What can you tell us of Tomseltje? What is his geography and time? — Athena

He's a member of tpf, I just appreciated his contribution.

Concerning negativities and biases, there was a study conducted to investigate whether our lives at present is much improved compared to the 18-19th centuries. (I don't remember the name of the study or the link to it.) The study goes on to show that the number of rapes has gone down by almost 80-90% but the reason we don't see it that way is because our awareness of even the little that is occurring is so much greater. Basically, the study goes on to say that the average person is much safer at present than in those old days but because our awareness of current affairs is so much improved, it often feels like we're dealing with crime and violence all the time. (I think the study refers primarily to those countries whose governments have a semblance of stability, which is most of them.)

Anyway, my point is, it is easy to get worked up when focusing on the negatives but, the level of human interaction we have achieved is such that even those who do not attend school are capable of knowing which direction to head towards in terms of morality, destiny, profession, etc. The main problem is not institutions but the values which the average human chooses. Yes, governments and institutions do play their part in directing people but, they are run by people who must have proper values in the first place. We've replaced humility with popularity, discipline with ambition, intelligence with victory, etc both in home values and institutions. And, what most people won't agree to, is that, home values are more important because the young and impressionable humans are sent from home into those institutions. How come those caring care-givers don't question the institutions? And before we get into parents and care-givers trusting the institutions, remember that it's parents and care-givers who work at those institutions.

What I'm saying is, the short-sightedness is a symptom of a collective ignorance which is being alleviated at the speed at which we can move. It is not a fast pace but most of us are not that fast either. Very few humans are intelligent enough, with the capacity to accumulate enough resources in time to change the small environment around them. And, unfortunately, instead of the rest of humanity rallying behind them and their efforts, they would rather sit back and receive the benefits instead of work even harder when incentive is given.
It's a universal disease and it will take a while before the patients can heal themselves. But, the fact of it is that, undoubtedly, there is progress.

Allow me to use the Buddha's teachings to show how perspective can be reconciled.

(From Vinayapitaka, The Book of of the Discipline volume 1, Suttavibhanga)

Then the brahmin of Veranja came up to the lord, and having come up he exchanged friendly greetings
with the lord, and having exchanged friendly greetings he sat down to one side. As he was sitting to one side, the brahmin of Veranja spoke thus to the lord:

I have heard, good Gotama, that the recluse Gotama does not greet brahmins who are worn, old, stricken in years, who have lived their span and are at the close of their life; nor does he stand up or ask them to sit down. Likewise, good Gotama, that the revered Gotama does not greet brahmins who are worn, old, stricken in years, who have lived their span and are at the close of their life; nor does he greet them or stand up or ask them to sit down. Now this, good Gotama, this is not respectful,

said the brahmin.

Brahmin, I do not see him in the world of devas including the Maras, including the Brahmas, including recluses and brahmins, of creatures including devas and mankind, whom I should greet or rise up for or to whom I should offer a seat. For, brahmin, whom a tathagata should greet or rise up for or offer a seat to, his head would split asunder,

said Gotama.

The revered Gotama is without the quality of taste,

he (the brahmin) said.

There is indeed, brahmin, a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama is without the quality of taste. For, brahmin, tastes for forms, tastes for sounds, tastes for scents, tastes for savours, tastes for tangible objects — these have been destroyed by the tathagata, cut off at the root like a palm-tree, they are so utterly done away with that they are not able to come into future existence. This, brahmin, is a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama is without the quality of taste. But surely you did not mean that,

he (Gotama) said.

The revered Gotama is without enjoyment,

he (the brahmin) said.

There is indeed, brahmin, a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama is without enjoyment. For, brahmin, enjoyments of forms, enjoyments of sounds, enjoyments of scents, enjoyments of savours, enjoyments of tangible objects — these have been destroyed by the tathagata, cut off at the root like a palm-tree, they are so utterly done away with that they are not able to come into future existence. This, brahmin, is a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama is without enjoyment. But surely you did not mean that,

he (Gotama) said.

The revered Gotama professes the doctrine of non-action,

he (the brahmin) said.

There is indeed, brahmin, a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama professes the doctrine of non-action. For I, brahmin, teach the non-doing of offences of body, speech and thought. I teach the non-doing of manifold evil and wrong states. This indeed, brahmin, is a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama professes the doctrine of non-action. But surely you did not mean that,

he (Gotama) said.

The revered Gotama professes the doctrine of annihilation,

he (the brahmin) said.

There is indeed, brahmin, a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama professes the doctrine of annihilation. For I, brahmin, speak of the annihilation of passion, of hatred and of confusion; I speak of the annihilation of manifold evil and wrong states. This indeed, brahmin, is a way in which one speaking truly of me could say: The recluse Gotama professes the doctrine of annihilation. But surely you did not mean that.

The chapter goes on to give a few more examples but, that is what I get from our discussion, that, we know what is significant but we're approaching it from different perspectives.

If there's such a thing as human nature then we all know how forceful we are. We want to achieve, we want to succeed, we want to win, etc. It's likely that the Tao cautions against such extremes. — TheMadFool

What do we want to achieve, to succeed at, to win? The great Tao teaches what we must direct our activities so that we achieve, succeed and win that which is true. The great Tao teaches humans against achievements, success and winning that are against others (the losers). It teaches that we can achieve, succeed and win for all, ourselves and all others collectively and comprehensively. It teaches that such endeavours are subtle, harmonious, unifying, freeing, and unknown to those who seek dominion or superiority over others.

Yet, couldn't we ask that the Tao itself, if it is the source of all things, made us to be so and wouldn't it be against the Tao if we were to do anything different? — TheMadFool

The great Tao teaches that our nature is neither good nor evil because IT (the source which begot everything) is neither good nor evil. Here good and evil are opposites, one implying absence of the other. The great Tao is the source of everything, the source of the power which humans misuse, the source of the wisdom which is obscured by our greed and lusts, the source of the challenges and the victories over them. By free will, we (humans) have the power to achieve anything, so the better question would be, "why do we allow ourselves to suffer?"

I think the source of misunderstanding is always perspective. I feel like we have the same message but are seeing it from different viewpoints.

The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine. — Tomseltje

:up: :ok:

If the starting premise is that God is omnipotent, then it can't be followed up by an if "he creates a stone he can't lift." Because the second premise is contrary to the assertion of the first. However, if the premise begins with 'there's a stone that God can't lift', regardless of how the stone came into existence, then that God is not omnipotent.

The problem with this argument is that it asserts an omnipotent God, whose omnipotence then declines into doubt in relation to a supposedly immovable stone without showing how or why God's power changed or the stone was imbued with an absolute quality. Unless, of course, there's another influence that can lift the stone.

My second query is with the definition of 'create' employed. Does it imply create in the human sense that the raw materials are already available or in the absolute sense that the object is made distinct within God's being as a relative existence. In the first case, that God is not omnipotent; in the second, that God is omnipotent and has absolute ability including the capacity to lift the stone.

Omnipotency is only about what can be done. Any other option and it fails to define omnipotency.

I believe the stone paradox, as with all paradoxes, to be founded on faulty premises.

Passiveness is foundational to the Tao. I don't know why though. — TheMadFool

Please allow me to share my thoughts on this, it is a subject I'm very fond of.

It is not necessarily a passiveness because in terms of focus, concentration, scope and application of intelligence, etc, for example, as shown in meditation and other yoga practices, the activities can be very intense. But in terms of interaction with others, the idea is to avoid unnecessary influence or going to excesses.

3:21. - What the best one is doing, the others are doing as well: people follow such an example.
3:22. - There is nothing, O Partha, in the three worlds that I am required to do or that I have not achieved! Yet, I am constantly engaged in action.
3:23. - For, if I had not been always acting, O Partha, then people everywhere would follow My example!
3:24. - The world would be destroyed if I had ceased to act!

(From the Bhagavad Gita.)
- This shows something about the active (constant) nature of non-action.

3:26. The wise one should not confuse unwise people attached to earthly activity! The wise one should try to bring such activity into harmony with Me.

(From the Bhagavad Gita.)
- This reflects on the nature of the activity, subtle and non-conflicting.
(I like to include other sources of spiritual info especially the Bhagavad Gita.)

10. ...(The Tao) produces (all things) and nourishes them; it produces
them and does not claim them as its own; it does all, and yet does not
boast of it; it presides over all, and yet does not control them.
This is what is called 'The mysterious Quality' (of the Tao).

(From The Tao Te Ching.)

34. - All-pervading is the Great Tao! It may be found on the left hand and on the right.
All things depend on it for their production, which it gives to them, not one refusing obedience to it. When its work is accomplished, it does not claim the name of having done it. It clothes all things as with a garment, and makes no assumption of being their lord;--it may be named in the smallest things. All things return (to their root and disappear), and do not know that it is IT which presides over their doing so; it may be named in the greatest things.
Hence the sage is able (in the same way) to accomplish his great achievements. It is through his not making himself great that he can accomplish them.

(From The Tao Te Ching.)

"Therefore the Master
can act without doing anything
and teach without saying a word."

What does it mean to act without doing anything? And how does he teach without saying a word? — Form

I think it is a commentary on the perception of the absolute (the great Tao) from the perspective of relativity.

By master is meant one who has cognized the great Tao. Cognize here means to know or understand something as a part of one's consciousness (not just a mental perception). Therefore, the master is one who is one with the great Tao. And just as the great Tao contains everything within it so also the master replicates such activity in consciousness. That is, the master is one with everything too. Because of this, the master cannot say one or a few words, and cannot do one or a few activities because to represent everything the master has to say and do everything, otherwise there would be limitation and, consequently, a kind of bias. So, just as the great Tao (reality or God) acts in all of us and in everything through nature but it itself remains unchanged, so also the master acts. Non-doing is that activity (transformation or change) which results in sameness (absolute unity and harmony). Such a state of unity is often spoken of as attaining the silence or stillness and it seems like non-action (also used in the Bhagavad Gita) to those immersed in relativity.

For example, in analogy though somewhat deficient in its explanation, even though we are moving in space around the sun and the solar system is moving in space within the galaxy,... we are not aware of such motion from our earthly perspective. But we know of such movement from its influences on us and our environment. So also we know a master acts from the influence of those non-actions (unapparent actions).

Everything I know starts with "I" and then "I AM". I may not know everything about myself but the only certainty I have is that "I" am, regardless of whether the nature of my existence is real or illusion. My knowledge is just a relationship between my experience of "I" and that which is not "I". For me, logic is just the path of least chaos or the tool of best fit, so I trust it implicitly.

A Quantum is a particle or a wave? — Towers

Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

Therefore, from A is A, we get quantum entity=quantum entity. The conditioning does not alter the identity. Also, the only problem in that query is the means of defining a quantum entity. They (quantum entities) are and have always been what they are. That we can't distinctly determine their nature does not mean they're illogical, only that our methods thus far have not been successful.

Well there is a bit of A is A but also B but not at the same time, I don't have the preparation to explain it better, I'm sorry, I studied it but my explanation are not exhaustive. — Towers

The law of identity just states that A is A. The law of non-contradiction states that A is not and cannot be Not-A (the Not-A could be anything from B to Z as long as it's not A). The law of excluded middle states that A is A and cannot be Not-A, or anything in between. As far as I'm concerned there is no sense of conflation.

Still, you didn't answer, you believe that things exist in both material and immaterial ways, right? — Towers

Right.

Anyway the A is A and not B is a bit of a deal with Quantum physics, like ThaMadFool said before, how do we fix it? — Towers

I haven't met any deal to speak of.

So you are sure that there is a material or practical level of existence?
How do you know that? — Towers

By practical I mean having utility or being functional, and both the material and immaterial have proved to be that.

I was wondering if that logic can be doubted, if I correctly use it in syllogism for example, will I get the most correct conclusion or one of many possible and neither correct nor wrong conclusions? — Towers

I find that logic to work in all cases.

You mean the laws of nature right? — Towers

Not explicitly. I used "the principles which govern the working of reality" because reality applies to everything that is, regardless of conditioning.

I believe the laws of logic as derived by Aristotle to be valid and comprehensive. They are:

1. The law of identity.
2. The law of non-contradiction.
3. The law of excluded middle.

Plato's ideas don't exist in a material sense — Towers

Then in what sense do they exist, and how do they relate to a Plato who also has a material presence?
I believe the significance of the materiality or immateriality of objects/subjects is dependent on their practical value. That practical value can make immaterial factors to be empirical and material factors to be theoretical. For me, the conditioning does not exclude the unity of everything just like in our lives we employ both the material and immaterial.

P.S. You mentioned gravity, but what if there is nothing outside thoughts and everything we experience is an illusion? What if I don't exist? — Towers

Then, where would the thoughts and illusions exist?

can we be certain that the laws of logic are valid? Or is logic to be taken as an absolute a priori? — Towers

Depends on what is meant by logic.
If by logic we mean rationale or reason then it becomes subjective and dependent on perspective. This is because we can rationalize or reason out anything depending on the factors we give precedence to over others (priority), or in accordance with how we evaluate significance and meaning.

If by logic we mean the principles which govern the working of reality, then we refer to laws which are absolute in their unity and harmony and which cannot be transcended (altered or undone) by any phenomena because they are strict and unyielding in their domains.

The stone paradox may be considered a thought experiment. It's a rational argument against the concept of omnipotence. — TheMadFool

It refers to omnipotence from human perspective. It is not about if God is omnipotent or not, but whether we (humans) can understand omnipotence. And, furthermore, it is not strictly logical, in the sense that, it does not define its parameters distinctly, making it like a layman's argument. Like I said, if the argument is about an omnipotent God, then, inability would not be a factor. To have an absolute aspect represented relatively is fallacious to the definition of the terms themselves.

Also, sidebar, paradox implies deviation from logic.

''God doesn't'' implies an ability to choose but the stone paradox demonstrates his inability i.e. ''God can't" — TheMadFool

You speak as if the stone paradox is fact. God's abilities are just as speculative as God's inabilities. How can there be any definite conclusions about them?

Omnipotency is impossible. — TheMadFool

How and why?

In my view, atheism is mainly the rejection of superstition. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, that's my point; that superstition superseded atheism, and that the presence of superstition contradicts atheism in some way.

Your talking about the different variations of atheism. — hachit

My point is, even before theism (or organised religions) there was a kind of universal (maybe even objective) acceptance of superstition. Also, the modern day version of atheism is different from the ancient version primarily because of that point. That is, ancient atheism had an acceptance of superstition and its related paradigms, including what were the origins of spiritualism and religions, and that makes it different from what we now understand as atheism.

What am I missing? — Inis

I'm just saying that even before belief in gods, there was belief in supernatural phenomena e.g. spirits, angels, demons, elementals, etc. Aren't such beliefs also contrary to atheism?

I think it's close but not quite because paganism also involves a kind of deism.

Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong? — VoidDetector

I feel like 'atheism' is the wrong word to use considering our inclinations to believe in supernatural (beyond the norm and unlike the norm) phenomena is and has been an intrinsic part of our thoughts and emotions because part of seeking to learn what we don't know is expecting to find that which we don't know. Perhaps 'supernaturalism' is a better fit.

Before the New Order World, we had family order, and I think the New World Order is about serving the beast, not the family. I mention this because the beast is mentioned in the Bible. We are warned against the beast and yet we seem to be supporting it 100%. — Athena

I think the beast represents the ways of association along the lines of bias (such as racial, cultural and historical, economic, social, religious, geographic, sexual, mental, emotional, physical, etc) especially when unity and harmony is not the main aim of these interactions.
Personally, I think, as a collective humanity, we're at that point in development where we are becoming aware of our biases and negativities. We have managed to come up with a few quick solutions or ideas to alleviate some of them (the biases and negativities) but we're not yet ready to undertake the main 'cleansing' process. The best we can do now is ensure those who depend on us for wisdom and direction understand the plan and continue with the preparations. At the moment, the inertia (which is a natural part of all motion) within certain factions and individuals seems to mask the collective progress but only outwardly and, at best, is just a momentary setback.

I am more inclined to accept the esoteric spiritual teachings on consciousness and mind. That means, I think the mind is a part of consciousness which has a particular function or utility (call it reasoning, thinking, mentation, etc). By my understanding, fundamentally, consciousness is the energy which defines the 'self'. This would mean that any faculty we possess is a part of consciousness and that our existence is itself consciousness.

The stone paradox rests on something God cannot do viz. either his inability to lift the stone or inability to create one. — TheMadFool

When you mention omnipotency, it negates inability in any and every way. So, why and how do you arrive at a stone that can't be lifted? If God is omnipotent, then He exists in a realm where His power is absolute. Any contrary conditions and they do not refer to an omnipotent God.

What I respond to most enthusiastically when I read the Bible or other religious works (Christian or other) are general principles that I can understand and carry with me and apply according to whatever dim wisdom I have. — Bitter Crank

I believe it's the intelligent way since it reflects self-discipline and personal responsibility over one's endeavours.

By truth I mean the factual. Factual claims. — Andrew4Handel

In common use, the terms facts and truth are very fluid in their definitions. Personally, I define truth as the part of reality that is constant and unchangeable; and fact is a statement which defines status or the state of a circumstance. I think facts can change with change in circumstances while the truth never does. This is one of the problems I have in relating fact to truth. Because of this, I also don't consider people's claims as truths.
Therefore, on the query of contradictions vs truth, I think facts are obscured by contradictions but the truth remains untouched.

What do you think is true in the bible. It seems like you are prevaricating. And if something is true in the bible what is it and why is it true? — Andrew4Handel

You're the one who brought up the notion of contradictions and truth. My questions to you are attempts to find out what you mean by truth and how you determine their relation to the contradictions.

You opened the door for that comment by inferring a goal should be to develop our own faith. — Athena

Yeah, I believe developing faith is similar to developing understanding. And part of it is, as you say, realising the relation between the abstract and the concrete.

What is your idea of how to judge truth? — Athena

Truth for me is in seeking and learning that which in reality is constant and unchangeable.

I am afraid those who think they can know absolute truth are absolutely dangerous. — Athena

True. There's a question, "how can relative existence (such as humans) claim possession of any absoluteness (knowledge of truth). I think the best tool to uncover truth with is logic, patience and constant effort. Because we're limited, we should avoid the pretense of attaining to absolutes. This makes our values just as fluid as our nature, and why should it be any different?

Contradictory claims abut the same topic leading to confusion. — Andrew4Handel

I think if people perform their due diligence of employing their reasoning faculties then the confusion fades away. And it begins with knowing what one is looking for. If the confusion arises from some relation to truth, then one must know what truth is for them to know what truth isn't.
If the confusion arises from different statements, given by different people at different times, in different circumstances, etc, then I think it should have very little inconvenience for one who is unbiased in their criticism and open to all reasonable interpretations.

Agreed. I find people who find fault with scriptures are at fault themselves for not evaluating the nature of what they're extracting from those scriptures. Most people can't give an absolute definition for truth, yet they want to accuse the scriptures for not portraying that truth they do not fully understand. And often they're the first to claim falsity in others.

My primary question is how truth can exist with contradictions. — Andrew4Handel

Contradictions in what? Statements may have truth value but are not truth in themselves, are they?

Contradictions are most problematic for people who believe in Biblical infallibility. — Andrew4Handel

Why should the bible be infallible? Doesn't that point to God and not the humans who wrote the bible?

But then they claim their interpretation is true — Andrew4Handel

Again, what is true? Or truth?

By 'lift' do you mean against gravity or what?
And what do you mean by create, it sounds like compiling material to add to their collective weight.

My question is, "how can God bring anything to existence without manifesting absolute control over it?" There seems to be some conflation between human's relative potency and God's supposed omnipotency.

What do you mean by "interpret"? And what, exactly, are you interpreting? — tim wood

As you read, the words and sentences are being converted into a narrative in your mind by your understanding. That is what I mean by interpretation. This means that whatever report is in the bible (scriptures) must be given a reasonable and critical processing before its value can be determined.

As I've mentioned (in the previous post), the contradictions are fact. Yet, they do not diminish the value of the scriptural narratives. The contradictions are just a proof of human participation. Only those who wish to direct ridicule or scorn to God seem to dwell on them. Ask those same people if they believe in God, or who/what God is, and their silence or lack of logical responses would be quite uninspiring.

sorry - got my threads mixed up - mea culpa and I slink back into my hole — Rank Amateur

It's a good question so allow me to provide a reply.

Where do you want to go from there ? — Rank Amateur

The contradictions are fact. However, the bible is not a collection of historical or scientific facts. The main aim of the scriptures is to teach morality which it does to a very high degree of success. Other factors are at best 'filler material'. In fact, we could ignore the 'who said' and 'when it was said' part and the 'what was said' would still qualify as proper moral teachings.

I believe those who get stuck at the contradictions are the type who are inclined to believe God exists because the bible says so. They forget they have a duty to themselves to question everything and to analyse everything in order to extract what is significant and useful. So the question to ask is, "what significance do the contradictions have in light of the purpose of the bible and its narratives?"

There are many reasons why statements from different people would be contradicting, the better question would be, are their teachings in contrast? — Queen Cleopatra

Apparently, for some people, it doesn't matter why the statements might contradict as long as they do. Why should reasons matter?

It seems the reality the priest is faced with is that this is what most of us want to do most of the time, and if the priest rocks that boat too much he won't have a congregation. — Jake

At least the priests have their priorities in order.

And then the priest has to get another job, cause there's little market for getting down to business. — Jake

I wish. It's more like the priest keeps saying the same things over and over again until... Oh, wait, they're not done yet. And that's the downfall of religion - that, beyond the bible (scriptural) teachings, most people do not want to take the necessary efforts to develop their own faith.

Those who seek faults find faults. There is also great wisdom to be found in the bible. I wonder, do the contradictions highlighted devalue or invalidate the wisdom? Or, do they reveal the extent to which the fallible human 'hand' is involved in the authorship of the bible?