, imo... )

Of course there are very intelligent/rational thinkers/philosophers who have theist affinities...
That goes without saying, surely...
But it should be obvious that the group I am focusing on are those who haven't questioned their indoctrinated beliefs imprinted on them by their family and community...
I have quite nakedly expressed this point elsewhere...
Surely you of all people wouldn't dismiss the points I have made?
Or do you refute the validity of my argument regarding the power of indoctrination?

In the aspie tradition:
"Give me a better argument and I will listen"...

Also, consider this classic joke:
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One...but the light bulb has got to want to change...

Do I have any delusions that I can force a philosophical change in anyone?
(Read my signature: "I'm not here to change the world...
There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... )"
Of course not...
The light bulb has got to want to change...

Those who find my arguments in conflict with their own invariably simply dismiss them...
Nature of the human beast...<shrug>
To say otherwise would give me powers I simply don't have...surely...

And while I am on the subject...
Why oh why does the truth (or attempted truth) frighten so many people?
My quest for the truth is genuine without any hidden agenda that I am aware of...
Why is simply stating my perspective, rightly or wrongly, being discourteous to anyone?

One of the observed Aspie traits in the desire for simple honesty from a neurotypical world that is typically saturated with white lies and outright deception...
"If I had a dime" for every time an aspie complained about this sort of NT nonsense, I'd have quite a few dimes...

Remember where we are...
This is a web site dedicated primarily *to* the autistic individual...
Which is meant to be used by autistic people to facilitate the reduction of ontological insecurity/confusion and for their greater enlightenment in general...

And let me state once again, the human psyche has protective mechanisms when conflicting concepts are introduced to those who have a different perspective...
Cognitive dissonance produces anxiety which some some can overcome...
Those who can't can simply walk away...
This is an open forum...
No one is tied down and forced to change their views...

In a nutshell...
How am I being discourteous by my blunt honesty?

One of the inherent weak points for debate in both public forums and even most written public forums is that the winner is really decided by a combination of a few factors. The two I think of right off the top of my head are 1) the ability to some up what you believe you've learned to be true on a particular topic in a few emotionally powerful and agile one-liners and 2) if an audience is involved the beliefs and degree of expertise held by the audience regarding the debate topic.

On one hand people who are dogmatic about a belief who have no proof for it will be very emotionally responsive in a negative and confrontational manner, on the other hand you find high level scientists who'll also respond to what seem like very straightforward and well-aimed questions with strident sarcasm and even insults. The later happens, at least enough of the time, because communicating the actual answer to the question properly and without disfiguring it by trying to jam it into three sentences would take the querent having a much stronger knowledge base than they have. Most of what happens on here and a great many forums that aren't dedicated to diehards of one stripe or another who are constantly testing and perfecting each other comes down to some very pedestrian surface-scraping of any particular topic.

The 'great debate' as some people are framing it is one of those that's absolutely terrible; mainly that on the public level it's science which has made rigor in finding the truth it's absolute aim vs. sets of popular religious beliefs regarding which the leaders of such denominations strongly discourage inquiry and quite often set hard lines of dogmatism, what defines blasphemy or 'attempts of the devil' to twist a very literal read away from what that particular group believes. Esotericism and occultism have no hope or prayer of being brought up in a debate because, again, it takes enough people who have knowledge of that to actually gauge whether the person in question is making any kind of good arguments and - further - the more robust the particular debater's first hand and even studied esoteric knowledge (really a recondit level of any kind of knowledge - scientific or mystic) the more derived and distanced from a relatable base of experience that person is.

Pretty much I've concluded that I won't learn much of anything from internet debates. If I want to learn for example the nuances of the materialist hypotheses related to the quantum measurement problem, if I want to learn the ins and outs of global warming, if I want to understand with some exactness the value of evolution as well as what it is and isn't and what it's strong evidence is and isn't - I'll never get it here. I'd need to read not just a book but quite likely many books from different highly regarded authors from different sides of the paradigm or from different schools of thought on what a particular set of data (in cutting edge areas of research particularly) might mean. The best thing I could really learn here, if there's a really good debate between two outstanding thinkers, is what books they'd recommend.


I guess that's really my suggestion; this place seems like it's a good idea for people to share primer and 101-level ideas, it's not the kind of place where you'll reach the cutting edges of man's absolute knowledge of truth and to seek it in debate, aside from just bringing more data to your attention, will likely do little more than either tip you in favor of whoever's just a better all-around debater or either confirming what you believe already or searching youtube or WP trying to find a debate where someone who believes what you do won it.

And that is all perfectly fine.



Of course indoctrination and confirmation bias has it's role to play, in people's perceptions on the big subjects. However, I am not convinced that people on the ASD spectrum are all that much less prone to confirmation bias. Of course, the very symptoms of the condition make it so that the input of others is valued less.

One thing I have rebelled against, is this surging notion in the ASD community that so many of history's great thinkers must have been autistic. We can't observe their symptoms ourselves, and let's not kid ourselves with the thought that there aren't numerous NT thinkers who made monumental intellectual contributions in the past, or that there aren't numerous NT thinkers doing the same today.



Such self discipline is something to be learned over a protracted process. Surely you recognize that you didn't always have this quality either? And surely you recognize that you can't live up to that principle as much as you would like, or even as much as you might like to think you do? I have found this to be true for myself a number of times, that I'm not always as rational as I'd like to think I am.



Oh monsieur, I wasn't suggesting that you were being discourteous to me. What I was suggesting was that it would be courteous if we gave each other this benefit of the doubt: that our interlocutor isn't necessarily beholden to confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance while making a point.

As for the pursuit of truth, I imagine that the formal process of finding it can be so foreign to people that they find it threatening. The typical process of confirming your own perceptions is for the most part utilitarian and pragmatic, regardless of whatever form those perceptions take, so it should be clear why any challenge to those perceptions can possibly topple the whole structure. We all can take our own thought processes for granted, and when we attach aspects of our identity to our thoughts in a pragmatic and utilitarian system, as opposed to an empirical or rational system for example, what such a challenge to our thoughts amounts to is a challenge to our very identity itself.



You're absolutely right, in that they can think whatever they want. My suggestion however, was pertaining to a courtesy that we could extend over and above what is normally reasonable. If we regard people as "innocent until proven guilty", so to speak, when it comes to confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance, I feel that such a presumption can foster progress when people do indeed live up to the benefit of the doubt that we extend them. You and I have certainly extended that same courtesy towards each other so far, and I was merely expressing that my own Christian philosophical and theological standing was no instant "guilty verdict" in this regard. Your reference to Zeus compelled me to point out that modern theists aren't bronze age thinkers, and also that modern thinkers on your side of the aisle also love to refer back to bronze age philosophers like Anaxagoras, Zeno, Pythagoras, or Aristotle.

I might even go a bit farther and denegrate even book-smarts as that can have all kinds of holes poked in it. Just like college doesn't teach you how to do a job, watching Bruce Lee movies alone likely won't make you a martial artist of any capability, knowing in theory how to hit a baseball won't make most people AAA or professional players, books on chemistry won't make someone a reliable chemist, and without a lot of lab experience a physicist would also be pretty poor professional integrity in terms of his or her knowledge base and it's stability. Similarly much in the way of theism whether popular or more along esoteric lines is very much a doing thing and without expertise and well-worn paths the in-depth insights of it won't frame themselves with much of any value.

Point 1:
My focus is on sharing information rather than participating in a debate...

Point 2:
Winning over others is something I have no particular interest in...
And I can't recall a single instance where I have achieved changes in others...
A desire for personal growth is the motivating factor for me...
Pontificating is better suited to neurotypicals who tend to have an inherent need to accumulate social status...

One-upmanship:

noun
1.
the art or practice of achieving, demonstrating, or assuming superiority in one's rivalry with a friend or opponent by obtaining privilege, status, status symbols, etc.:
the one-upmanship of getting into the president's car pool.

Point 3:
Not everyone is interested in emotionalism...
"He who shouts loudest wins" is not a concept I have a great deal of time for...

Point 4:
I subscribe to the principle of:
"Give me a better argument and I will listen..."

And I think that's the point I'd speak to. You'd be way farther ahead to figure out what side of an argument or debate that you don't know much about and read the best thinkers, writers, scientists, political strategists, etc.. I was suggesting that most arguments, even if correct, don't file down to something immediately persuasive unless they can be wrapped up tightly in a few sentences. It's a complex enough world and the information abstract and voluminous enough that quite often you have to work through a pretty wide field of dynamics and eventually it's wide enough that it's off most people's radars (ie. hence the world of specialty professions and the like).

This is what I actually posted:
"Some embrace existentialism which to me seems a more rational response to this life system, as opposed to simply "inheriting" a system of beliefs which may or may not have some critical merit..."

I don't tell others what they should think...
I explicitly avoid trying to influence people in these discussions...

This is my modus operandi:
Here is my argument...
Is it valid, iyo?
If not, explain why you think it isn't...
And if possible, give me a better argument and I will listen...

I have no interest in having power over others and quite frankly, I find people who do rather offensive/objectionable...
I usually simply ask people to reflect on their premises...
And to make up their own mind as to the validity of their conceptual building blocks...
Simples...

Such is an admirable and valid pursuit. What I am wondering is how you register Christian thinking. Am I so much more of a "bronze age thinker" than yourself? After all, if you are a skeptical sort then whether or not you are cognizant, you have inherited modes of thought and assumptions from figures long ago such as Diogenes the Cynic, Zeno the Stoic, or Sextus Empiricus the Skeptic. In fact atheist thinking has more ancient roots than the NT if you peruse the philosophical works of Hinduism, or Confucianism.

Would you not heartily agree that logic is no respecter of persons? If that is so then invoking references to Zeus is not a criticism of your interlocutor after all. Don't we both adore works like Plato's Phaedra, or Epictetus' Golden Sayings? The people who built our modern world did.

When it comes to philosophical education, I am a Neanderthal compared to you...

Christians follow the principles in the Bible, do they not?
How can a thinking person not see the inconsistent/conflicting/contradictory concepts imbedded?
BTW, why do they generally ignore the old testament?

I may have given the impression elsewhere that I was a bigot...
I don't see myself that way...
I am simply being brutally honest...

"OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!"...

There is a fundamental philosophical difference between us...
I can't see this ever changing...
But that doesn't mean there can't be mutual respect...

Meh, I doubt it. You've a good idea of logic and how it functions. I'd very much like to see how you use those tools.



That's a pretty loaded issue that I'd like to discuss with you some time. As I've noted elsewhere, there are two justice systems that Christians look to: the penal system and the satisfactory system.



1. Many of them see inconsistencies and others not so much. It isn't by any means a foregone conclusion that the bible really does contradict itself, and this has been trotted out by people studying the relevant linguistics, history, anthropology, and ancient philosophy (theology technically being a category of philosophy).

2. Christians don't ignore the Old Testament, AKA the Tanakh or Hebrew bible. This is a common misconception that I'd be very much interested to discuss with you.



I think we can not only respect one another but also enjoy such discussion. If you'd like, either of us can start a thread on any of these subjects. There is nothing offensive about your honesty, and I'm going to be honest with a question of my own: how familiar do you really feel with the academic side of theism and Christianity?

Have you spent time with a child under the age of two?

I'm going to tell you a few secrets. One, babies can fight getting their diaper changed. Babies can have temper fits when they don't get the toy they want. Babies can purposefully throw food. Etc., etc.

Kids might not be able to verbalize what they want or explain themselves, but from an extremely young age, they strive to get what they want.

Parents teach "values" from day one because they MUST. Babies will do their own thing if parents don't try to curb the behavior. For example, sleeping through the night. That is an important value. Left to their own devices, babies will create their own sleeping schedule which has nothing to do with the rhythm of the parents' life.

How about making sure one eats fruits and vegetables? That's an important value, too. Parents control what their child eats. But I will tell you that babies FULLY KNOW what they LIKE and DON'T LIKE, and if they don't like the food, guess what? A six month old will fight.

Babies are not blank slates. You don't need to teach a toddler to scream, take toys from other kids, or to hit. Instead, parents are working on teaching them what NOT to do, and what is right.

Here's a sampling of common misunderstandings and an academic perspective on them:

It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).

Let's examine a few facts before we dig in to this: the idea of 6,000-10,000 years and other even smaller estimates has it's first example in Jose ben Halafta's Seder Olam Rabbah, circa 160 A.D. However, this is clearly over two thousand years after Genesis was written or compiled, and in the Talmud we can see wildly divergent views on this matter. Early Christian discussion of the issue was no less divergent, with names like Clement, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome in favor of different literal interpretations and to name just a few individuals, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Origen, Papias, and Philo in favor of allegorical interpretations.

There are a few main questions at hand here: what is the genre of Genesis 1-3? How can we date Adam's genealogy? What does the language itself suggest about a literal six day creation, a global flood event, or Adam and Eve necessarily being the first hominids?

I think it's pretty clear that the flood was regional instead of global, Adam and Eve weren't the first hominids, there was no literal six day creation, and that it is impossible to date Adam's genealogy, for the following reasons: in the first few days before the sun and moon are even mentioned as being created, we see the word yod used. A yod is a literal day cycle, and the word itself invokes the actual image of first the sun, and then the moon, proceeding across the horizon.

At this point it's already impossible to think of the days literally because we have days being spoken of, and not in terms of a 24 hour period but a cycle of celestial bodies, before the necessary celestial bodies are even said to exist. Not only that but there is a perfect precedent for interpreting it as a theological allegory when we consider ancient Hebrews expressing themselves with acrostics. In the aleph-bet (aleph, beit, zayin, het, tet, yod, kaf/qof, lamed, etc.) used by ancient Hebrews, each member has a corresponding value as a symbolic number and can cumulatively build mathematical numbers with the others. This is called an acrostic alphabet, and most ancient Semitic languages used acrostic numerals. The symbolic significance of kaf/seven, is perfectness and completeness, qualities considered to be a reflection of and solely possessed by God.

On this basis, it is much more natural linguistically to assume that the account is an allegory meaning "God created everything with completeness and perfection". It was never intended to be a scientific account; instead it was intended to be an epic poem, that expressed artistically the manner in which God created and the theology of His relationship with Creation and Mankind. Assuming that it is somehow less "true" because of the genre is a mere insertion of modern Western thoughts into an ancient Near Eastern context, the kind of setting in which they would have been disinterested with a scientific account that didn't artistically and emotionally express theology.

As for dating Adam's genealogy, the difference between modern critical scholarship and A.D. Christian thinkers, is that they addressed it from a Hellenized perspective that didn't recognize the nature of Toledoth (the Hebrew practice of genealogy). A Hebrew person's Toledoth was a pedigree that linked him/her with any historical figures that they considered notable. Considering that, it was in no way a practice of preserving chronology. When we see in our English text "Adam begat, Seth begat, Jarrod begat, Hasharad begat" the word translated into "begat" is mizopan, which in Hebrew means "from the seed of". In no way does mizopan mean the very next generation (other qualifiers are necessary to be that specific), and all of these A.D. dating systems based on Hellenic thinking or similar A.D. Jewish ignorance of Toledoth, happened to use arbitrary methods of dating like "I'm going to assume that each generation equals forty years, and just add up the number of 'generations' in Adam's genealogy so I can multiply it by that". It must be emphasized that it is impossible to chronologically understand the type of genealogy that is purposely not chronological, but rather is used as a historical pedigree.

Are Adam and Eve the first humans? The bible flat out disagrees with that notion where Cain, who has killed his only brother Abel, gets banished and lives among other people. What they are instead, is the first hominids to enter into a relationship with God and be made in His image. God "breathes life into Adam's nostrils" and literally in doing so imparts His nefesh/spirit. This nefesh means that Adam is being given a special reasoning capacity, such that he has dominion over the environment and can contemplate and name creation, hence his naming the animals, feeling shame at his failure, being able to commune with God, etc. The tselem/image and dmuwth/likeness, respectively meaning in Hebrew "shade, or lesser version of" and "resemblance", is tied directly to the specific name being used for God: Elohim. Elohim signifies dominion and majesty, and the second part of Genesis 1:26 hammers in this association between the resemblance, and the very meaning of God's first biblical name (one of many that are all theological adjectives for Him), by telling us what Mankind will have dominion over.

And now we finish with some discussion of a global flood. I think I only need to raise two points to debunk this entirely: erets, which has been popularly translated as "the whole earth" in the story of Noah, actually means "mud/dirt" in it's most literal sense and has been translated according to context all throughout the bible as "mud", "field", "land", "province", "dominion", etc. It can signify anything from a single farm to an entire empire. So, as we can see now, there is no basic linguistic necessity for the flood being global. Is there proper context for such a translation? I should hardly think so, given that all of these newly endowed hominids turned into Mankind, were still in a pretty limited geographical region.

In fact, given a general sense of the rivers and landmasses named so far (although there are a few geographical names that still puzzle scholars here), it's obvious that Cain and Adam's respective tribes were still right around Mesopotamia. Given that, we've got two relatively small groups which have just started to domesticate animals and develop complex culture, living betwixt the Tigris and Euphrates, which are two rivers known to flood violently and on an unpredictable basis. Considering all of this, it would be awfully contrived to say that God flooded the whole earth when He could have accomplished the same goal by flooding a region smaller than a county.

When I think of all of this, I feel that at the very least these should be regarded as compelling accounts, as a beautiful literary accomplishment.

False dichotomy.

'This' is an interesting analysis; and I appreciate 'you' providing it here, as it extremely hard for literal thinking folks to appreciate the depth of metaphors in poetry. Truly the Hebrew Language is a language of existential intelligence where every letter in Alphabet, is a Universe of poetic meaning.

Poetry on this Internet site, overall, is assessed not much more meaningful than so-called 'human emotionalism'; where IN REALITY; human emotionalism is the prime ACTION mover of human being and all other mammals with 'human reasoning' as an empirical after thought of human being;

However; of course that is not to discount the value of the ability to use sign language to express the reality around human being for symbolic expression of what works yesterday works today; and of course the negative aspect of that as well.

But what most humans in western societies live today is a world mired in written abstract concepts; with worries of the past and worries over predictions of the future. MOST any clinical psychiatrist or psychologist will tell 'you' that human beings in the full load of managing work and home life rarely have time for introspection.

Tie on a full plate of electronic shallow entertainment caught up in someone else's Acting and Producing Play and human being is lost in a culture outside of what is human innate instinct and intuition within.

The subconscious mind is discounted as a vague place that has not much meaning; where truly it is a vast ocean of true meaning of what it is to be human in balance with Nature. True Creativity flows and is not rationally planned. The results are myriad in poetic meaning.

And as a person, spending literally thousands of hours reading and commenting on poetry in real time; as well as reading the eyes of other people who see poetry in their own unique views; each unique reflection of interpreting poetry reflects another Universe of eyes; whereas, each poet's writing reflects another Universe of eyes; where the two interpretations may intersect or may not intersect at all.

And this is the problem with a materialistic shallow thinking culture taking up the poetry of old in the bible, translated from a language with even the alphabet having an entirely different meaning, translated into several other languages with different syntax and semantics.

Even in the Greek Language, there is NO ONLY SON OF GOD FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT JESUS, later translated into the King James Bible and others works of text to make Jesus into an only SON OF GOD; instead, just another human like the rest of us, entering into what can generally can be described as 'cosmic consciousness', when unconscious mind 'sings a song of poetry', without the planning reasoning mind in assistance of THAT creative state of mind that all true artists experience.

In the Greek Language, there is only "A SON OF GOD"; who is humble enough to suggest that folks after him will do much greater works of human nature. And whether or not there are really any myths of miracles rising to the level of raising folks from the dead is entirely speculative; for a historical record that only provides at most around eighteen percent of what an original Jesus may have reflected in his creative state of mind.

One need look not far into Nature to get a clear understanding that the GOD of Nature is a GOD of merit and not anointed humans special alone. It is the trials and tribulations and the challenges met that make a human into a 'SUPER-man or woman'; not a cushy life; same as is the case for all other animals as well;

However, some folks become watered down with functional disability; and can no longer enter into the creative state of mind, if they ever could in the first place; in a life now served up with a cultural plate of complexity, spoon-fed almost from birth; sometimes with 'Barney the Purple Dinosaur' for metaphor, IN INPUT; raising the child, instead of a frigging flesh and blood village; including parents.

It is no wonder that so many people live in a poverty of imagination, creativity; along with a deficit in the kind of physical intelligence that allows for emotional regulation, sensory integration; and greater focus and short term working memory for best cognitive executive functioning.

The creative mind capable of great literary works of art like some of what is in the bible; or Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman in flow; and so many other examples of creative flow of art, in general; ranging from dance to song to poetry to painting will NOT FLOW AND NEVER TRULY CREATE unless it escapes a wave of cultural intrusion that blocks the flow of human creative subconscious mind in social cognition; orchestrating a kind of intelligence that is not limited by time, distance or space. Truly far beyond the future and the past; where now is art instead of systemizing science, mechanical cognition, alone

Like any short poem; I can interpret a different meaning from a psalm or even a SYMBOL OF number as both reflecting a multi-universe of eyes; even in just one human THAT IS ME; wHere each now is a Universe UNTO itself.

Human beings CAN BE INCREDIBLE WORKS OF EXPRESSING ART; if they exercise IN PRACTICE THAT human imaginative and creative potential; but as in any other muscle of life; ranging from sexual, sensual, physical, emotional, or bicep intelligence; USE OR LOSE ALWAYS APPLIES; AS AGAIN, GOD IS A GOD OF MERIT; NOT A GOD OF GRACE AND GIVING ALONE.

WORK AND PRACTICE ALWAYS APPLIES;

YES, so no wonder a carpenter become a philosopher;
a place where folks understand that work and practice always applies.

And the same applies to all philosophers who truly practice as works of ART.

Science is just a software program.

The hardware of human can metaphorically
fly with innate instinctual intuitive practice
FULLY ALIVE IN GREATER PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE
IN MIND AND BODY BALANCE EXPRESSING IMAGINATION
AND CREATIVITY IN FLOW
OF subconscious and
conscious mind
joining 'hands'
together
in TRUE
COSMIC
CONSCIOUSNESS;
WHERE TIME NO LONGER
EXISTS AND NOW IS
forever
in flow of NOW
in human heArt,
expressed as spiRit
to GREATER reflect
A TRUER
HUMAN
SOuL.

IT DOES NOT TAKE
A ROCKET SCIENTIST
TO BE LIKE
JESUS, BUDDHA,
MUHAMMAD,
LAO TZU;
OR EVEN
MYTHOLOGICAL
KRISHNA; OR flesh
and blood Nietzsche
and Einstein; it takes
practice and freedom in
mind and body IN
imagination and
CREATIVITY away
from the cultural
intrusion of
closing
one's
mind
forever
now.

This is a place;
a real place;
far far away
in a Universe
of a human
mind and
body
in
balance;

To go wHere
NO
one
man
has
gone
before.

'Star Trek' searches
in the 'wrong place';
from the get go;
but truly
Star
Trek
comes
from a
Universe
Within, FIRST;
Truth and
Light IS
DELICIOUS
BLACK AND
WHITE IRONY;
IN LIVING
COLOR
OF HUMAN
EXISTENCE,
AS
ART
and
SCIENCE
JOINING
HAND
IN
HAND IN
BALANCING
MIND AND
BODY OF
HUMAN
BEING
AS ONE
FORCE
WITH GOD.

So anyWay,
may
THE FORCE;
YOUR OWN PERSONAL
COLORED FORCE; BE
WITH 'YOU'; AND
ALSO
WITH
'US',
FOR
'US'
TO VIEW
DIFFERENTLY,
WITH A FORCE
FROM A
DIFFERENT
UNIVERSE
OF MIND
AND BODY
IN OR
OUT
OF
BALANCE.

I FOR ONE;
do not 'look' to
the past OR
FUTURE for
Truth; i for
one;
CREATE
TRUTH
NOW;

AND that
is what
ART
and GOD
is ALL
ABOUT
IN THIS
UNIVERSE
OF MINE
MIND AND
BODY IN IMAGINATIVE
AND CREATIVE BALANCE;
AS WELL AS SYSTEMIZING
SCIENCE
MIND
HAND
IN
HAND.

"I am tired of
the same old
phrases"

to quote
'Arnold'
here; and i for one;
am back always
now..



Have a nice now; it's time for me to get ready for Catholic Church;
haven't missed a Sunday in nearly two years; dance walking my
3843rd mile of dance walk Yesterday at most all the casinos
in Biloxi Mississipi; writing about my experience of rave
dancing with Gorgeous girls 33 years or so my junior
on Thursday Night before that Friday; LINKING
photos of me and 400 or so, gorgeous
early twenties women in documentary
way; broadly grinning ear to ear in
blog posts; and off and on the
Wrong Planet and Poetry
sites here and there;
while additionally working
out in exXtreme MARTIAL
ARTS AND strength
training; now leg
pressing 930 LBS;
25 times with
arms raised in
air, on Parallel
leg press machine;
like no other man
in the entire world
on YOUTUBE, AT
AGE 55.

I get around in PRACTICE;
including writing 11K WORD,
epic free verse poetry
in ONE DAY.

AT least Jesus or whomever
says MORE will come;
is NOT kidding;
and i am
certainly
not the
FIRST
OR LAST TO
PROVE THAT
IN LIVING
COLOR;
technology
just allows
the real time
record to stand,
as long as servers
serve
it to
serve
human;
a FAR CRY
FROM THE
TWILIGHT
ZONE VERSION;
HAHA!



"This is no cookbook; baby"..

And i try my best to write in a 'conventional' way for
'you'; but sorry friend; that is not the way either
ART or GOD works.
GOD is CREATIVE
AND SO AM
i in FLOW
WITH GOD;
AS ONE FORCE
NOW.

THAT DID NOT
END 2K OR SO YEARS
AGO; IT STILL EXISTS
MOSTLY IN MUSIC;
POETRY AND OTHER
ART; AND ESPECIALLY
ROCK
AND ROLL..

AND to end this long
thingy; here is an
excellent example
of THAT PROPHECY;
WITH LED ZEPPELIN;
LITERaLLY
'HERE' TOO..

AND that's
serving thought
for food; my friend;

If 'you' get this far;

but like 'they' say;
'wHere no human has
gone
before....'




'I' gEt aRound..

And for NOW..

'i' AM JUST passing through..
dusting my feet off.. wHere not
welcome..
AND passing
through..
BACK
again....'!'

Some music for our pleasure, as we read:

Why thank you, monsieur. I'm glad you enjoyed my linguistic exegesis. This whole thing of purely literal thinking doesn't make sense when you square it with how Hebrew people themselves thought about their literature and it's genres. Couldn't agree more on the beauty of these ancient languages. There are impressive layers of expression that I feel easily rival English literature, which is why I feel that on a literary level alone the bible is quite compelling. One great example of this is in the Psalms, where Psalmists use the symbolism of acrostic numbers and other alphabetical patterns to add another layer of expression in their poetry. In several areas the Psalmist will start each verse with the next member of the alphabet, until he has used every letter to start a verse in order to express that he is exhausting his mental resources to praise God.



As for this statement I am honestly curious as to where you've gotten that information. Do you mean that there are only indefinite articles (such as "a", "an") as opposed to definite articles (such as "the", "this", "that", "he")? I say this because I'm curious if you can find a single instance of Jesus being described this way, where there isn't either a definite article or a pronoun.

From the Textus Receptus:

Kai idou ekraxan legontes ti hEmin kai soi iEsou huie tou theou? Elthes hOde pro kairou basanisai hEmas?

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Huie, translated here as "thou", is always a definite article. Just look at it when it's used in many other contexts and you will see that it is impossible to render it any other way. In this instance Jesus is being addressed by demons He is casting out, and they recognize exactly who he is.

Hoi de en tO ploiO elthontes prosekunEsan autO legontes alEthOs theou huios ei.

Matthew 14:33
Then they that were in the ship came and worshiped Him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son of God.

In this instance, alethos, which is an emphatic declaration of the truth of a statement, applies to theou huios ei. Before the grammatical sentence structure is changed in translation the Greek reads: "Truly, God, the Son of, you are". Ei is grammatically a second person singular present.

In Matthew 26:63, there is the statement "su ei ho christos, ho huios tou theou". Here the high priest is asking Jesus whether or not He is the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answers in the next verse with "su eipas", a phrase that means "you said it" but it is actually used by Greeks in a sense surprising similar to a modern English sense, meaning "what you've said is right".

Next He says: "plEn legO humin ap arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthrOpou, kathEmenon ek dexiOn tEs dunameOs, kai erchomenon epi tOn nephelOn tou ouranou". Or in more plain English: "Moreover, you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven". This is clearly more exalted than "a" Son of God. In Hebrew thinking, only one can sit at the right hand of the master of a household, either his son or an exalted guest.