Jennie, This is GREAT! I need to be rectified to myself...
" Thanks for the reply…I have to say I don’t believe such translation or interpretation from the book of James captures the intent or meaning of Christ."
No , not the meaning of Jesus. But the difference between the NT and the OT
The OT brought us laws for the flesh. If you steal something, you die. Weather it be a dime
or a million dollars. There are not different degrees of punishment for different sins.
I wonder if consciousness is both biological and social, if this might be related to left brain - right brain theory? Could it be that the right brain, the center of emotional intelligence is awakened the moment the baby emerges into the light and gets whacked on the behind and howls? And perhaps the left brain, the language processor, is the center of human social consciousness as the baby learns to distinguish names, words, and approved and disapproved behavior?
If this is true, how much more mysterious are the bee and ant? However tiny their nervous system it must contain the coding for unconscious social behavior. Conversely, one could state that with higher mental functions came more individual ego and less social mindedness unless carefully taught?
My microtubules are bent out of shape by the consciousness discussion but there is a good summary of the Roger Penrose castle-in-the-air and critique of it:
In this crazy internet world we look at, there is a reference to an opponent of the quantum coherence proposal for conscious thought, a gentleman who is a cosmologist. This cosmologist has his own weird idea along the lines of a Platonic reality, as he puts it, "the only Theory of Everything with no free parameters."
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Previously you lauded the founding fathers. Now you are telling us that Christians are never supposed to rebel against established authority. When the founding fathers rebelled against England, does this mean they were no longer Christian? Or perhaps never were to begin with?
By the way, my Quaker ancestors refused to serve in the militaries of any nations and also refused to take oaths. For this they were heavily persecuted by Bible preaching Christians.
Jan
The Protestants conspired consciencely together as a whole to rebel against England.
That hasn't anything to do with "a" soldier disobeying an order.
And the Quakers need their own nation. If we live in a nation,under a flag with a prescribed
Conscienceness. Then we should prescribe to it. Or move.
If we live in a nation,under a flag with a prescribed
Conscienceness. Then we should prescribe to it. Or move.
So let me get this right. You believe in freedom of religion as long as it agrees with yours?
So far you have condemned (as best I remember) Catholics, Jews, Quakers (and by insinuation - Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, Brethern, and Shakers) and you don't approve of Mormon theology either. I'm sure the list is longer.
Did it ever occur to you that since fundamentalists are in the minority in America (thank God!), that maybe you all should move somewhere else and not bother the rest of us?
You wonder why there is such antagonism to your form of religion. Believe me it has at its roots, just this attitude. Most of us don't care what anyone believes as long as you don't try to impose it on us, but you are always leaning on us to follow your own narrow vision.
In my view, you really need to check your anti- everyone- who- doesn't- agree- with- you attitude against the actual gospel and life example of Jesus.
The Hebrew midwives refused to follow the orders of Pharoah to kill male infants, Blue. God seems to have upheld them in that.
Soldiers of Israel refuse to kill an innocent Jonathan after King Saul’s command. Again, God upheld them.
There are many incidents in scripture of individuals refusing orders from kings, civil and military leaders to commit evil which were regarded as righteous acts.
Vashti refuses to show herself naked to King Ahasuerus’ drunken friends. The biblical account says the king was punished, not Vashti.
Largo: I like some of Chalmers stuff but not his basic propositions - and I doubt that he would call his ideas philosophies so much as simply the way things are.
On that point I would certainly agree, but he does so within an espoused and specific philosophical construct, though again I'm not at all sure how he then gets from there to inhabiting Markram's blue brain. Seems sort of like an 'any port in the storm' sort of deal to me, but I'm guessing he has some logic that works for him to make the leap.
Largo: My basic position is that mind is no more and no less than the subjective version of the universe.
"Version of", seems suitably ambiguous relative to the body of your posts here so far - implying idealism while leaving the door open to some form of monism. Hard to tell which with that hedge.
HHMMMMM... You folks missed my meaning completely?
Sorry, must be my typing skills on a phone. Tomorrow I get my computer back. Yea
I've been writing ALL these posts on my phone.
I will ponder....
Selah
Jan
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:31pm PT
If we live in a nation,under a flag with a prescribed
Conscienceness. Then we should prescribe to it. Or move.
So let me get this right. You believe in freedom of religion as long as it agrees with yours?
So far you have condemned (as best I remember) Catholics, Jews, Quakers (and by insinuation - Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, Brethern, and Shakers) and you don't approve of Mormon theology either. I'm sure the list is longer.
Did it ever occur to you that since fundamentalists are in the minority in America (thank God!), that maybe you all should move somewhere else and not bother the rest of us?
You wonder why there is such antagonism to your form of religion. Believe me it has at its roots, just this attitude. Most of us don't care what anyone believes as long as you don't try to impose it on us, but you are always leaning on us to follow your own narrow vision.
In my view, you really need to check your anti- everyone- who- doesn't- agree- with- you attitude against the actual gospel and life example of Jesus.
Jennie
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:40pm PT
The Hebrew midwives refused to follow the orders of Pharoah to kill male infants, Blue. God seems to have upheld them in that.
Soldiers of Israel refuse to kill an innocent Jonathan after King Saul’s command. Again, God upheld them.
There are many incidents in scripture of individuals refusing orders from kings, civil and military leaders to commit evil which were regarded as righteous acts.
Vashti refuses to show herself naked to King Ahasuerus’ drunken friends. The biblical account says the king was punished, not Vashti.
Largo: My basic position is that mind is no more and no less than the subjective version of the universe.
"Version of", seems suitably ambiguous relative to the body of your posts here so far - implying idealism while leaving the door open to some form of monism. Hard to tell which with that hedge.
Okay. Here's simple for you: The mind is a mirror of the universe (external) reality, and vice versa. There are not separate rules or things that apply to one and not the other, not IME. Much of this is conuterintuitive and our sense organs and discursive mind makes things over in their own image. It takes a lot of work to start to get a feel for what lurks below. Monism, idealism, Consequent nature of God, Platonic Forms, Pragmaticism, and all the rest are basically all inexact terms to approximate what lies beyond our numbers, words and symbols.
Werner, I appreciate the distinction and am aware of many distinctions. I'm somewhat of a believer in what's called by many the "perennial philosophy." There have been many people since the 1500s who have claimed that there is a common thread that runs though all religions, that they all share a universal truth. However, each religion has developed differently because it served its own culture in a moment in time. Each points to the summum bonum of life for us (viz., the union of experience with the Absolute). Alas, all religions lose their mystic roots and fall into disrepair and disrepute because they become ritualized and hollowed-out. (This is one of the reasons I'm so sensitized to institutionalism, socialization, reification, cognitive heuristics and biases, acculturation, bureaucratization, etc.) It is worth saying (I think) that the knowledge and understanding of different religions enables one to correct one's biases and bigotry that a single religious belief system perpetrates. However, I'm with the Buddha who said that everyone must see reality for themselves in whatever way works for them. That's why he said there were 84,000 different teachings (for the multitude of seekers).
As for the on-running conversation about consciousness (different levels, different factors, different experiences), many folks I read say that consciousness is evolutionary. First there is deep sleep (total unconsciousness), then there is sleep with dreams (emotional / "magical"), then there is a transitionary stage (lyrical / "mythical") that leads to an awake stage (mental / rational / objective)--where we find ourselves today. What's enabled us to fully awake from various stages of sleep or sleepiness is an autonomous and willful ego. Hooray! We are human individuals, and we know it!
Now (it's said by spiritual adepts) we evolve to increasingly inclusive views of the universe that subordinate the ego and individuality without disregarding them (as we have a tendency to do with the other past stages that we've gone through). It's easy to confuse factors, levels, experiences when all levels are continuing to operate in us. For example, we are unconscious about our digestive processes, we are sometimes barely conscious of our emotional or psychic states (until after they finish), we are rather conscious of the "storied" way we look at the universe (life cycles, seasonalities, stories with beginning-middle-ends, various episodes of life), and, of course, we are consciously awake to the scientific or objective views of life. (The latter we have to continue to work at.) All levels of consciousness are happening in us simultaneously all the time, but which many of us want to ignore or stop listening to. To me, that explains many of the complaints about religion, yada yada that is found here on this thread. All these different levels of consciousness are just different facets of Awareness (see perennial philosophy above). We ain't done with our evolution.
"Much about human biology and disease cannot be deduced by simply sequencing the genome. Mapping the epigenome of neurons and other cells will help us to better understand the inner workings of our brain, and where we are coming from."
I can agree. Although, if we were just conscience animals, like the Ant. Wouldn't we ALWAYS
strive for alignment with NO regards to indivualism? IE Freedom of Choice.
Tell that to the common Fire Ant (when flooded from their nest they will form a thick floating blanket on top of the water and will be able to float for days.
So tell me these are self serving ants.
I think this is where our "Souls" step in. The voice that says, "Go the extra step!" or the one that rebels against the conscience norm./quote]
Sorry for clearly showing my ignorance but can you again show your knowledge of the "soul" you talk about?
Is there a place in the body that houses the "soul"?
Wait, don't tell me, "wishing" and "hoping" that we have a "soul" = Having a "soul"?
" If there is data to support this concept, two hundred years from now Mike's idea will probably be held side by side with Darwin's work."
SSSHHHHHH! Don't tell Jingy, he thinks I'm an idiot..[
And my opinion holds how much water? I'm sure many will tell you "I'm the idiot"…. Including me.
It's just too bad that the "god" question was answered for me long ago when I realized that man wrote the bible, the koran, and all other religious texts. And of course there are all the questions that go unanswered by the best of the best of the most knowledgable of biblical scholars: If there was a god as you describe why would this god not make it abundantly clear to all no matter where they lived or what language they spoke? Then provide for the free will to go as they might, but at the very least everyone would know the message from "the god of all" and at least we would all be able to agree on "the message from the god".
But we have nothing. Any who look may find their own personal interpretation of "the god" in the man made bible, koran or torah. Isn't that nice for everyone? Except, it hasn't proven to be very effective nearly anywhere on the planet.
Messages 11741 - 11760 of total 15843 in this topic
Tell that to the common Fire Ant (when flooded from their nest they will form a thick floating blanket on top of the water and will be able to float for days.
Let us know!