One small question about Heaven7
category: general [glöplog]
the whole thing is mostly a choice of perspective...
you're right iblis, some things that i see in a certain way, you see otherwise, and vice versa...
I didn;t want to convince 4 anything, just wrote about how i see the whole thing.
The purpose/incompleteness thing is that you cannot really create if it's been created before, ie you cannot create somthng that already exists. Or then you would just be copying, and since according to most religions the world was created, it means it was missing before. If it was missing it means God was not complete.
It's not a thing of human logic.
As for the demoscene analogy, if i had produced demo X, i wouldn't be producing it all over again. And my purpose in creating is ofcourse to become more complete in somthng, may it be knowledge, feelings, or whatever i feel that i achieve thru creativity.
As for peace... a very good example indeed...
Peace byitself was never really an absolute virtue. Surely everyone would like to live peacefuly and all, but then again, if we always put peace above everything else, we would surely still be living in slavery.
You see there were a lot of peaces in human history. But history does not "unfold" in a linear way. There must be always big steps, radical changes so that progress can really happen. And radical changes can only be made with violence. That violence, is neither good nor bad. It is NECESSARY and just.
For there can NEVER exist a "system" that will always be good and prosperous for everyone.
Every system will be in it's birth very good indeed, giving most people things they never had, chances that were never given to them. But every system, since we are talking about humans, is "condemned" to have contradictions (in mathematics it would be smthng like the theorem of inconsistency). And thru time those contradictions will become "contrasts" in society, contrasts that will make people suffer. And the more time passes, the more people will suffer. And when the people who suffer are so many, and their suffering so great, they will try to change the system. And ofcourse they will find against them all those that used those contradictions for their better part. Not because they want to make people suffer, but because that is the way every system works.
Those that will not want to change the system wont be "bad" or "evil" or whatever people. They would just do what everyone would. Protect what they think is good.
And so the only way to actually make things better, for you cannot solve contradictions, only surpass them (i.e. surpass the causes of their existence) is thru violence. There is no other way. That is why always people revolted, as muslims and jews did some time ago...
And they will revolt to make a new system come around, to surpass the older contradictions,. only to create new ones, for you can never know how a new society will be, before it is already there. And those contradictions will become contrasts once again, and so progress will ever continue...
And that is one of my greatest opposition to religions and idealistic philosophies in general. They believe we could actually have a perfect system, a perfect society which we when attain, would never want to change... the "end of history". Of course there are idealistic systems that say that we could never attain the Truth, only come closer to it, but that scheme supposes a more linear way of "coming closer" a way that i don't believe that there is, and that history has showed us that there isn't.
And because of that peace thing all religions (theoritically) share. Religions, after they had become widespread in their country, have never helped revolts happen. Because revolts are always turned against people who believe in the same god. Buddhist people are a great example, and christians an even better one. If christians had prevailed, and peace in general, we would be still living in a feudal system under some godly King. And specialy us Greeks we would still be under the Turkish sovereign (but that would be a long long story that i suppose you are not very interested in.)
Anyway i know Islam is a more "revolting" religion than christianity, for reasons i believe that have nothing to do with God, but still tell me if a church-official religion would ever make people revolt against followers of the same belief. e.g. would ever an islamic church make muslims fight against muslims?
Christianity actually did not make people revolt even against the sovereign of different "believers", i.e. the romans which is why i think that christian "love" and "peace" is plain bull .... YOu can read Saul's (i.e. Peter's) letter to the Ephesians part 6,v5-6 or to Timotheos first letter part 6 v.1-2 ot to Titus partb v.9-10...
But in a more general aspect, as was said before here, monotheistic religions exactly because they believe in a single God can never find place for other's gods and beliefs. So they will always try to impose their only truth to "save" other's souls. Polytheistic religions didn't have that problem. They could simply assimilate other's gods by saying "yes there are also these gods of yours..." as was done with greeks and egyptians and romans etc etc.
So specially monotheistic religions, though they share this "peace" thing, have always showed us that they would never use it against nonbelievers. That they would always use violence it to impose their only truth to others. And that classification scheme of believers and nonbelievers, is one of the worse available.
For even if we all shared the same religion (as was in western europe for example) the time will come when the social status will change. And that NECESSARY change will happen by believers going against their brothers in beliefs. And church will never go for such a thing, and that is why church will be against progress. As it has prooven to be so...
And as a last note there is thing concerning personal freedom. All religions to my knowledge believe in some kind of predetermined history, fate, since the allknowing god, knows our future, for to know it, it has to be predetermined. That predetermination sounds very unfreely to me.
PS sorry for the soooo long post....
you're right iblis, some things that i see in a certain way, you see otherwise, and vice versa...
I didn;t want to convince 4 anything, just wrote about how i see the whole thing.
The purpose/incompleteness thing is that you cannot really create if it's been created before, ie you cannot create somthng that already exists. Or then you would just be copying, and since according to most religions the world was created, it means it was missing before. If it was missing it means God was not complete.
It's not a thing of human logic.
As for the demoscene analogy, if i had produced demo X, i wouldn't be producing it all over again. And my purpose in creating is ofcourse to become more complete in somthng, may it be knowledge, feelings, or whatever i feel that i achieve thru creativity.
As for peace... a very good example indeed...
Peace byitself was never really an absolute virtue. Surely everyone would like to live peacefuly and all, but then again, if we always put peace above everything else, we would surely still be living in slavery.
You see there were a lot of peaces in human history. But history does not "unfold" in a linear way. There must be always big steps, radical changes so that progress can really happen. And radical changes can only be made with violence. That violence, is neither good nor bad. It is NECESSARY and just.
For there can NEVER exist a "system" that will always be good and prosperous for everyone.
Every system will be in it's birth very good indeed, giving most people things they never had, chances that were never given to them. But every system, since we are talking about humans, is "condemned" to have contradictions (in mathematics it would be smthng like the theorem of inconsistency). And thru time those contradictions will become "contrasts" in society, contrasts that will make people suffer. And the more time passes, the more people will suffer. And when the people who suffer are so many, and their suffering so great, they will try to change the system. And ofcourse they will find against them all those that used those contradictions for their better part. Not because they want to make people suffer, but because that is the way every system works.
Those that will not want to change the system wont be "bad" or "evil" or whatever people. They would just do what everyone would. Protect what they think is good.
And so the only way to actually make things better, for you cannot solve contradictions, only surpass them (i.e. surpass the causes of their existence) is thru violence. There is no other way. That is why always people revolted, as muslims and jews did some time ago...
And they will revolt to make a new system come around, to surpass the older contradictions,. only to create new ones, for you can never know how a new society will be, before it is already there. And those contradictions will become contrasts once again, and so progress will ever continue...
And that is one of my greatest opposition to religions and idealistic philosophies in general. They believe we could actually have a perfect system, a perfect society which we when attain, would never want to change... the "end of history". Of course there are idealistic systems that say that we could never attain the Truth, only come closer to it, but that scheme supposes a more linear way of "coming closer" a way that i don't believe that there is, and that history has showed us that there isn't.
And because of that peace thing all religions (theoritically) share. Religions, after they had become widespread in their country, have never helped revolts happen. Because revolts are always turned against people who believe in the same god. Buddhist people are a great example, and christians an even better one. If christians had prevailed, and peace in general, we would be still living in a feudal system under some godly King. And specialy us Greeks we would still be under the Turkish sovereign (but that would be a long long story that i suppose you are not very interested in.)
Anyway i know Islam is a more "revolting" religion than christianity, for reasons i believe that have nothing to do with God, but still tell me if a church-official religion would ever make people revolt against followers of the same belief. e.g. would ever an islamic church make muslims fight against muslims?
Christianity actually did not make people revolt even against the sovereign of different "believers", i.e. the romans which is why i think that christian "love" and "peace" is plain bull .... YOu can read Saul's (i.e. Peter's) letter to the Ephesians part 6,v5-6 or to Timotheos first letter part 6 v.1-2 ot to Titus partb v.9-10...
But in a more general aspect, as was said before here, monotheistic religions exactly because they believe in a single God can never find place for other's gods and beliefs. So they will always try to impose their only truth to "save" other's souls. Polytheistic religions didn't have that problem. They could simply assimilate other's gods by saying "yes there are also these gods of yours..." as was done with greeks and egyptians and romans etc etc.
So specially monotheistic religions, though they share this "peace" thing, have always showed us that they would never use it against nonbelievers. That they would always use violence it to impose their only truth to others. And that classification scheme of believers and nonbelievers, is one of the worse available.
For even if we all shared the same religion (as was in western europe for example) the time will come when the social status will change. And that NECESSARY change will happen by believers going against their brothers in beliefs. And church will never go for such a thing, and that is why church will be against progress. As it has prooven to be so...
And as a last note there is thing concerning personal freedom. All religions to my knowledge believe in some kind of predetermined history, fate, since the allknowing god, knows our future, for to know it, it has to be predetermined. That predetermination sounds very unfreely to me.
PS sorry for the soooo long post....
what the.. some people sure can write long posts. Does anyone actually read them, Oh I wonder...
psyche...interresting read once more. maybe we should take this debate "in private" (mail i.e) so we wont annoy others with longwinded posts?
There is a huge difference between knowing the future, and having it predetermined. God can know the future in the sense that all scenarios of possible events are clear to God. But not neccecerily predetermined. The free will we have IS limited. I cant, though i would love to, change the wind, or stop earthquakes.
"The purpose/incompleteness thing is that you cannot really create if it's been created before, ie you cannot create somthng that already exists. Or then you would just be copying, and since according to most religions the world was created, it means it was missing before. If it was missing it means God was not complete."
No. it just means that God hadnt created it yet. God and the universe is not the same. The universe is A creation, within this 1 creation there where created other things such as stars, earths etc.. Why God chose to create the universe, i do not know. I agree to the other stuff. Man cannot create, we can build. what youre saying is...if i dont finnish what im working on atm. im not complete? If i have an idea, but dont do anything about it, i am not complete?
I think you make the mistake of "trapping" God inside the universe or mixing God with the universe. Ofcourse if we think in 3 dimensions the thought of being "outside AND within" seems rather impossible. But newer theory on the universe introduce both a 4th and a 5th dimension for the models to work.
and youre right., sometimes the price of peace is violence. But we tend only to resort to violence to obtain peace or possesion. (and to some twisted ones, for the fun of it)
Muslims have fought "muslims" .. lately Turkey has objected about sending soldiers into iraq, because they are both muslim nations.
As i said to begin with, i think what you say is interresting, and id like to know more about that way of thinking.
There is a huge difference between knowing the future, and having it predetermined. God can know the future in the sense that all scenarios of possible events are clear to God. But not neccecerily predetermined. The free will we have IS limited. I cant, though i would love to, change the wind, or stop earthquakes.
"The purpose/incompleteness thing is that you cannot really create if it's been created before, ie you cannot create somthng that already exists. Or then you would just be copying, and since according to most religions the world was created, it means it was missing before. If it was missing it means God was not complete."
No. it just means that God hadnt created it yet. God and the universe is not the same. The universe is A creation, within this 1 creation there where created other things such as stars, earths etc.. Why God chose to create the universe, i do not know. I agree to the other stuff. Man cannot create, we can build. what youre saying is...if i dont finnish what im working on atm. im not complete? If i have an idea, but dont do anything about it, i am not complete?
I think you make the mistake of "trapping" God inside the universe or mixing God with the universe. Ofcourse if we think in 3 dimensions the thought of being "outside AND within" seems rather impossible. But newer theory on the universe introduce both a 4th and a 5th dimension for the models to work.
and youre right., sometimes the price of peace is violence. But we tend only to resort to violence to obtain peace or possesion. (and to some twisted ones, for the fun of it)
Muslims have fought "muslims" .. lately Turkey has objected about sending soldiers into iraq, because they are both muslim nations.
As i said to begin with, i think what you say is interresting, and id like to know more about that way of thinking.
iblis: don't worry about the long posts. If people are dumb enough to read something they don't like for so long, that's their problem ;) And it's not like a bit of text is likely to kill the server :)
I must say, i thought the 'twin events' bit you posted was a pretty standard example of religious manipulation. How many Kedar's are there in the world? Theres a place in saudi with that name, fine, where else are there places called kedar? or people called kedar? There are tons of examples of slightly vague 'prophecies' being used to back up somebody's version of a particular event like that.
And I don't think violdence is the only way forwards either, i think that's very often a backwards step. Although i also think that violence is inevitable between people, because violence is an important part of evolution / genetic selection in nature, and we haven't had any natural enemies (except maybe disease) for a long time.
I must say, i thought the 'twin events' bit you posted was a pretty standard example of religious manipulation. How many Kedar's are there in the world? Theres a place in saudi with that name, fine, where else are there places called kedar? or people called kedar? There are tons of examples of slightly vague 'prophecies' being used to back up somebody's version of a particular event like that.
And I don't think violdence is the only way forwards either, i think that's very often a backwards step. Although i also think that violence is inevitable between people, because violence is an important part of evolution / genetic selection in nature, and we haven't had any natural enemies (except maybe disease) for a long time.
But You say God comes not out of a blue how can he live in haven? Do not understand me false but I learn he is living up about, God can come out of a blue and help from having a fall in exampel.
Mayby God is wrong God to hope for. Who is better then he? I need faith for concretized live....
Mayby God is wrong God to hope for. Who is better then he? I need faith for concretized live....
hiroshi: how old are you?
C'mon mate. How many Englands are there, with a history that matches that of the prophecy'? How many Denmarks etc..
You have to look at the text in a historical perspective not a relegious one. and i think the author of the text manages that quite well. The point here is not promoting a relegion, but to show that somehow, people knew something before it happend even though they were seperated by thousands of miles.
+ the sons of kedar was a particular people, prety much like a dane is it, or a swede etc. Keep an open mind mate, because it is thought provoking, this. But ofcourse you should read the whole article, not just the small part i c/p'ed. It can be found at www.mostmerciful.com (just use the search tool on top of the page)
hiroyoshi: I am very sorry,l but i have a really hard time taking you seriously. Yes, God can turn into a hotdog aswell, but i dont see God do that. Does that affect my faith? nope!
You have to look at the text in a historical perspective not a relegious one. and i think the author of the text manages that quite well. The point here is not promoting a relegion, but to show that somehow, people knew something before it happend even though they were seperated by thousands of miles.
+ the sons of kedar was a particular people, prety much like a dane is it, or a swede etc. Keep an open mind mate, because it is thought provoking, this. But ofcourse you should read the whole article, not just the small part i c/p'ed. It can be found at www.mostmerciful.com (just use the search tool on top of the page)
hiroyoshi: I am very sorry,l but i have a really hard time taking you seriously. Yes, God can turn into a hotdog aswell, but i dont see God do that. Does that affect my faith? nope!
iblis: year i see your point, but 'sons of kedar' can be taken in other ways too. If kedar was a common name in different parts of the world (a quick search says it is now at least) then how many sons of kedar were there? Also, you said the vision was in greece, and the events in arabia. The name would therefore be translated from greek to arabic. That suggests 2 things: 1, kedar was a name known in greece at the time. 2, names are usually translated into their nearest equivalent in the new language, thereby introducing a distortion.
Apart from that, there are tons of stories of people predicting things before they happen (the sinking of the titanic, and a book about a man called 'hissler' rising to power in germany come to mind, but there are plenty of others). Most of the ones like the twin events one you mentioned, have slightly vague wording, or predict a fairly common story. Most of the more specific ones are usually proved false (like the end of the world, how many times has that been postponed? ;)
I do keep an open mind about things, but don't forget that works both ways. If you come to something expecting it to be convincing, it's easy to be convinced (and if your subconscious mind thinks it would be good for you to be convinced, it'll often help a lot). I'm sceptical about a lot of things, i think that's healthy. I also think it's healthy to doubt your own conclusions, as people have been known to get things wrong before now :) Eg. i seriously doubt that ufo's are real. Too many have proved to be fake, delusions, or strange natural phenomena. But i also accept that it's possible that some advanced aliens really do have a hidden base on the moon, and keep an eye on us, even if it is a bit unlikely :)
Apart from that, there are tons of stories of people predicting things before they happen (the sinking of the titanic, and a book about a man called 'hissler' rising to power in germany come to mind, but there are plenty of others). Most of the ones like the twin events one you mentioned, have slightly vague wording, or predict a fairly common story. Most of the more specific ones are usually proved false (like the end of the world, how many times has that been postponed? ;)
I do keep an open mind about things, but don't forget that works both ways. If you come to something expecting it to be convincing, it's easy to be convinced (and if your subconscious mind thinks it would be good for you to be convinced, it'll often help a lot). I'm sceptical about a lot of things, i think that's healthy. I also think it's healthy to doubt your own conclusions, as people have been known to get things wrong before now :) Eg. i seriously doubt that ufo's are real. Too many have proved to be fake, delusions, or strange natural phenomena. But i also accept that it's possible that some advanced aliens really do have a hidden base on the moon, and keep an eye on us, even if it is a bit unlikely :)
People! All i can say after reading this, is: WOW!
Questions about questions, you ever got a real answer in the Bible?
You ever thought, that Matrix - Revolutions will have an end what you've expected?
Are you more waiting for <b>Heaven 8</b> or <b>Heaven 666</b>?
Don't ever wanna hear the truth, about that poem and stuff. Just belive in it. =)
---
Reall life things: We still exist as friends, still interrested in various projects, and belive me, you'll know about it, if it is something to do again with demoscene.
P.S: ...and <b>never</b> trust Tomcat, whatever he says, writes or asks. ;P
Questions about questions, you ever got a real answer in the Bible?
You ever thought, that Matrix - Revolutions will have an end what you've expected?
Are you more waiting for <b>Heaven 8</b> or <b>Heaven 666</b>?
Don't ever wanna hear the truth, about that poem and stuff. Just belive in it. =)
---
Reall life things: We still exist as friends, still interrested in various projects, and belive me, you'll know about it, if it is something to do again with demoscene.
P.S: ...and <b>never</b> trust Tomcat, whatever he says, writes or asks. ;P
It's amazing that you flame Tomcat in evey post you ever made. Marke a Tomcat suxx thread instead, please.
wtf
Yeah, and learn BB code.
or stfu :))
By a complex weighting algorithm, this thread was found to be worthy to be bumped again. Start at the beginning.
