[–] zxcvbnasdf ago (edited ago)
Any comment?
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.
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.
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.
“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”
In the quoted text above, we see Jesus saying:
“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
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
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
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.
Btw have you noticed that nature doesn't name anything, and that humans created languages?
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.
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.
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
because only free creatures are capable of love
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.
But we can never escape Him, because He is everything.
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.
Nature follows the laws of physics
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.
There is no obvious point in time when the computer you're reading this on began to exist.
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.
In fact mathematicians and scientists often talk about "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" (famous paper).
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.
perfect doesn't change, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect
Do I have to point out that you can only comprehend perfection, if you comprehend a flaw and vice versa?
And so we are living in a universe
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.
It's our inability to maintain perfection that causes decay and destruction in the world.
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.
I believe these things are true
And that's the problem. Restricting comprehension to assumptions.
as a scientist
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.
Why do you think mathematics describes reality so well, out of curiosity?
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.
[–] zxcvbnasdf ago
You have a truly fascinating mind. This is enjoyable. Thank you.
Such a shame that those are in bondage to the belief towards a deity then.
I'm not in bondage at all. In fact that's what makes Christianity so beautiful to me. Christianity is entirely about controlling one's passions in order to understand nature. To be able to interrogate it and burn away anything that is not true, and only keep that which is true. It's perfectly in line with what you want, the only thing you're asked to do is believe that the truth exists, and that God loves you. That's it. What bondage is there in that?
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?
The reason marriage is a contract between man and woman is because societies collapse when this is not the norm. Look at the west today. Falling marriages, birth rates down the tubes, and a complete destruction of the family. All by (((who)))? Coincidence? No. Planned.
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.
This is yet another beautiful aspect of Christianity. God appears to us not as one, but as a Trinity. As three persons with one nature. God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. From time immemorial God has been teaching us the difference between the many and the one. To understand how we're all individuals, and yet at the same time one in Him. It's profoundly beautiful, and I agree with what you're saying.
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.
I notice that some people use it that way, yes. But I've found, performing science myself, that I am more than capable of interrogating nature for myself, as you want. I just do it in a systematic way that allows me to make complex predictions of the future based on the past and the present. Is that not what you want?
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.
Very complicated. If that's true, then you are never born, and you never die, correct?
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.
I don't know what you mean by "the laws of nature"?
Also I'm not Congress, and I make no laws, so I can't violate the first amendment.
Do I have to point out that you can only comprehend perfection, if you comprehend a flaw and vice versa?
I agree completely that I can only comprehend perfection if I find a flaw. That's a very astute and good point. However I don't think Perfect needs to comprehend the flaw to know He's Perfect, because He is Perfect. I think these truths will be made known to us in Heaven.
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.
"Universe" just means "all the physical stuff around us". I should have said "nature", I think.
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.
Maintaining the balance between order and chaos is absolutely an aspect of obtaining perfection.
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.
I don't think our goal is death. Death is inevitable, but that doesn't make it a goal. I sincerely hope you don't think death is the goal. What do you mean by this?
And that's the problem. Restricting comprehension to assumptions.
Have I not demonstrated comprehension?
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.
On me? None and all, just like you, I suppose. I'm against those things, as they are not of God.
I don't think that mathematics describe nature well to a duck
Are you a duck? Do you have the same cognitive capacity as a duck? Or do you have more cognitive capacity than a duck?
Adaptation is great
But is it true?
[–] 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?
[–] zxcvbnasdf ago
The text is too long so I had to cut out large parts of your quotes, sorry about that. Also I seem to have not communicated my point in some areas. Sorry for not being clear.
Do you believe your theory or not? If you do, does it change? If it doesn't, then your theory is contradictory because it doesn't change. If it does, when and how?
Nature isn't a "thing". What is "nature"? Are you just using "nature" so you don't have to use the word "God"? It seems like that. But then you're just calling God by a different name.
What does "nature show us" and how?
How do you know you're not fully determined to believe that and have no choice at all? How do you know you have "liberty of freedom" (can you define this concretely)?
You just seem to be using the word "nature" for God, and asserting that life is the only thing that "exists". I find the second claim dubious, as I can think of many things that are not of "nature" that "exist" (like numbers, abstract shapes, ideas, concepts, information, etc.)
Is that a true statement or a false one? How can it be true if it's talking about holding a belief? Surely it's ever changing? What is a lie? What is an untruth? You have a lot of concepts that I agree with almost entirely, I just think they're slightly confused.
I agree.
No. That's a contract between a father and his children, for the betterment of his children. If a father tells his child to not play in the street, is that evil? Is it "selling unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith"? Clearly not. So your premise is just invalid.
It is a contract, for sure. But God is personal. He will speak to you if you speak with Him. He will have a relationship if you want one. That is not "unquestionable" at all. In fact numerous times in the Bible we see characters bargaining with God. God is merciful and just, not a tyrant, and certainly not random like your "nature" concept. I don't understand why you think you can know anything about something as capricious as nature? From what I've read of Marxist historians of the past, the reason science came out of Christianity is because Christians believed the world was not a capricious and arbitrary place, created by a loving God, and that humans could and should understand it. So I feel like your criticism is actually a criticism of your ideology not mine. You're trying to "sell unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith" to "nature", are you not?
I'd agree with you. Which is why I reject your notion of nature, and believe my notion of a loving God.
God says "I am who I am". Your concept only makes sense if there is no objective truth. If there is objective truth, then you can proclaim it. And if there is an objective truth, "I am who I am" seems to be something fundamentally true. Objective truth is the reason that the universe can exist and we can understand it. Without it, life, much less the understanding of "nature" as you described it, wouldn't be possible.
Agree, that's why nature isn't perfect. It's a battleground between Good and evil. That's why Christianity teaches that our bodies will be restored. That's why Christianity teaches that the body of Mary and other saints either doesn't decay, or decays more slowly. Because it is perfect, and thus not subject to the capricious forces you're talking about.
It is. But God is loving and just, and if you repent of your sins and beg His forgiveness and love Him, then you will be forgiven and find joys you never thought possible.
He gave you life. He sent His son to die for our sins. He sent people to preach His gospel to you. How is that selfish? I don't understand your idea.
Well, what's great is you can just look to the gospel if you want. If you look at the gospel, it is one of the, if not the, most well attested to writings of the ancient world. There are thousands of manuscripts, from various times and places, and there is not a single difference between them that changes any bit of doctrine.
This is in stark contrast to the Koran, which has few copies, all of them disagree in serious ways, and at various times all Korans were burned and rewritten. So if you want to talk about idol worship and oral transmission with the Koran? I'd just agree with you.
Usury was banned in the early Church.
I don't know how you can say a species that farms others for food and has colonized the earth making it safe for itself isn't the apex predator. And I don't think your consciousness can comprehend the consequences of most actions, much less all.
Also I think humans are fundamentally hierarchical creatures. I don't think we're not all the same, there are differences between us. We also reproduce sexually, and in any pair relationship, there are going to be many hierarchies at play that need to be managed. Do you disagree?
I don't think there are "nature segregating differences". The most obvious counterexample I can come up with is looking at how different languages name colors, and the evolution of naming colors came about. Different languages name some colors differently, and as such fundamentally perceive things differently than we do. Similarly with shapes there are some people who are fundamentally better at seeing some shapes than others due to how they grew up. It's also known that if you give no interaction to infants for the first few years of their life, they never socialize. So the differences between people is stark.
As to noticing the differences between organisms? Absolutely there are. Each was put under our authority, and we are to love them and treat them with the respect they deserve, for they too are creatures of God. Creatures that deserve to have good lives and be protected from undue harm and instead encourage their flourishing (I have many times posted about regenerative agriculture farms that are seeking to do just that, let the animals live as the animals want to live, and only give them 1 bad day, which is better than they'd be in any "nature" system).
I don't view the universe the way you do. I agree that chance exists, I just think that's part of our fallen world and of Satan who seeks to cause decay. I believe that in Heaven we will live with God who is perfect, and in perfection your concerns will be mollified.
Abstraction is the only way to make something complex simple. I don't know what you mean by "laws of nature"? Don't they always change?
I don't know what you think the difference between "liberty creatures" and "creatures with free will" is? Do you mean you want to be forced to be free? But that's a contradiction. You can't be free if you have no choice to become a slave. That's not what I mean when I say "free".
I think there's a large degree of overlap between what we're saying, and that's great. I largely agree with what you say, just a few minor differences.