265 replies to this topic

[Mr Walker]

Alienated Being, on 07 November 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

It seems as if you are not grasping my assertion. My assertion is that if an experience is presented in the absence of evidence that CAN BE REPRODUCED, TESTED AND OBSERVED... Leaves can be subjected to empiricism, sand can be, water can be, humans can be,, air particles can be, dirt can be, and so on and so forth. We do not have to test them in order to know that they are real, as we already know that they can be tested and verified as being real.

And my assertion is that, once tested by an individual, no further scientific  testing is required to establish reality/validity. Further testing, reproduction and observation, only assists in the transferrability of evidences and the accumulation of data.

If god or an angel or a ghost stands up to such testing, just once, then it is real, just as it only needs one test of a leaf or sand or water to know it is real. Similar tests will produce similar results, because it is objectively existent. The difficulty is in capturing the subject, to do the testing.
Actually, every individual human must personally test the validity of every experience, if they wish to know it is real. One cannot use learned or second hand academic/scientific verification to establish this, because this relies on believing, and taking on trust, another's word/findings. Eg Just reading that I cant walk through a wall because its molecules are too densely packed together to allow mine to pass through i,t is not evidence, or convincing proof, but trying to, and failing to, is.
let me just ask, "In your philosophy, if you were illiterate how could you ever know what was real/had objective existence, and what was/did not?"

Edited by Mr Walker, 08 November 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[alibongo]

Etu Malku, on 07 November 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Or so the story goes

I'm always amazed how everyone misreads this verse

Genesis 2:17:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Metaphorically speaking, the Serpent (Lucifer), represents the divine force of creation that is able to carry out God's idea of creation. The Serpent sinks down to man's level and awakens the power of creation and the sexual energy in man (Kundalini). Thus, man can reach the knowledge which was previously only accessible to God.

In this Promethean light, we see a dishonest and manipulative god hoping to keep mankind in the dark about immortality and from becoming a god as well, and the Serpent bringing the fire to man against this god's wishes.

The Serpent showed Adam & Eve there are two paths they can follow:
Thy Will Be Done (RHP) or  My  Will Be Done (LHP)

It makes me laugh how so many people ague and bicker over 2000 year old nonsense written by bigotted lunatics ! it is like arguing about the finer points in Grimm's fairy tales- who cares, when there is a real world to understand?

[Alienated Being]

Mr Walker, on 08 November 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

And my assertion is that, once tested by an individual, no further scientific  testing is required to establish reality/validity. Further testing, reproduction and observation, only assists in the transferrability of evidences and the accumulation of data.

If such an experience cannot be reproduced in a controlled setting, then the integrity of one's psyche is brought into question. Empiricism is carried out many, many times in order to prove/disprove the hypothesis - that is the entire point of the scientific process. It may be perceived as being real to the individual, but that does not mean that it is real.

Quote

If god or an angel or a ghost stands up to such testing, just once, then it is real, just as it only needs one test of a leaf or sand or water to know it is real. Similar tests will produce similar results, because it is objectively existent. The difficulty is in capturing the subject, to do the testing.
Actually, every individual human must personally test the validity of every experience, if they wish to know it is real. One cannot use learned or second hand academic/scientific verification to establish this, because this relies on believing, and taking on trust, another's word/findings. Eg Just reading that I cant walk through a wall because its molecules are too densely packed together to allow mine to pass through i,t is not evidence, or convincing proof, but trying to, and failing to, is.
let me just ask, "In your philosophy, if you were illiterate how could you ever know what was real/had objective existence, and what was/did not?"

But the fact of the matter is, "god" or an "angel" does not stand up to such testing. We have no scientific evidence in reinforcement of their existence; the only pieces of evidence that we have are those that are the result of hear-say or, as you say, "your own personal experiences" (which does not constitute as being evidence for anything other than to yourself) and even then those experiences can be misinterpreted.

For example...
A woman has been praying and praying for extra money, and suddenly a random stranger provides her with the money. Does that mean that "god" made that happen, or did the person who gave it to her make it happen, and that experience would have occurred anyway? This is where misinterpretation comes into play.

To the individual that has more of a logical mind, he would most likely say that the encounter would have occurred anyway. We have no evidence that it was the act of god, other than the fact that she prayed and received money. However, I am sure that there are individuals who have prayed and prayed for something, and received it not as a result of prayer, but rather as a result of the natural course of things. And then there are those who have prayed to be relieved of terminal illness, only to have their prayers left unanswered.

My point is that just because we interpret an experience as something, that does not mean that the experience is as we have interpreted. One person sees god, another sees merely a random, coincidental occurrence.

[Etu Malku]

Alienated Being, on 08 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

For example...
A woman has been praying and praying for extra money, and suddenly a random stranger provides her with the money. Does that mean that "god" made that happen, or did the person who gave it to her make it happen, and that experience would have occurred anyway? This is where misinterpretation comes into play.

To the individual that has more of a logical mind, he would most likely say that the encounter would have occurred anyway. We have no evidence that it was the act of god, other than the fact that she prayed and received money. However, I am sure that there are individuals who have prayed and prayed for something, and received it not as a result of prayer, but rather as a result of the natural course of things. And then there are those who have prayed to be relieved of terminal illness, only to have their prayers left unanswered.

My point is that just because we interpret an experience as something, that does not mean that the experience is as we have interpreted. One person sees god, another sees merely a random, coincidental occurrence.

I'm a firm believer in Quantum Mechanics, that in many ways we change our inner self and in return the universe begins to bend towards our inner self. This model plays well with today's definition of magick and also works well with why miserable people find more misery and joyous people are surrounded by joy for example. The way you are is how you perceive the universe and what you project onto it as well as onto others (Jungian Shadow). It's not exactly Karma but very close.

[woopypooky]

because God doesnt care about sins. ITs our human interpretation that God does care about sins and hell sort of things.

[Emma_Acid]

Etu Malku, on 08 November 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

I'm a firm believer in Quantum Mechanics, that in many ways we change our inner self and in return the universe begins to bend towards our inner self. This model plays well with today's definition of magick and also works well with why miserable people find more misery and joyous people are surrounded by joy for example. The way you are is how you perceive the universe and what you project onto it as well as onto others (Jungian Shadow). It's not exactly Karma but very close.

Ah joy. Another complete and utter misreading of quantum physics.

[Etu Malku]

Emma_Acid, on 08 November 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Ah joy. Another complete and utter misreading of quantum physics.

So you say, and would you care to explain?
Because I'm taking my lead from Theoretical Quantum Physicist Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D. who clearly outlines everything I just stated.

Anyone interested in understanding how Quantum Mechanics and our Consciousness work together in order to create changes within our self and ultimately creating change in our environment (Magick) should check out Dr. Goswami (Professor of physics at the University of Oregon’s Institute of Theoretical Science for over 30 years)

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

Edited by Etu Malku, 08 November 2012 - 03:57 PM.

[Jor-el]

Mr Walker, on 08 November 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

I agree with this; perhaps just disagree with what it means.Yyes god can see all potentialities (maybe) because a good enough computer could extrpolate in similar fashion, but cant know which will come to pass; and thus pushes us, as he pushed david, towards one best choice. with the best outcomes.

Im not sure that the nephilim are classicall/traditionally biblical enhtities.They dont really appear as the reason god caused the flood in the bible story, as far as I recall, but i am open to correction.

But God isn't a computer...

A computer is still based on matter, even the quantum computers of the future are still based on material laws, God isn't bound by them.

I read a book a number of years ago that speaks of a Godlike computer that humanities far off descendents built, billions of years in the future, a computer that could effectively find all the matter of the Big Bang and recreate the singularity that caused it, thus recreating the universe, time and time again, but each time, it did so, humanity would have to rebuild it and start the process again. That computer had the power to track all the matter of the universe as well as create more of it from the energy existing within the universe itself (quantum tapping), until the whole process is reversed.

But God is not that, he exists outside of the space-time continuum. This universe is his construct down to the last detail. He knows all the possibilities and variations that his construct allows. Now I know that you aren't disagreeing with me, but I decided to add this comment because I thought it relevant.

The Nephilim are as classical/traditional as you can get. It is the modern view that began at the end of the 1st century that distorted this view into its present form. That the flood was sent because of mans evil and continued sin.

Yes that is true but the evil referred to was sexual intercourse between spiritual beings and human women, resulting in the mutation known as the Nephilim. It was never about mankinds sinful ways, which haven't changed since Adam. This was the evil that needed to be wiped out completely and needed a worldwide flood to do it.

It doesn't matter whether people believe it or not, or whether it is a true event or not, what is relevant is that Jewish and early christian belief was based on this event. It is mentioned a number of times in the Old Testament and in the New Testament as well, but it is the wealth of literature on the subject during the Inter-testamental period that shows this most clearly.

Edited by Jor-el, 08 November 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[Etu Malku]

Jor-el, on 08 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

But God isn't a computer...

A computer is still based on matter, even the quantum computers of the future are still based on material laws, God isn't bound by them.

I believe what people refer to as god IS material laws (the objective universe).

Quote

But God is not that, he exists outside of the space-time continuum. This universe is his construct down to the last detail. He knows all the possibilities and variations that his construct allows. Now I know that you aren't disagreeing with me, but I decided to add this comment because I thought it relevant.

I don't believe in an omniscient/omnipotent being, my stance remains that this god/thought-form is mankind conceived, that it is "us" who has assigned this symbology/metaphor to the Laws & Principles that govern the objective universe.

Quote

The Nephilim are as classical/traditional as you can get. It is the modern view that began at the end of the 1st century that distorted this view into its present form. That the flood was sent because of mans evil and continued sin.

The idea of the Nephilim date much further back then the 1CE, they are mentioned in the Hebrew bible and the Torah.

Quote

Yes that is true but the evil referred to was sexual intercourse between spiritual beings and human women, resulting in the mutation known as the Nephilim. It was never about mankinds sinful ways, which haven't changed since Adam. This was the evil that needed to be wiped out completely and needed a worldwide flood to do it.

There are other theories behind the Nephilim.

[Artaxerxes]

The education of the soul is too important to leave it up to chance.

Life ain't a bowl of cherries and it's not supposed to be.

The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates.

We are spiritual beings having a physical experience.

Separation, time and space,  and memories of what it means and how it feels to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time Universe.

[Mr Walker]

Alienated Being, on 08 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

If such an experience cannot be reproduced in a controlled setting, then the integrity of one's psyche is brought into question. Empiricism is carried out many, many times in order to prove/disprove the hypothesis - that is the entire point of the scientific process. It may be perceived as being real to the individual, but that does not mean that it is real.


But the fact of the matter is, "god" or an "angel" does not stand up to such testing. We have no scientific evidence in reinforcement of their existence; the only pieces of evidence that we have are those that are the result of hear-say or, as you say, "your own personal experiences" (which does not constitute as being evidence for anything other than to yourself) and even then those experiences can be misinterpreted.

For example...
A woman has been praying and praying for extra money, and suddenly a random stranger provides her with the money. Does that mean that "god" made that happen, or did the person who gave it to her make it happen, and that experience would have occurred anyway? This is where misinterpretation comes into play.

To the individual that has more of a logical mind, he would most likely say that the encounter would have occurred anyway. We have no evidence that it was the act of god, other than the fact that she prayed and received money. However, I am sure that there are individuals who have prayed and prayed for something, and received it not as a result of prayer, but rather as a result of the natural course of things. And then there are those who have prayed to be relieved of terminal illness, only to have their prayers left unanswered.

My point is that just because we interpret an experience as something, that does not mean that the experience is as we have interpreted. One person sees god, another sees merely a random, coincidental occurrence.

First point . Rubbish. Humans do not need to have their every experiential moment verified by any form of  academic science  to know they are sane and seeing what  is real  That is what our evolved senses and awareness allows us to do.

Of course god and angels can stand up to such testing, if one can test them, as long as they are real physical beings, and in my experience they are just as real and physical as you and I. You do not believe they are real, and thus you assume they could not be scientificaly tested. I know they are real and thus know they can be.
We decipher all our experiences by the same contextual evidences. Take that woman. If she prays to god, and  god tells her he will make a  $100 note appear in front of her in exactly 15 minutes time, and then this happens, yes of course one can know it was god.

The same as if my brother says he will lend me $100 on saturday morning and then he does perhaps by dropping it in my letterbox. I know it is my brother producing the money, because he said he would at that time .. You just chose to disbelieve that this, and other such things can happen. Let us suppose god tell the woman to go to person X and they will give her money. When she gets to person x, that person has the money ready and says, "god told me you would be needing this."

Such things are common place, at least in my life. the things i am talkng about are not random occurences The parameters of random occurences are very differnt from those of miracles, where god directs and informs a person what to do and how to act.

I acept the validirty of what you are saying for some people and some scenarios. But this is not what happens in my life, and I can only assume i am not special, and that god works directly in and with many other human beings.

Edited by Mr Walker, 09 November 2012 - 06:43 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Jor-el, on 08 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

But God isn't a computer...

A computer is still based on matter, even the quantum computers of the future are still based on material laws, God isn't bound by them.

I read a book a number of years ago that speaks of a Godlike computer that humanities far off descendents built, billions of years in the future, a computer that could effectively find all the matter of the Big Bang and recreate the singularity that caused it, thus recreating the universe, time and time again, but each time, it did so, humanity would have to rebuild it and start the process again. That computer had the power to track all the matter of the universe as well as create more of it from the energy existing within the universe itself (quantum tapping), until the whole process is reversed.

But God is not that, he exists outside of the space-time continuum. This universe is his construct down to the last detail. He knows all the possibilities and variations that his construct allows. Now I know that you aren't disagreeing with me, but I decided to add this comment because I thought it relevant.

The Nephilim are as classical/traditional as you can get. It is the modern view that began at the end of the 1st century that distorted this view into its present form. That the flood was sent because of mans evil and continued sin.

Yes that is true but the evil referred to was sexual intercourse between spiritual beings and human women, resulting in the mutation known as the Nephilim. It was never about mankinds sinful ways, which haven't changed since Adam. This was the evil that needed to be wiped out completely and needed a worldwide flood to do it.

It doesn't matter whether people believe it or not, or whether it is a true event or not, what is relevant is that Jewish and early christian belief was based on this event. It is mentioned a number of times in the Old Testament and in the New Testament as well, but it is the wealth of literature on the subject during the Inter-testamental period that shows this most clearly.

I respect your beliefs but the god i know and love exists within the same space-time continuum as we do and is as real in his own way as we are He did not preexist the beggining of the universe but is an evolved product of it

It would take some convincing from within the text of the old testament itself to convince me on your point of view about the nephilim. From memory the bible is quite clear about gods purpose for the flood and his choice of noah as a survivor. Certainly the sexual behaviour of men at that time, as in sodom and gomorrah, was a deciding factor in gods actions. But the sin of sex is in the form of sex, not in sex itself. In the bible story god created adam and eve as sexual beings, meant to have children and populate the earth  The act of sex was corrupted by the fallm as was everything else, and women then gave birth in pain and suffering, but it was not anything to do with a cause of the fall

I am not a biblical literalist but the bible story can only be studied as a piece of writing from within it.

The concept of nephilim as aliens breeding with human women is a bit outre for me and unless it is sourced within the bible itself I dont think it can be added to the story that exists within the bible. Biblically it is much more likely that the references to nephilim were to humans, perhaps those descended from seth. They were described as powerful giants. like goliath Certainly apocryphal writings provide other points of view, but as christians dont accept those as christian canon or mainstream truth, its not reasonable to use them to explain the nephilim in biblical context.

Edited by Mr Walker, 09 November 2012 - 07:15 AM.

[Alienated Being]

Mr Walker, on 09 November 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

First point . Rubbish. Humans do not need to have their every experiential moment verified by any form of  academic science  to know they are sane and seeing what  is real  That is what our evolved senses and awareness allows us to do.

They absolutely do. If an individual sees a pink elephant with three legs going around in circles on a unicycle, and they believe that it is real... then there is a problem. What they perceive as being real does not necessarily equate to being real. If such an experience can not be subjected to empiricism in a controlled setting, then the sanity of one is questioned.

This is why we have mental institutions; individuals whom have a deluded sense of perception are placed here because they can not function within the real world, as they are living in their own fantasies.

Quote

Of course god and angels can stand up to such testing, if one can test them, as long as they are real physical beings, and in my experience they are just as real and physical as you and I. You do not believe they are real, and thus you assume they could not be scientificaly tested. I know they are real and thus know they can be.
We decipher all our experiences by the same contextual evidences. Take that woman. If she prays to god, and  god tells her he will make a  $100 note appear in front of her in exactly 15 minutes time, and then this happens, yes of course one can know it was god.

Do you really think if god and angels could stand up to such testing that there would not be such a controversy with regards to their existence? Really, Walker; that is just absurd. The question of god's existence has been questioned since the beginning of organized religion, so do not make foolish statements like that. If god could be proven via empiricism, or angels... then there would be no question, it would simply be accepted fact, which it is not in the realm of science.

And, no... one can not know it was god; one can ASSUME that it was god based on the outcome. Assumptions do not equate to knowledge.

The laws of physics, also, do not concur with such a claim. Money simply can not materialize out of nothing. That was a horrible example.

Quote

The same as if my brother says he will lend me $100 on saturday morning and then he does perhaps by dropping it in my letterbox. I know it is my brother producing the money, because he said he would at that time .. You just chose to disbelieve that this, and other such things can happen. Let us suppose god tell the woman to go to person X and they will give her money. When she gets to person x, that person has the money ready and says, "god told me you would be needing this."

Your brother giving you money because you asked him to is much different than money materializing because you asked god to materialize it, simply because money does not materialize out of... nothing. It defies the law of physics. If you can make this happen, then may I suggest contacting a group of physicists and showing them that this can be done? There would be much research and testing to be conducted on such a process.

Quote

Such things are common place, at least in my life. the things i am talkng about are not random occurences The parameters of random occurences are very differnt from those of miracles, where god directs and informs a person what to do and how to act.

Or, it is simply a coincidence; nothing more, nothing less

Quite frankly, I am starting to question whether or not you are a troll. Most of what you assert or claim does not make any sense whatsoever. You seem to be what I have always claimed, and that is severely deluded... I think you need to find a new psychologist, because the one you currently have clearly is not giving you the proper care that you evidently require.

Edited by Alienated Being, 09 November 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[Jor-el]

Etu Malku, on 09 November 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

I believe what people refer to as god IS material laws (the objective universe).

A number of people and even some major religiuons share your view... christianity however does not. The God we accept is a sentient being,who designed and created this entire universe and that includes its laws. Now if we are talking generically I can accept your point of view, if we are specifically speaking about the Judeo-Christian God, then no you would not be correct.

Quote

I don't believe in an omniscient/omnipotent being, my stance remains that this god/thought-form is mankind conceived, that it is "us" who has assigned this symbology/metaphor to the Laws & Principles that govern the objective universe.

Well that is your perrogative, however my stance is different.

Quote

The idea of the Nephilim date much further back then the 1CE, they are mentioned in the Hebrew bible and the Torah.

Of course, I agree with that it is one of the oldest and most ancient beliefs shared widely by a number of cultures not only througout the Middle East but around the world. We can say that 4000 years is a common number for the age of the myths but they could well be alot older.

Quote

There are other theories behind the Nephilim.

Yes there are, but for the purposes of the biblical record they are the offspring of spiritual beings and human women.

[Jor-el]

Mr Walker, on 09 November 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

I respect your beliefs but the god i know and love exists within the same space-time continuum as we do and is as real in his own way as we are He did not preexist the beggining of the universe but is an evolved product of it

And you know this categorically because?...  Following the biblical view (as found within the Bible), that is not the conclusion we come to.

Quote

It would take some convincing from within the text of the old testament itself to convince me on your point of view about the nephilim. From memory the bible is quite clear about gods purpose for the flood and his choice of noah as a survivor. Certainly the sexual behaviour of men at that time, as in sodom and gomorrah, was a deciding factor in gods actions. But the sin of sex is in the form of sex, not in sex itself. In the bible story god created adam and eve as sexual beings, meant to have children and populate the earth  The act of sex was corrupted by the fallm as was everything else, and women then gave birth in pain and suffering, but it was not anything to do with a cause of the fall

The text of the Old Testament can be taken a number of ways, but if you add the extra-Biblical texts found in Qumran as just one small example among many you will find it quite clear that the Nephilim are the offspring of angels and human women. The bible itself does not clearly state this but a number of texts within it demonstrate this understanding... An understanding that was later corrupted to something more palatable but erroneous.

Jude 1:6-7
⁶ And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, ⁷ just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:4-7

⁴ For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; ⁵ and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; ⁶ and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; ⁷ and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men...

Quote

I am not a biblical literalist but the bible story can only be studied as a piece of writing from within it.

And it is from that very context you mention that this understanding comes, whether one is a literalist or not, historically the evidence for this particular view is conclusive.

Quote

The concept of nephilim as aliens breeding with human women is a bit outre for me and unless it is sourced within the bible itself I dont think it can be added to the story that exists within the bible. Biblically it is much more likely that the references to nephilim were to humans, perhaps those descended from seth. They were described as powerful giants. like goliath Certainly apocryphal writings provide other points of view, but as christians dont accept those as christian canon or mainstream truth, its not reasonable to use them to explain the nephilim in biblical context.

I do not believe the Nephilim are aliens, nor are the Sons of God aliens. What I specifically stated was the the Sons of God (many times translated as angels or lower gods) forsook their rightful place in the heavenly realm and took on bodies which they used to father children with human women, the offspring of this union is what we call the Nephilim, a genetic mutation, which includes giantism and polydactylism.

These beings known as the Nephilim are also known by another more well known name... demi-gods.

And we know many of their names...

• Heracles, son of Zeus
  
• Perseus, son of Zeus
  
• Theseus, son of Poseidon
  
• Aeneas, son of Venus
  
• Minos, son of Zeus
  
• Calais, son of Boreas
  
• Zetes, son of Boreas
  
• Orpheus, son of Apollo
  
• Helen, daughter of Zeus
  
• Achilles
  
• Adonis
  
• Circe, daughter of Hecate
  
• Polyphemus, son of Poseidon
  
• Pandora
  
• Orion
  
• Odysseus
  
• Paris
  
• Maiu (A Hawiian)
  
• Polydeuces
  
• Castor
  
• Iasion
  
• Alexander the Great
  
• Commodus (A Roman), son of Zeus
  
• Xena
  
• Kratos
  
• Leonides

Of course these are not their original names, but these are all based on those mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Edited by Jor-el, 09 November 2012 - 07:32 PM.