[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
All very interesting, now would you be so nice and address the following issue...a system based on constant change demands adaptation to ever changing circumstances from its participants (like us). Now in nature; belief is only ever temporary as a response of our survial instinct towards an unknown, which is automatically followed by curiosity towards the unknown, which will lead to the path of knowledge, which makes the unknown known. That is called adaptation. Holding onto a belief from then on out becomes stagnation, because it is then the natural temptation of selfishness (hedonism) to hold on to a belief, and thereby restricting the comprehension of natural reality to your own belief.
Since holding a belief is the prerequisite for all religions...well, you tell us the rest. Btw have you noticed that nature doesn't name anything, and that humans created languages? Do you want to know why nature doesn't name anything? Because in a constantly changing system you cannot declare a truth, since everything would be an assumption based on the constant change. In other words it would be a lie, because time will change your assumption.
Any comment?
[–] zxcvbnasdf ago (edited ago)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share this, I find your questions insightful and helpful in elucidating aspects of Christianity that most are unfamiliar with, or haven't thought about. Thank you for this opportunity with your sincere question.
I agree, almost entirely with the first part. The difference is our understanding of what that means.
Specifically, you believe "holding onto a belief from then on out becomes stagnation", however that's not necessarily true. It actually forms a logical problem with your theory to assert it's always true, because by your theory you would eventually have to throw it out because it will become stagnant (whereas I hope you just modify your theory slightly).
As I see it, you can either say what you have presented is a "meta theory" (a theory about theories), at which point we can agree that "meta theories" exist, and talk about why I believe the Christian "meta theory" is true. If you're not convinced that "meta theories" exist, however, then this theory is temporary, for if it's not temporary, then it seems that implies your basic theory is false (because we have a belief that is not temporary).
Assuming we believe in "meta theories", or deep truths, then I would say what you are describing is exactly the message that God gave us in the Bible 2000 years ago. In fact, it's the message that God communicated to Noah, almost 5000 years ago. It is the first commandment.
In the quoted text above, we see Jesus saying:
Jesus speaks of "the Spirit of truth", because that's who God is. Truth. Perfection. However you want to call it. Jesus also tells us, in John 14:6
You cannot get to the Truth except through Him. You are cut off from it. So if you deny the Truth? If you deny Jesus? Then you will gain ideas that are of this earth. You will be lead astray as situations change. You will fail in understanding, because you are not seeing clearly, but through the lens of the world.
Ah yes. Exactly. This is what makes Genesis so beautiful. God created the heavens and the earth by speaking! He spoke, and it was done. He then gave us authority over the animals of the earth, and had us name them. Why? So we can understand them. So we can begin to use the power that He has given us. The power of speech. The power of naming and categorization. A power that God possesses perfectly, that we possess imperfectly.
So yes humans are the first creatures with language. For that is why God created us. As free creatures, because only free creatures are capable of love. Free creatures who, in our limited state, can either choose to love perfection, and therefore God because God is perfect, or despise and resent it. We can either come closer to God, or hide from Him. But we can never escape Him, because He is everything.
Nature follows the laws of physics, broadly speaking. So there are deep truths that nature has "named" as true, broadly speaking. Encoded in the language of mathematics. So I understand your point. I would even go further and say that there is no obvious boundary between you and the rest of the world. There is no obvious point in time when the computer you're reading this on began to exist. These are all conventions that are used to help us understand information that we are processing in our brains. The fact that this information can be coherently talked about is amazing. In fact mathematicians and scientists often talk about "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" (famous paper).
So while on the one hand I want to agree, and say yes, things do change over time, I also want to say that God is perfect and perfect doesn't change, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. And so we are living in a universe in which nature does change, and why is that? And I would say it's due to the free choice of human creatures and the fact that nature is not God. It's our inability to maintain perfection that causes decay and destruction in the world. If we were perfect, then things wouldn't change as we know them. If we were perfectly loving then things would be completely different. And that, I feel, is the promise of Heaven.
Suffice it to say that we agree on a lot. I just believe there are things we can know, based on my experience. I believe these things are true for many reasons, not least of which because they work and allow an understanding of reality that has predictive success, which, as a scientist, I care about.
Why do you think mathematics describes reality so well, out of curiosity?
[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
Such a shame that those are in bondage to the belief towards a deity then. Anyway, did you know that love and hate are not natural states, but umbrella terms that hide all kinds of natural process like our survial instincts, the maternal and paternal instincts, all our senses reacting to differences, countless chemical reactions coming from all of this etc? Those umbrella terms seem to me like rhetorical tricks to once again diminish human comprehension of the laws of nature, while also opening up the possibility to slip corrupt meanings under the umbrellas. Must be a coincidence that the perfidious entry of criminal contract law into the natural union between male and female; called marriage license, was sold under the umbrella of love? They also sealed the deal with a ring; called jewelry, which put the entire diamond industry, the valentines racket, the sacrifice of life essence within flowers etc. under the umbrella of love. What about the sexual liberation agenda leading to sodomy, abortion, incest, child abuse and so on? Yep; free love, baby. "Make love; not war" also gave us all the drugs. Isn't that lovely, And "hate" obviously is the driving force to promote all wars and small er conflicts, and even sold the lie of racism to us as well the current hate-speech censorship.
It's so easy to fool people with rhetoric as long as they BELIEVE.
No; we are part of the sum of all things that sustains this ecosystem. Creation is not based on the ONE; you can only create with the ALL. They tricked you into accepting hedonism (the ONE) to break our unity (the ALL). The sum of all things is necessary for any creation to happen.
You mean as in theoretical physics? You do noticed that science is not about teaching us to comprehend nature better, but vetting how much of nature other humans allow us to comprehend? How selfish of those hedonists to do that.
Everything within this ecosystem already exists, and existed since its inception. Go back in time to the first invention of anything and all the material to build a computer was already available. It's us lacking the comprehension of how to put it all together.
Good for them, but unlike you I don't worship idols. Science, mathematics, authors, titles, distributors, copyrights, awards (famous paper). No thanks, I stay with the laws of nature. False authority is not my thing. Remember the first amendment? You just broke it.
Do I have to point out that you can only comprehend perfection, if you comprehend a flaw and vice versa?
Are we? Which idol of authority do I have to worship to believe that? This is an enclosed ecosystem and a bunch of trickster are trying to diminish it by making it look insignificant in the big picture.
No, it's us shirking our responsibility to struggle to maintain the balance in between order and chaos. It's the belief in things like perfection (unattainable goals based on selfish wants) that create the shirking of responsibility. We now our goal since inception; it's death, yet humans are still chasing after make believe substitutes (promise of heaven) based on the fear of dying.
And that's the problem. Restricting comprehension to assumptions.
I should've read that before. So which shoe fits? Nondisclosure agreements, stranglehold of the military industrial complex to withhold and vet knowledge based on nature (translates to "nature made you, but we don't allow you to know about it, because it's dangerous" ), criminal funding, cult of personality surrounding the lab-coat, facilitation of endless genocides through the pharmaceutical cartel, political agendas, when funds based on delivering results favor lies over truths, backstabbing, the indoctrination and destruction of human intellect through the education system, the destruction of human health through the healthcare system, science being today at the forefront of censorship against logic and reason...and the list goes on.
I don't think that mathematics describe nature well to a duck, but both me and the duck can adapt to each other and learn valuable information from each other. It's as if reality is based on perception, and that there are different ways to perceive things? Adaptation is great; I can even apply math to it. Did you know that there's no 0 in nature? Fascinating, what human liars can pull of.
[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
It absolutely is true, because "from then on out" describes the point where a time based change happened. The natural order flipped from the positive side to the negative side. Example: A young deer witnessed his first thunderstorm and the survial instinct creates the temporary belief of impeding doom, this automatically followed by curiosity, because the other deer didn't react in panic, which leads to the path of knowledge, that eventually leads to him comprehending that thunder doesn't bring harm. Up to that point, a positive action leading to positive consequences. Holding onto the belief would then become a crazy deer running around in panic every time a thunder goes off, which is a weakness within a prey that will attract a predator. A negative action leading to a negative consequence. The struggle for balance in between is called the natural order, and it's based on consonant adaptation.
No more "eventually" after stagnation and no throwing out, because stagnation leads towards death; the negative outcome. There are only two outcomes; life or death.
You do realize that after me questioning the holding of beliefs in a constantly changing system, you bring forward a strawman (meta theory) based on belief? You ignored me questioning your crooked foundation and now you try to invite me back into your crooked house. I say no thanks.
Back to the drawing board...all knowledge comes from nature and our reasoning process is based on the comprehension of what nature shows us. Now, nature gave us the liberty of freedom of choice for our actions, but only nature can judge the consequences thereof by passing them back onto all of us, which creates the ever changing circumstances that demand the need for adaptation. Furthermore, we were born with nothing and we will die with nothing, which means that nature gives us the liberty to use everything, but not the right to claim anything, since our existence is temporary, and defined by happening in between a beginning (inception, life) and an end (death).
Finally, let's tie all of this together...if we claim something, like for example the belief that our assumptions about nature are truths, despite constant change proving them to be lies, then we restrict our comprehension of natural reality to the beliefs we're holding. Then our consciousness cannot fully comprehend reality anymore, because it has to constantly adapt to the contradictions our beliefs are causing. That's a huge weakness that could be exploited by those who comprehend it.
That's a contract law selling unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith. What if I tell you that the entire human society is enslaved in a caste system called "chain of command", which is based on exactly that? Blind faith towards the false authority of those above them, which corrupts behavior towards "kissing up and kicking down". No difference whatsoever between a burger flipper, a teacher, a soldier or a freemason. From the perspective of those that designed and control it; it's a pyramid scheme, where the higher you go the more you have to exploit those beneath you to stay in control and the controllers just have to sprinkle secrets (all based on nature) down the way. Coincidence?
Contradiction within itself. You cannot proclaim a truth without disproving a lie, and you cannot disprove a lie without stating a truth. Natural law "opposites must coexist, because they're defined by each other" (not duality, which is a lie that can be applied to any opposites). If you state a truth without addressing a lie, you make an assumption, which by definition isn't a truth, which is therefore a lie.
In a system based on constant change you can also never have perfection; neither perfect order, perfect chaos; nor perfect balance in between.
How inconvenient for all the non-believer, all the different believer and every other life-form within this ecosystem. Talking about selfishness.
You just contradicted "be in this world; not of it".
Have you heard of the game Telephone, Chinese Whispers, Stille Post? It's a test that you conduct with a group of children by whispering an information into the ear of the first child and then let them pass it through whispering to the last child who speaks it out loud. It's almost impossible (99-ish %) for the information to get through, because humans use anonymity to lie. Now how many people do you think I would have to put blind faith into, to believe what happened on that mountain? Imagine the idol worship I have to commit by believing those in power passing this story down to me; including all those that passed it down orally when nobody could read? How exactly did those people get into power? How much does it cost to spread information such as this around, and how does usury affect the assimilation of knowledge?
Others would call this the most selfish act the so called humans ever pulled off...lumping all the different lifeforms together under an umbrella term, while putting themselves above it, so that they could excuse and justify the endless crimes they're committing against them, like for example the billions that are getting imprisoned, tortured and killed behind anonymous walls (so that humans don't have to see the consequences of their actions) to create food that is poisonous to us? Have you ever considered that we are the apex species, but not apex predators? Isn't the one thing that we stand out with, our consciousness being able to comprehend the consequences of all actions? It's like as if we are mimics in the position of stewards, which would would also explain why; as apex, we don't require leaders, but instead mimicked the leadership role from nature, while botching it out of lack of responsibility to maintain it.
So you are saying that despite nature segregating differences so that all our senses can detect and learn from them, that it was us naming them that was required for our comprehension? What a hedonistic god complex that sounds like. Have you noticed that by calling a cow a cow you steal and deny her individual character? You do notice that all life within this ecosystem is different from each other? Isn't that more likely yet another selfish way to justify crimes by putting an umbrella over that which would challenge your common sense. You might not know this, but judging from multiple questionable sources it is alleged that if you ram a knife into a pig and into a human child, that the reactions are extremely similar. Must be a coincidence.
Power corrupts, but let's ignore that too, because of perfection. While I'm at perfection...did you know that the fundamental laws of nature that govern this ecosystem are regarded as a perfect system, which is false, because it obviously has to follow its own rules (opposites must coexist), so to make sure that its judgements aren't biased it created a flaw in the perfect system...chance, so no matter the judgments, there's always a chance. Fascinating.
Division through compartmentalization. Where did I read that before? Was it Sun Tzu or the Protocols, or both? It also very much sounds like disregarding simplicity in favor of complexity. It's as if somebody is trying to steer humans away from the laws of nature and towards the nonsensical complexity of the laws of men. Another coincidence.
Why not liberty creatures, because that freedom was a liberty offered? Also, did you know you can only be free if you come out of bondage and that you can only be in bondage if you were free before?