After some reflecting, i came up with these questions. sorry about the rediculous amount of run on sentences, i feel it's the only way to keep the same idea, or a constant stream of thought. Feel free to post your own mindfucks, or build on/answer mine or someone elses.

If everyone was blind, would the concept of sight be unknown of, even though it still exists? If so is there new planes of sensory unheard of, because we havent even fathomed them with our existing senses?

Are thoughts and conciousness just electrial signals between nerve cells in your brain? If so would emotions just be cold shocks in our heads?

Do you ever feel like your life is a rerun of a bad tv show? All the same characters are used over and over again, as if you know people before you even ever see them. How do you even know the other people are even real?
Perhaps the world is just an object of your own creation, the only thing that exists is the objects you are currently observing.

All I know, is that i exist and im concious, if you're reading this and you know you exist, and you are concious, perhaps we are the same conciousness, reaping the same ideas.

Why is everything so complex to a point beyond human understanding? there always seems to be something undiscovered, untheorized, so complex, it's impossible to take in with a full understanding as if the full spectrum of existence is to much to comprehend, thus creating a limit of what the human brain can understand; the tank is full, and running at full capacity.

Would we want to know everything? Perhaps knowing everything would drive us insane, we would overflow with emotions, which are after all, just cold electical signals in our cerebral matter.

The human brain is hundred of times more effecient than a computer. Considering the computer makes no mistakes, why do we?

Is perfection really even a capible concept? to obtain perfection one has to destroy all obsolete and bad things. But without bad things the world is unbalanced. Free choice is eliminated, and such things cease to exist. With out these things perfection doesn't exist. So, the way things are, free choice, and ideas, is the only way mentality could work.

These are the questions that bother me.

Written by -Valhalla- on 25.09.2006 at 06:14

If everyone was blind, would the concept of sight be unknown of, even though it still exists? If so is there new planes of sensory unheard of, because we havent even fathomed them with our existing senses?

That's a really interesting one. Is it as though humans could never see, or if all of a sudden everyone was blind?

if it was that everyone was blind (in the sense that they had eyes that didn't work), then we may be aware of the idea of "sight" (in the sense that the appendix has no use but we can understand what it does through examining it and comparing it to other animals). if we simply didn't have eyes, nor did any other animal, then no we wouldn't be aware of the concept of sight.

thoughts and emotions are just chemical imbalances and electrical signals. depression can be treated by simply taking medicine that increases the amount of stuff (technical term...) passing between certain synapses. this is a bit of a reductionist point of view seeing as psychological therapy is also effective in dealing with emotional problems.

my brain hurts.

Why is everything so complex to a point beyond human understanding? a fish swimming in water does not have the required mental capacity to understand the concept of water. humans can understand this. i believe a similar situation to this is humans and the universe. in our current form we do not have the mental capacity to understand the universe. not that this answers your question but whatever. the universe is an extremly complex place in comparison to our mental capacity sowe can't understand it in the same way that a fish dcouldn't grasp the concept of "water".

according to aristotle, the "perfect" anything is just a concept we can perceive but not something that can really exist. a certain thing (for example, a car) has certain characteristics that make it a car. we can understand what characteristics would make a car better and perceive the idea of a "perfect" car, but in reality a perfect car could not exist (for example, not requiring fuel would be an ideal, but is not possible)

im not trying to give answers here seeing as these are really up for debate. these are just some points to consider.

We know of senses that other animals have, by observing them. Sharks have the ability to sense electrical output, snakes have thermal sight. I imagine if we had no sight, but other animals did, we would know about it. And, if no animals had sight, and there was no sight at all, then I'm sure the concept would be totally unheard of.

Why is everything so complex to a point beyond human understanding? there always seems to be something undiscovered, untheorized, so complex, it's impossible to take in with a full understanding as if the full spectrum of existence is to much to comprehend, thus creating a limit of what the human brain can understand; the tank is full, and running at full capacity

well,some guy said in 1890 or something that everything that could be invented has been invented.obviously he was drunk,stoned or something,if not both.there will always be something better,more challenging,harder to grasp,more thought-demanding.think of the theory that says that if you want to reach the speed of light,you should accelerate slowly because you would almost certainly die from the huge g-forces.but look at star wars-the whole sci-fi genre is based upon this idea,that there'll always be a theory that contradicts the last one to the bone,and you'll revolutionize science dozens of times until,well,humanity becomes extinct
plus imagine if you knew everything about the physical world-the whole universe would pose no secrets whatsoever-sounds really boring to me.i need something exciting,something you'd invest time,money, thought into and come out triumphantly that you've found a new truth and enjoy your discovery until someone else disproves it or renders it obsolete

The human brain is hundred of times more effecient than a computer. Considering the computer makes no mistakes, why do we?

well.no computer can replace a human brain.so far no computer can think as creatively and as well as a human,and it'll be a while until one does.why?because you can't teach a computer anything-it sticks to what you made it do when you created it,whereas humans are in a constant state of learning-almost every day i look back at yesterday and i feel i'm better than yesterday,more intelligent,i always feel i've progressed a lot
but unfortunately 99% aof humans learn by mistakes-a computer makes no mistakes=>it does not learn.it does not learn anything because it doesn't have a self consciousness.it's not alive.

Written by -Valhalla- on 25.09.2006 at 06:14

If everyone was blind, would the concept of sight be unknown of, even though it still exists? If so is there new planes of sensory unheard of, because we havent even fathomed them with our existing senses?

Are thoughts and conciousness just electrial signals between nerve cells in your brain? If so would emotions just be cold shocks in our heads?

yes and yes,

there are probably lots of things around us that we can't percept, alot of animals can heard sounds we cant, alot of animals can also smell smells we cant, taste things we cant taste, etc.
maybe there's alot more, but if we dont experience it, we wont find out

the second is quite right aswell, however it might be hard to fully embrace as an idea, as it seems so "incomplete"
i'll compare it to colour, colours are something beautiful, the resemble our feelings, our emotions, they make things look as they are, they are warm or cold, contrast between them sets free streams of thoughts inside are head... but the colour itsel really isnt much at all, all those things are just what we make out of colour, just like all our desires and pains are what we make out of those electric signals

Written by -Valhalla- on 25.09.2006 at 06:14

Do you ever feel like your life is a rerun of a bad tv show? All the same characters are used over and over again, as if you know people before you even ever see them. How do you even know the other people are even real?
Perhaps the world is just an object of your own creation, the only thing that exists is the objects you are currently observing.

All I know, is that i exist and im concious, if you're reading this and you know you exist, and you are concious, perhaps we are the same conciousness, reaping the same ideas.

maybe, but if it's so, does it matter?
maybe you're not real, maybe metalstorm isnt, maybe internet isnt, maybe this computer isnt! maybe i'm sitting infront of an empty box, talking to myself thinking i am doing so to existing people, like you.

infact, maybe i am sitting in a mental asylum in front of a large plastic box with a piece of paper infront of me on which i randomly click on parts of it, thinking it are letters, maybe i fool myself into believing that so good, that it all becomes real to me

but if that's the fact, i dont care
i'm happy with this fantasy, if a fantasy it is, and if it is then i'll have a reason to have it, the real world will probably be much worse, so i dont want to know, instead i'll sit infront of my box, belieivng in something which might not be real, but is so realistic that i dont notice that it's fake, but it does make me happy

Written by -Valhalla- on 25.09.2006 at 06:14
Why is everything so complex to a point beyond human understanding? there always seems to be something undiscovered, untheorized, so complex, it's impossible to take in with a full understanding as if the full spectrum of existence is to much to comprehend, thus creating a limit of what the human brain can understand; the tank is full, and running at full capacity.

Would we want to know everything? Perhaps knowing everything would drive us insane, we would overflow with emotions, which are after all, just cold electical signals in our cerebral matter.

The human brain is hundred of times more effecient than a computer. Considering the computer makes no mistakes, why do we?

Is perfection really even a capible concept? to obtain perfection one has to destroy all obsolete and bad things. But without bad things the world is unbalanced. Free choice is eliminated, and such things cease to exist. With out these things perfection doesn't exist. So, the way things are, free choice, and ideas, is the only way mentality could work.

the human is basically an animal, like apes, owls, foxes, whatever, we are a lot more intelligent, but we arent much higher then them in mind apart from that

i'm sure that, say, a cat, however smart it might be, does not understand alot, where does it's food come from, it doesnt understand that the sheep it's so afraid of (yeah my cat is terrified by sheep) are the same thing she loves so much to eat, it doesnt understand ballons explode when it puts it's claw in it, it doesnt understand why it suddenly gets light when i click the switch, there is so much it doesnt understand, and the same is true for is, we are smart, but there is still alot we dont know

for the computer, yes we are capable of alot more, but exactly that is our restriction, they keyword here is emotions, they affect us, alot, a computer isnt affected by them, it does what it's told, it doesn't do anymore then that, but it does it exactly as it is supposed to do (usually )

perfection isnt possible, just because what is perfect to someone is bad to someone else, for example i love lovecraft's writings, however someone who gets really frightened very fast and cant sleep for along time after being frightened will hate to read lovecraft's books, he is a perfect writer to me, but he'd be hell to others, or music, to some people rap is awesome, to most of us it's not, nothing can be perfect because nothing is liked by everyone

would we want to know everything?
we cant know the answer to that, maybe most things we dont know are wonderful, so we'dbe happy if we'd know all, maybe most things we dont know are horrible, so it'd be awful to know everything, but as we dont know what we dont know, we cant know (lol)



i hope some of my answers were at least a bit satisfying, if they were, please let me know

My own mindfuck, spanning across several confusing concepts:

It is said that god created the universe. If god created the universe, who created god? Did create himself, or did god create herself? The bible always talked about god in the sense that god was a male, but what if god was a female? One cannot verify this because no one has seen god face-to-face, therefore, we don't know what gender god is. Also adding to the confusion is that god "created humans in his image". This could imply that god created both male and female humans in his image, so this might imply that god is a hermaphrodite, or a human with both male and female sexual organs and characteristics. However, this might not be the case at all. What if god has no gender to begin with, and is just an object, which as we know is simply referred to as "it"? Bas2 has this theory long ago that god was a chair and that Jesus was a tree. Could this be true? Could god and Jesus be as simple of objects as chairs and trees?

Another thing I keep thinking about is the concept brought up by astronomers in that "we are made of star stuff", because we are made of elements that were made in the cores of stars. This "star stuff" was once a part of the universe, so I thought: are we the universe trying to understand itself, or is the universe trying to understand what it created (us)? This might also imply that the universe is personified, that it possesses human characteristics. If we could ask the universe questions if it were human, what might we ask it, and how?

I'll try to remember more when I get the time.

Written by [user id=5630] on 26.09.2006 at 00:04
The bible always talked about god in the sense that god was a male, but what if god was a female? One cannot verify this because no one has seen god face-to-face, therefore, we don't know what gender god is. Also adding to the confusion is that god "created humans in his image". This could imply that god created both male and female humans in his image, so this might imply that god is a hermaphrodite, or a human with both male and female sexual organs and characteristics.

Let's assume there is a god. He/she/it is going to be existing at a very advanced/complicated level. I think it's far too simplifying to use a line in an old book to try to understand how he/she/it relates to gender.

Written by [user id=5630] on 26.09.2006 at 00:04

It is said that god created the universe. If god created the universe, who created god? Did create himself, or did god create herself? The bible always talked about god in the sense that god was a male, but what if god was a female? One cannot verify this because no one has seen god face-to-face, therefore, we don't know what gender god is. Also adding to the confusion is that god "created humans in his image". This could imply that god created both male and female humans in his image, so this might imply that god is a hermaphrodite, or a human with both male and female sexual organs and characteristics. However, this might not be the case at all. What if god has no gender to begin with, and is just an object, which as we know is simply referred to as "it"? Bas2 has this theory long ago that god was a chair and that Jesus was a tree. Could this be true? Could god and Jesus be as simple of objects as chairs and trees?

Another thing I keep thinking about is the concept brought up by astronomers in that "we are made of star stuff", because we are made of elements that were made in the cores of stars. This "star stuff" was once a part of the universe, so I thought: are we the universe trying to understand itself, or is the universe trying to understand what it created (us)? This might also imply that the universe is personified, that it possesses human characteristics. If we could ask the universe questions if it were human, what might we ask it, and how?

for the questions about what god is (assuming he/she/it exists) and what the universe is (does it have personality or not?) i have the same answer

the human brain cant imagine/comprehend anything it hasnt seen before, we can comprehend say, a blue apple, because we have seen blue before and we've seen apples before, in the same way we can comprehgend god as a being of extreme power in the body of an old man, because we know old men and we know what power is, however we cant imagine, say, a colour that we dont know yet, in the same way we cant imagine god as being something "different" something beyond genders, so it's easiest to just imagine him in the shape of something we know, be that an old man, a woman, or even a chair
the same goes for the universe, interesting though about we being part of the universe wanting to understand itself, but if it is like that, then the universe is something beyond personalities as we know them, maybe it is some kind of entity, but probably known that we know of, so at the moment we cant possibly understand it,
btw, if the answer is the same for both of those, how bout another idea to think about? what if not only the answer is the same, but also the subject? in other words, lets combine your two thoughts, what if god actually IS the universe and created us out of himself?

Here is something i thought about when i was quite young and never managed to get an answer (lets hope i can explain it sufficiently)

ok its about colours .. and sight ..
as a species we see in what we term colour. we define this colour in various ways eg. Blue, Green, Bright, Dark, Shiny, Dull etc.

now what is to say that what i have been told is blue and is called blue by the rest of society is not what you may see as what i would call pink?
who says we all see the same colours in the same places ?
we are told what colours are called at schools and by parents etc. but there is no way to measure wether we see the exact same colour as each other, we can only measure that we see a colour that we name the same thing

lets assume that the shade of colour you call red is the colour i see the grass, but i have been told it is called green ... and the colour you see that big red traffic light , in my eyes and to my understanding is still red but in terms of shade to you would look like what i would term aqua ??

haha i have a feeling that didnt come out well ... make sense of it if you can ...
but do you see what im saying anyone? there is no way to tell that we see the same colours just that we call them the same things ... we could go further to suggest that the way we describe things we see may be very different in our eyes to everyone else but we have all been taught to refer to them and quantify them in the same way, a "shiny wall" to one if seen through their eyes by another may be what they would term a "dull wall"

and so it goes on and on and on ...

not like even if this could be answered it would make any difference to the world .. but still interesting to think about ..
haha

Written by Graveshift on 15.10.2006 at 21:23

Here is something i thought about when i was quite young and never managed to get an answer (lets hope i can explain it sufficiently)

ok its about colours .. and sight ..
as a species we see in what we term colour. we define this colour in various ways eg. Blue, Green, Bright, Dark, Shiny, Dull etc.

now what is to say that what i have been told is blue and is called blue by the rest of society is not what you may see as what i would call pink?
who says we all see the same colours in the same places ?
we are told what colours are called at schools and by parents etc. but there is no way to measure wether we see the exact same colour as each other, we can only measure that we see a colour that we name the same thing

lets assume that the shade of colour you call red is the colour i see the grass, but i have been told it is called green ... and the colour you see that big red traffic light , in my eyes and to my understanding is still red but in terms of shade to you would look like what i would term aqua ??

haha i have a feeling that didnt come out well ... make sense of it if you can ...
but do you see what im saying anyone? there is no way to tell that we see the same colours just that we call them the same things ... we could go further to suggest that the way we describe things we see may be very different in our eyes to everyone else but we have all been taught to refer to them and quantify them in the same way, a "shiny wall" to one if seen through their eyes by another may be what they would term a "dull wall"

and so it goes on and on and on ...

You know, I have wondered the same thing for a long time. I also wonder why some people rather see blue, when other people rather see green. Is it because they see a different colour? or maybe it is just that every human feel their own emotions towards every colour.

Scientifically I can give you an easy answer. In our eyes we have tiny cones and tiny bars. If I remember correctly the cones give the signals for white and black light, when the bars give the signals for colours. There are three types of bars, which all give one of the three mayor colours. So when you see red object then a red light falls on your eyes. The bars register the red light. The bars who say "red light" send a signal to your brains. You see the bar is red. From this definition we can say that everyone sees the same colour, because the impulses come from an external object(the red object).

However, that is all pure based on scientific facts. However, there is still an emptiness in the science how our brains turn the signal into a colour. so, it is a bit doubtful to see this as a fact(yet).

I do believe we all see the same colour, partly because of what science has discovered about the subject. but also because it would be so weird if people see different colours. Because light doesn't change, and light is the thing that gives everything a colour, not ourselves.

Written by AntaeusM on 16.10.2006 at 03:49

Scientifically I can give you an easy answer. In our eyes we have tiny cones and tiny bars. If I remember correctly the cones give the signals for white and black light, when the bars give the signals for colours. There are three types of bars, which all give one of the three mayor colours. So when you see red object then a red light falls on your eyes. The bars register the red light. The bars who say "red light" send a signal to your brains. You see the bar is red. From this definition we can say that everyone sees the same colour, because the impulses come from an external object(the red object).

that makes sense ...
i tried to answer it as the fact that vision is based on light and that colours are supposedly when only 1 colour or part of the light can reflect from something whilst the others are osorbed (therefore white is an abscence of colours and black absorbes them all)
(i hope thats right haha ... might be the other way round though .. )

anyhow with this one refraction of light passing through into our eyes it seems that we should all see teh same shade etc. of that light ...

however that does not account for how our minds interpret colours or anything like that (or damage to the eyes or brain resulting in loss of vision, or simply being colour blind)
and so it is still an interesting point to thinkabout ...


and as for colour preferences, i would guess that it is all just how we are brought up and such in society and the way our personality developes ..
such as a 5 year old girl may say her favourite colour is pink because she has been brought up with the imagery (andpossibly self-perception) of good little normal girls liking pink .. etc. etc.

The 3rd question always atttack me, at the point that i don't even care about this world...

Written by Vinnie R. on 11.01.2008 at 09:02

Quote:

Are thoughts and conciousness just electrial signals between nerve cells in your brain? If so would emotions just be cold shocks in our heads?

The 3rd question always atttack me, at the point that i don't even care about this world...

I know what you're talking about; I often feel the same way. Here is an idea:

Suppose you had some kind of x-ray vision so that you could see the electrical activity within a man's brain. Suppose now that you watched those electrical patterns shift and change as this man saw a woman and fell in love with her. Would you have the feeling of falling in love just by watching the electrical patterns in the man's brain?

There is a difference between understanding how an experience happens, and actually having the experience. Science can tell us what love looks like on a CAT scan, but we can only know what love actually is by experiencing it for ourselves. This is also true of other sensations: colour, sound, feeling, taste. Can a deaf person hear music by learning how to play an instrument? Can a blind person see art by learning how to paint? Can we truly understand the nature of experience by learning about the human brain?

We are somehow much more than the lump of nerve cells that floats inside our skulls. Yet how biological material is able to give rise to self-awareness is one of life's great mysteries.

well has anyone had that feeling when you thinnk about the concept of life and you start to feel weird, when you think about having a body and a mind. then you think about not existing, what would it be like? just you and your mind floating around in nothing - no air no body no light noone else. i do this alot and it really freaks me out when i think about the person i am, and how i could easily have been someone/something/nothing else

Written by Necrogeddon on 25.03.2008 at 15:15

well has anyone had that feeling when you thinnk about the concept of life and you start to feel weird, when you think about having a body and a mind. then you think about not existing, what would it be like? just you and your mind floating around in nothing - no air no body no light noone else. i do this alot and it really freaks me out when i think about the person i am, and how i could easily have been someone/something/nothing else

You do not truly understand what you are contemplating; that is why it frightens you. I will share some ideas. You must first remember that it is difficult to think about nothing. Where there is nothing, there can be no thought, no mind, no self. Not existing is profoundly calm, like the most relaxing sleep imaginable. In such a state there is no emotion, not even fear! So why are you afraid?

As for being someone or something else, I too have considered this. But after many years I have come to the conclusion that this is wrong thinking. The questions is not "why am I me?" but rather "who am I?" There is no point asking the first question until we can answer the second one. Do you know who you are?

The question After death... has always been a scary thing for me.

It's not the death itself... Death will come for us all.. that's for sure.. but after that?
WHAT?
I think about when I sleep.
When a person sleep... they don't have any kind of thoughts [at least if you're dreaming...]
But in the normal cases.. you can feel anything... You can sense the time.. you just now that you sleeped because you awaked!!!

I suddenly I though... "ok... if I die... and it feels like some people says : "It will be like a endless sleep..."
What kind of existence is that?!.... we die... and then, nothing at all.. And I mean.. just nothing... so... If there's nothing left... How do you now that we are alive right now?

I hope that my crappy english is still good enough to understand...
Anyway.. that's why I can't believe that after death comes nothing.... It have to be something else after that...

Written by [user id=5630] on 26.09.2006 at 00:04

My own mindfuck, spanning across several confusing concepts:

It is said that god created the universe. If god created the universe, who created god? Did create himself, or did god create herself? The bible always talked about god in the sense that god was a male, but what if god was a female? One cannot verify this because no one has seen god face-to-face, therefore, we don't know what gender god is. Also adding to the confusion is that god "created humans in his image". This could imply that god created both male and female humans in his image, so this might imply that god is a hermaphrodite, or a human with both male and female sexual organs and characteristics. However, this might not be the case at all. What if god has no gender to begin with, and is just an object, which as we know is simply referred to as "it"? Bas2 has this theory long ago that god was a chair and that Jesus was a tree. Could this be true? Could god and Jesus be as simple of objects as chairs and trees?

Another thing I keep thinking about is the concept brought up by astronomers in that "we are made of star stuff", because we are made of elements that were made in the cores of stars. This "star stuff" was once a part of the universe, so I thought: are we the universe trying to understand itself, or is the universe trying to understand what it created (us)? This might also imply that the universe is personified, that it possesses human characteristics. If we could ask the universe questions if it were human, what might we ask it, and how?

I'll try to remember more when I get the time.

I think this is interesting.
Because it remind me of something I learnt in a seminar. Its not really related to what you said, maybe indirectly, at best. The thing is: translators have manipulated the genre of god. There are several examples of bible translations where the translator chose consciously to register God as a female person. Of course this was a feminist approach to translation lol And this happened during those waves everybody is sick of hearing about. They didnt translate it just to be different, they had theories that supported the choice of the female genre, apparently it was because of the word's etimology.
I just think its funny how the Bible can be manipulated and the core of western culture changed just by changing the genre of God. Everything could've been so different, if the people who translated the Bible had changed this not so insignificant detail. I don't think many people realise that translation has such an important role, take the bible as an example. (I'm not just saying this because I study translation, I really think its a relevant) There's even a Manipulation School, in translation, that studies these kinds of things.

Anyway, God is seen as a male person because it was translated from the "Vulgata" , translated from the hebrew into Latin, as a male person. And its that version that was later translated to several other languages. I'm not an expert though. I'm not saying it should be male or female, I just think its interesting to think about, what is the reason behind all that.

Sorry if I bored you to death, I had this inside of me and never really said it to anyone or managed to write it down coherently.

Here are my biggest mindfucks that have put me in deep thought for 5 1/2 minutes - how the fuck do you milk a soy bean? If dogs can have periods, can hamsters menstruate as well? If an African Chimpanzee comes to America, is it an African-American Chimpanzee? If ketchup is good on french fries and hashbrowns, how come it isn't good on mashed potatoes? Why is it considered gay to skip instead of walk? It's so fun! ARRRRGH MY BRAIN...IT HURTS SO BAD.

@Insineratehymn - "god is a hermaphrodite"...hahaahahahaha I know you were being serious, but it still was awesome.

Written by Dangerboner on 26.03.2008 at 00:34

If ketchup is good on french fries and hashbrowns, how come it isn't good on mashed potatoes?

WTF?!
Hey dude.. I eat mashed potatoes with ketchup u.u
It's not bad!!!! xD

The chimpance thing was hilarious btw...

"The human brain is hundred of times more effecient than a computer. Considering the computer makes no mistakes, why do we?"
This reminds me one that I use to ask religious people: according to the bible god, the perfect being, created us.. supposedly a perfect being does NOT create imperfect things. so why are we? of course I don't believe all that stuff, but I like to confront religious ones with that question, and make them think about it.

Written by Dark Blood on 03.04.2008 at 02:27

"The human brain is hundred of times more effecient than a computer. Considering the computer makes no mistakes, why do we?"
This reminds me one that I use to ask religious people: according to the bible god, the perfect being, created us.. supposedly a perfect being does NOT create imperfect things. so why are we? of course I don't believe all that stuff, but I like to confront religious ones with that question, and make them think about it.

Why would you say that God is perfect? We have free will. We make mistakes due to free will, and due to the fact that we are not perfect, and because we learn from our mistakes.
Who said that God doesn't create imperfect beings? You're basically trying to say that you think we should all be Gods, absolutely perfect. What do you think we're striving for in the first place, with all our learning? Like everything else we try to be the best we can be. God's the same. I reckon he/she's a culmination of all knowledge and understanding that is researched and derived from us. In a sense we have created God in sentiment and in reality - the whole "we're all one" deal.
And just like a celebrity in the physical world, we create and build up only to bring them down and use them as a Scapegoat when we feel the need.
In a sense I feel that people who revert to shunning the idea of God whenever they feel an injustice has been done are using God and religion as a crutch just as much as evangelical Christians do.

Satanists harp on about God and the Devil just as much as Christians do. They both use it as a crutch to feel more empowered - one side by saying that they are better than, the other side by saying that they are worse than. One by focusing on the awesome power of self, the other by focusing on the awesome power of their creator. One doesn't like the idea of feeling imperfect and less than, so celebrates what they are. The other doesn't like the idea of feeling imperfect and less than, either, so they celebrate their source as a way to prove to themselves that they are better than they think, so it becomes a more indirect celebration. It's all about what state the person's ego was in to begin with. If they don't like themselves they will find comfort in the omniscient perfection of there own creator who is directly linked to them. If they know and love themselves they may be more inclined to feeling insulted that they are being told to focus on something else that shows them as comparatively less than.

Back to the point about the Scapegoat/crutch thing...At the end of the day this is a very unaware and unenlightened way of utilising the concept of God - however if it gets people through the day and helps them, I can't really judge. It's when it effects people's lives in detrimental and irreversible ways that the problem lies. At the end of the day both sides are needed for the ever-evolving consciousness and culture of humanity - whether you believe in him and her or not. Remember:
Culture = Humanity

I've said it before and I will no doubt say it again.

I said him and her because due to some incredibly odd and never-before experienced events relating to the number 333, I became a pagan a month ago.
God in my view is the absolute epitome of love and unity. In a sense you could say the bible was right - God created man in his own image - men and womyn. The only way to experience love, unity and creation is through the celebration of the differences and attractions of these two sides. That is why I believe God has a male and female psyche and is a master of this male and female psyche. Since the dawn of time all creation and evolution has been about two sides meeting. Even the very first DNA strand created by two helices [I'm trying to say the plural for helix, is this correct?]. Even every initial chemical compound is about the attraction of two elements that need to bond. I mention these two because the helix and the chemical compound were the beginnings of evolution itself. We can see these stages of evolution for ourselves simply by using a telescope and watching stars being shaped - with the repelling and attracting of important life giving elements that gave birth to the world we live in.

I'm not much of a religious person, despite how this post sounds. These are just my views pertaining to this subject.

Written by Nox Lux on 03.04.2008 at 03:07

...

Why would you say that God is perfect? We have free will. We make mistakes due to free will, and due to the fact that we are not perfect, and because we learn from our mistakes.
Who said that God doesn't create imperfect beings? You're basically trying to say that you think we should all be Gods, absolutely perfect. What do you think we're striving for in the first place, with all our learning? Like everything else we try to be the best we can be. God's the same. I reckon he/she's a culmination of all knowledge and understanding that is researched and derived from us. In a sense we have created God in sentiment and in reality - the whole "we're all one" deal.
And just like a celebrity in the physical world, we create and build up only to bring them down and use them as a Scapegoat when we feel the need.
In a sense I feel that people who revert to shunning the idea of God whenever they feel an injustice has been done are using God and religion as a crutch just as much as evangelical Christians do.

Satanists harp on about God and the Devil just as much as Christians do. They both use it as a crutch to feel more empowered - one side by saying that they are better than, the other side by saying that they are worse than. One by focusing on the awesome power of self, the other by focusing on the awesome power of their creator. One doesn't like the idea of feeling imperfect and less than, so celebrates what they are. The other doesn't like the idea of feeling imperfect and less than, either, so they celebrate their source as a way to prove to themselves that they are better than they think, so it becomes a more indirect celebration. It's all about what state the person's ego was in to begin with. If they don't like themselves they will find comfort in the omniscient perfection of there own creator who is directly linked to them. If they know and love themselves they may be more inclined to feeling insulted that they are being told to focus on something else that shows them as comparatively less than.

Back to the point about the Scapegoat/crutch thing...At the end of the day this is a very unaware and unenlightened way of utilising the concept of God - however if it gets people through the day and helps them, I can't really judge. It's when it effects people's lives in detrimental and irreversible ways that the problem lies. At the end of the day both sides are needed for the ever-evolving consciousness and culture of humanity - whether you believe in him and her or not. Remember:
Culture = Humanity

I've said it before and I will no doubt say it again.

I said him and her because due to some incredibly odd and never-before experienced events relating to the number 333, I became a pagan a month ago.
God in my view is the absolute epitome of love and unity. In a sense you could say the bible was right - God created man in his own image - men and womyn. The only way to experience love, unity and creation is through the celebration of the differences and attractions of these two sides. That is why I believe God has a male and female psyche and is a master of this male and female psyche. Since the dawn of time all creation and evolution has been about two sides meeting. Even the very first DNA strand created by two helices [I'm trying to say the plural for helix, is this correct?]. Even every initial chemical compound is about the attraction of two elements that need to bond. I mention these two because the helix and the chemical compound were the beginnings of evolution itself. We can see these stages of evolution for ourselves simply by using a telescope and watching stars being shaped - with the repelling and attracting of important life giving elements that gave birth to the world we live in.

I'm not much of a religious person, despite how this post sounds. These are just my views pertaining to this subject.

I get what you're writing about here. Well said. (Except the 333 part... could you explain?)

u know , sth in this world and your life are intricate . but my offer to you or every one is : this life doesnt have any esteem and we must free with creed and tenet and try to make good life in this world . I think , maybe this idea not good but in my mind this is only way to unlearn about anythin

just obey these: make good ( word , thought , comportment )

OK, here's mine:
Society:
Those stores that are open 24 hours a day, Why do they have locks on their doors? And why is it that after midnight all the TV channels just show infomercials? I mean, are there people doing TV shopping at 3 AM? Why are alcohol and tobacco legal in most countries but most other recreational drugs illegal? What makes them different from the others? Whenever anyone is an expert at something they always complain about being misunderstood and wonder why everybody else doesn't know enough about their subject . . . if they're so smart, why isn't this obvious to them? And why is everyone always talking about sex?
Science:
I can see why Africans might be dark skinned, and why Eskimos have more body fat, but can anyone explain how evolution led to Asians having thinner eyes? If ants aren't severely affected by minor temperature changes, why do they dig anthills in such sophisticated ways to preserve the same temperature? Does P=NP?
Metal:
Why is it that most bands' best album is their first? Wouldn't it stand to reason that they would do better with some more experience? Why is dark, evil, painfully dissonant music so inspiring? Why do people singing about loving me make me hate them so much and vice-versa? Why does bad metal sell so much better than anything decent? Why do grindcore bands often show feces on their album covers? I mean, I can see feces whenever I want to just looking at my toilet bowl.