Act of God?

[c7ityi_]

Moses wouldn't have been able to understand buddhism, since buddhism wouldn't have even existed back then, (dates back to about 563 BCE)

It does'nt matter if buddhism didn't exist back then. Moses knew that there was no god but the self within him.

If this is your entire case that people are mistaken as to 'god' really meaning 'self', then you've already lost.

It doesn't matter if I'm lost.

No offence but this is simple gibberish. It's starting to sound like the same inane babbling Yorda comes out with.

Of course.

The evidence would show that ancient people believed in external beings, (not their 'outer selves'), that controlled the weather, events and indeed existence itself.

Of course they did, but I'm not talking about those primitive humans, but the initiates among them who teached them.

These beings had names such as tiamat, yhwh, qetzecotl, apollo and so on - none of which meant, or had any relevance to, 'self'.

They're aspects of the self like colors are aspects of the light. There is nothing else.

So now you agree with me?

wow, you've crossed over to insanity!

Thus, to say it once again - the meaning of god related to an actual physical being, not "self", which in your own words they didn't even understand.

The bodies, like sun moon star, are bodies of the self. Clothes. Dresses.

We can then conclude that it is you who has misunderstood, created a mask and lost yourself to the meaning of 'god'.

We can then conclude that it is you who has misunderstood, created a mask and lost yourself to the meaning of 'god'.

By who and in relation to what? Is a rock considered to have a 'self' that is external to it because of contradiction with the will of it's real self? (whatever the hell that means)

Ahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Truly I tell you, a rock has a "SELF", just as a human has. It's just that humans are conscious of it. There's only one type of particles: two-pole ones. When you take two magnets and try to merge the north and north pole, they don't want to do it because they are not what they are. They don't want to unite, they want to remain what they are. Just as you defend yourself now, and you don't want to accept my ideas because you have found a person, a mask which you are happy with and want to show it. The real self is nothing-everything: Be not for or against.

This is known by the ones who know without showing.

From where does this come?

I tell you the truth; it comes where everything else comes from. Where all scientists and philosophers got their ideas from: the mind, the self, the center, the goal, the compressed everything...

What does this even mean? Shadows and ghosts?? Wtf?

Well, the person is a consequence of the body, it reflects the body because it is the body converted into a mental (in case you don't like the word spiritual) form.

No, it's a personally held fantasy of yours. From an evolutionary standpoint:

1) Man has many gods, (external beings)
2) Man realises one god will suffice (external being)
3) Man realises there's no need for gods and he might aswell just call himself god.

It does not work in the opposite direction.

That's quite an interresting paradigm. You think there has been many gods, but actually these gods are just parts of one thing, one god. The number 3 means that people realize that there is only the self. That is the god which they were separated from, from which they still are separated from.


In number 1 and 2, they are still separated from themselves, they have not reached their goal, so they imagine gods (goals, powers) which are external from them. People like Moses and Jesus knew that the "father" was within them.

Early people did not consider 'self' or shadows, ghosts and reflections, but actual physical external entities.

Those entities are reflections of their early state of consciousness. This is the way they understood the world, with figures.

As a result, as my last post pointed out, it is you who has misunderstood the meaning of 'god'. It doesn't in any way refer to 'self'. If you want a word to use for 'self', why not use... 'self' - like the following example shows:

Gods refer to various natural and psychological powers and laws. I use the word god when talking with people who understand the word god as god rather than the word self as god, to show that the self is the same what they think god is. To show that "I am the way truth and life". All of us.

Later, people will begin to understand the self, so they will see "self" in everything.

That's right, but that makes no sense to you, does it? You see god as a powerful entity (fantasy), but you think of the self as something whole different. But they are the same thing.

Don't use the word 'god', because you're talking about something in no way connected to 'self'.

You have lost connection to the self so you don't understand the connection

 

[c7ityi_]

Act of God, act of clouds, act of greenhouse gas, act of temperature and humidity, what's the difference?

The difference is your state of consciousness. The difference is the body. All creatures and things are not aware of themselves as much as a human is, so they only "express" a small part of themselves, and it looks like they behave differently.

Natural things don't act like a human, namely with an agenda or plan, it's simple cause and effect.

Humans are natural things. Humans couldn't understand the nature, it was separated and unknown to them, so they converted the unknown into figures which are more alike themselves, while still keeping the original idea.

The difference between causes and effects is that the causes are invisible while the effects are visible. The cause is in the actual indivisible present which has no duration, while the effects are in present memory and illusion of time.

 

[mis-t-highs]

yorda: what is with the new name, c7ityi_ it's a strange one.

 

[spidergoat]

I was wondering how calling nature God makes any difference, but it seems that the difference is that if God did it, we have to figure out the, presumably human, reason, but if nature did it, then there is no aspect of punishment.

The difference is your state of consciousness. The difference is the body. All creatures and things are not aware of themselves as much as a human is, so they only "express" a small part of themselves, and it looks like they behave differently.

Your comment about consciousness is interesting. I suggest that humans are aware of more than animals, but it's not of ourselves, it's awareness of culture, language, and symbols. We can be just as conscious as animals, but only if we give up living in a world of symbolic knowledge. Mostly, animals are much more conscious of their bodies and surroundings, hence the job of watchdog.

 

[spidergoat]

The difference between causes and effects is that the causes are invisible while the effects are visible. The cause is in the actual indivisible present which has no duration, while the effects are in present memory and illusion of time.

Causes and effects are inseparable. A cause may be invisible or not, and effects may be invisible or not. An effect becomes a cause of something else and so on, seamlessly into the future, (unless effects can preceed causes, which may also be possible).

 

[Raithere]

Do you think the ideas have connections to reality?

All ideas have a connection to reality. But to get at the meaning of your question, generally I have to say no I do not find god to be a viable concept. One can generalize the concept to the point where there are no obvious fallacies or contradictions but then the term either becomes vague to the point of meaninglessness or simply becomes an alternate word for nature.

~Raithere

 

[Paul299]

If I go outside with out covering my feet in the middle of a cold freeze and my feet freeze and my
toes rot away is that an act of God or is that an act of my own bad judgement and the way the
natural environment works.

Building a city were the ground sinks below sea level in a location were hurricanes have come
ashore for millions of years and building a wall that can not keep out the lake next to it that has a
water level above the city. This bad judgement on people part interacting with the natural world.


Luke 6: 46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what
he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man
building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the
torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who
hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the
ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its
destruction was complete."

 

[SnakeLord]

Moses knew that there was no god but the self within him.

You have absolutely no position to even claim such a thing. Skipping over whether there actually was a Moses or not, the biblical accounts certainly disagree with your modern opinion.

Of course.

Oh, lol.. you are Yorda. I shoulda known..

Of course they did

Thank you for agreeing with what my first post to you stated.

but I'm not talking about those primitive humans

I was. It was the very point of my response to your post. That primitive, (early), humans did not worship 'self' or any other strange "I'm god" notion that has arisen since, but external beings. I personally thought it was self evident. Oh well, we'll chalk it down to language barriers or maybe that your 'self' isn't in-tune with my 'self'.

They're aspects of the self like colors are aspects of the light. There is nothing else.

Well, I hereby await the support for your claims.

wow, you've crossed over to insanity!

Not exactly, I guess your 'self' just isn't awake yet.

The bodies, like sun moon star, are bodies of the self. Clothes. Dresses.

And you dare call me insane?

We can then conclude that it is you who has misunderstood, created a mask and lost yourself to the meaning of 'god'.

Quality retort. Is it too much to ask that you put a little effort into it and provide something slightly better than my own text, or was it just that you couldn't think of a response?

Truly I tell you

Don't be a muppet. Try "In my honest opinion".. It sounds less... naive.

There's only one type of particles: two-pole ones.

We've had this discussion before, (unfortunately), and - dare I say it - you're looking at everything in "black and white" while ignoring all the shades of grey. Your last examples were:

1) man and woman
2) hot and cold
3) up and down

What you seemingly don't realise is that things are a gradient, not "two poles" - as you have often tried to claim. There are men, women and also hermaphrodites, transsexuals etc. There is hot and cold, but there is also luke warm, freezing, boiling, and so on. However, I do agree that magnets repel each other. What has that got to do with my statement that early man worshipped external beings and not 'self'? Not a lot from what I can gather.

When you take two magnets and try to merge the north and north pole, they don't want to do it because they are not what they are.

Wtf? "they are not what they are"? How could anyone even say that with a straight face? Might I advise you buy a science book concerning this issue. Yes, even a kiddies science book will give accurate explanation as to why magnets repel each other - no Yorda, nothing to do with them "not being what they are".. lol.

they want to remain what they are

They.. 'want'? Are you implying that a magnet has feelings? What you've basically said to me here is that.. a magnet is not what it is, (a magnet is not a magnet), and it wont go near another magnet, (they repel each other), because it wants to remain as not being a magnet.

Just as you defend yourself now

Defend? No need.. Inform you you talk utter bollocks? Certainly.

and you don't want to accept my ideas because you have found a person, a mask which you are happy with and want to show it.

I'm sorry Yorda, but my not 'accepting' your 'ideas' has nothing to do with masks, being happy, or anything else along those lines. It has to do with the fact that sciences explanation for magnets repelling certainly sounds more credible, and has more sustainable evidence, than your 'idea' that a magnet is not a magnet and repels because it doesn't want to be a magnet.

This is known by the ones who know without showing.

What 'ones'? I asked you earlier when you claimed: "It is said..", as to who said. You failed to answer so kindly put answer these both together.. It is 'said' by whom, and known by whom?

I tell you the truth

Once again, please refrain from saying this. For some reason it makes me want to puke. You are in no position to even dare say such a thing. Kindly show some courtesy and change it to: "I tell you my opinion that I personally consider true".

Thnx.

Well, the person is a consequence of the body, it reflects the body because it is the body converted into a mental (in case you don't like the word spiritual) form.

Umm.. So, the person is a consequence of the brain? So like if my brain was unhappy, my face would express the chemicals sent out by my brain?

If so I can only wonder why you said: ghost, shadows, spiritual etc when you could have just said "brain" and avoided the confusion.

If you're saying that the body is a puppet for the brain, then I technically agree with you, (not that it is in any way relevant to my first post), but then you would be better off, imo, just saying: "the body is a puppet for the brain", instead of waffling all that shadow crap.

You think there has been many gods, but actually these gods are just parts of one thing, one god.

Actually not at all. I'm an atheist - if you didn't know, which would mean we run into a separate and long debate about whether such being or beings exist/ed. However, to avoid that because there are other threads where that can be done, I will merely state that from a historical standpoint you are clearly wrong. You might be under the personal impression or belief that 'these gods are just one thing, one god', but the worshippers were not - and therein is the entire point of my first post. To once again repeat it for the hard of hearing: from the earliest writings we see that man believed in many gods - external beings - not any 'self' belief that is more of a modern idea. You pointed out the buddhists, to which I stated buddhism is a young religion in comparison, to which you pretty much said 'fuck buddhism, Moses didn't believe in god' - which isn't much of an argument really.

You have infact even agreed with what I said twice now, but quickly move onto magnets and shadows to avoid acknowledging it. The hell with it, I'm going to repeat it once more..

"From the earliest writings we see that man believed in many gods - external beings - not any 'self' belief that is more of a modern idea."

The last time I got into this, you said: "of course they did, but I'm not talking about primitive people".

That agreeance suffices for me considering I was talking about these people, which was by and large pretty 'self' evident.

The number 3 means that people realize that there is only the self.

Ah, back to the drivelling shit.

In number 1 and 2, they are still separated from themselves, they have not reached their goal, so they imagine gods (goals, powers) which are external from them.

If this were the case, again you would be agreeing to what I said on my post. That the early people worshipped external beings, and not 'self'. Whether imaginary or otherwise. Now, Moses and Jesus got to level 3 and found 'self'. To go back to your original statement:

"God is known as another, less mis/understood, word: self. But people have created masks and lost themselves, and with that, the meaning of what is called "god" in religions."

From your own statements made here, it is evident to state that the word god originally would have referred to external beings, and not self - because these "primitive people" who you're not talking about, had no understanding of the 'self' belief and "of course they" imagined 'external beings' to worship - and thus that is what 'god' relates to, that is what it means. After that time people would have created 'self' masks and the meaning of god then changed from 'external being' to 'self'.

Indeed even now god does not mean 'self'. That is a new meaning that you are assigning to it without just cause.

Those entities are reflections of their early state of consciousness. This is the way they understood the world, with figures.

That doesn't in any way detract from my point.

Gods refer to various natural and psychological powers and laws. I use the word god when talking with people who understand the word god as god rather than the word self as god, to show that the self is the same what they think god is.

But it isn't.. that's the point. Just stick to 'self'. It's like saying 'tennis racket'.. It's irrelevant to what you're trying to say. When people talk of 'god', they most certainly are not talking about the same thing you are. Now let's be clear.. it doesn't matter if you personally think god means 'self' if nobody else does. That means that to them god does not mean self at all, but something entirely different - i.e an external being.

You see god as a powerful entity (fantasy), but you think of the self as something whole different. But they are the same thing.

But then.. if I think 'god' and 'self' are two completely different things, and everybody else does, then they are two completely different things, (to us - including everyone who uses a dictionary), which shows that by you using 'self' thinking it's the same as 'god' is completely without value. To you they might be the same, but to those who use the word 'god' they are not, (much like the early 'primitive' humans who worshipped gods). As a result you are in the wrong by trying to state that they are one and the same. Don't you understand what I'm saying?

My original response to you was that historically speaking you were wrong, and that 'god' related to an external being, and not 'self', which in your own words they couldn't even understand. As a result of that 'god' means an external being and 'self' means self. Sheesh I'm gonna have to whip out the sketch pad.

You have lost connection to the self so you don't understand the connection

Pot, kettles, something..

 

[c7ityi_]

yorda: what is with the new name, c7ityi_ it's a strange one.

It probably means chaos.

Your comment about consciousness is interesting. I suggest that humans are aware of more than animals, but it's not of ourselves, it's awareness of culture, language, and symbols.

I think of the outer world as our unconscious mind. There is no "out there" out there, except in our mind. So, when we are enlarging our knowledge about the world, we are enlarging knowledge about ourselves. Everything is a part of ourselves. Things we don't like (repel) are things we haven't found and understood in ourselves.

 

[c7ityi_]

Well, I hereby await the support for your claims.

What support?

Not exactly, I guess your 'self' just isn't awake yet.

The self is always awake, it is the body and the person which creates a shadow so that it cannot be seen, so that it cannot express itself.

Quality retort. Is it too much to ask that you put a little effort into it and provide something slightly better than my own text, or was it just that you couldn't think of a response?

If you say something stupid, you get a stupid response.

Don't be a muppet. Try "In my honest opinion".. It sounds less... naive.

But I was just kidding.. Jesus always says "truly I tell you", and I think it sounds funny because he says it so often.

What you seemingly don't realise is that things are a gradient, not "two poles" - as you have often tried to claim.

C'mon. I know things are gradient, that's the whole thing with my beloved Zodiac, but that things are gradient is "irrelevant" to what I was talking about.

However, I do agree that magnets repel each other. What has that got to do with my statement that early man worshipped external beings and not 'self'? Not a lot from what I can gather.

You totally lost me. I was talking about the mask and the real self. The person and the "external god". The north and the south pole. The conscoius and the unconscious. Relating between a magnet and a human, since a human is also just a "magnet".

Wtf? "they are not what they are"? How could anyone even say that with a straight face? Might I advise you buy a science book concerning this issue. Yes, even a kiddies science book will give accurate explanation as to why magnets repel each other - no Yorda, nothing to do with them "not being what they are".. lol.

Physicists just think they know. They can't explain why natural laws are the way they are. They go in circles. They can't answer why negative and positive things want to unite. When trying to explain it, they say it depends on the molecular structure, because electrons orbiting the atoms create a "magnetic field".

The reason why they attract and repell cannot be visible. A cause cannot be visible.

They.. 'want'? Are you implying that a magnet has feelings? What you've basically said to me here is that.. a magnet is not what it is, (a magnet is not a magnet), and it wont go near another magnet, (they repel each other), because it wants to remain as not being a magnet.

Yes, they "want". But it's not a conscious will, or a human will, and it is not a feeling. The willpower we have is the same thing as the magnetic "thing" which makes them unite or repel, except that in us, since we are able to think, it was converted into a "mental" form. Of course it is just illusional.

Humans are like magnets. Consider a male. It doesn't want to unite with another male because it is the same as he is. He is already what he is. But when he sees a woman, he realizes that he is only one half of the self, he is no longer what he is, he needs more, he needs "happiness".

The same with bipolar particles

Defend? No need.. Inform you you talk utter bollocks? Certainly.

It sounds like bollocks because you haven't found me in you yet.

What 'ones'? I asked you earlier when you claimed: "It is said..", as to who said. You failed to answer so kindly put answer these both together.. It is 'said' by whom, and known by whom?

Yogis, philosophers and occultists. Anyone, really.

Once again, please refrain from saying this. For some reason it makes me want to puke.

It makes you puke because you think all words must be true for you. But no one says that you have to believe me. No one says that you have to listen to me when I use the word "truth". It's just a word. It's worth nothing unless you create its value.

"From the earliest writings we see that man believed in many gods - external beings - not any 'self' belief that is more of a modern idea."

What does it matter? The teachers converted the self into those forms.

When people talk of 'god', they most certainly are not talking about the same thing you are.

What about the religious who say: I have found God. I hope God forgives me.
And the non-religious who say: I have found myself. I hope I can forgive myself.

They're talking about the same thing. It is found everywhere in the Bible. Like in the beginning when Abel (I think) killed his brother and he was wondering if someone saw him, and he became scared because he knew that someone saw him, and that someone spoke from the "heaven", which means within (consciousness) him. It was just his conscience. He saw what he did and regretted it.

... You're so funny

 

[Paul299]

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [d] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod

 

[Paul299]

What about the religious who say: I have found God. I hope God forgives me.
And the non-religious who say: I have found myself. I hope I can forgive myself.
"They're talking about the same thing. It is found everywhere in the Bible. Like in the beginning when Abel (I think) killed his brother and he was wondering if someone saw him, and he became scared because he knew that someone saw him, and that someone spoke from the "heaven", which means within (consciousness) him. It was just his conscience. He saw what he did and regretted it."

The above is a wierd interptation of the text, so cain was angry with hims self for not being pleaseing to himself (god) so he killed his brother?

 

[c7ityi_]

The above is a wierd interptation of the text, so cain was angry with hims self for not being pleaseing to himself (god) so he killed his brother?

What are you talking about? He was jealous at his brother, so he killed him. Then he regretted it, for not listening to himself.

If you have read psychology, you know that there are many "selves", like the lower (animal) self, personal self and higher self (god). The higher self is our real self, but we are "separated" from it, we are not what we are, so we often do wrong...

 

[Paul299]

Why was he jealous - because GOD had no regard for his offering, So if he is GOD then he
rejected his on offering and killed his brother.

How can any part of self be any more real than any other part of self?

One self - many drives (biologically or emotionally motived) may-be but only one self.

psychology - some of its good some of its trash.

"we are not what we are" are you sure that is what you want to say- it's a nonsensical statement.

If you correct it to “we are not what we think we are” then it means something.

Pantheism does not appeal to me, I will present my arguments against it in a few days when I get
some work done.

Instead of debating general details of smaller particular, lets discuss the over arching world
views and the differences .instead.

 

[(Q)]

Why was he jealous - because GOD had no regard for his offering, So if he is GOD then he rejected his on offering and killed his brother.

Rather petty for an omniscient god, don't ya think?

 

[SnakeLord]

If you say something stupid, you get a stupid response.

Yorda, everything you say is stupid but I at least show the common courtesy of replying in a proper manner. The worse thing of course is that you're just making pathetic excuses because you have nothing of value to say.

But I was just kidding..

Yeah.. Sure.

but that things are gradient is "irrelevant" to what I was talking about.

Yorda, everything you said was entirely irrelevant to my original post to you - including magnets, shadows and poles.

Relating between a magnet and a human, since a human is also just a "magnet".

This is the kind of idiocy that causes confusion all round. A human is not a 'magnet', plain and simple.

Physicists just think they know.

And you think you know more than them. That's why it's so amusing - especially considering every word out of your mouth is actually nothing more than verbal diarrhea. And even more amusing than that is the fact that you actually believe you make sense.

They can't answer why negative and positive things want to unite.

But then that would at least show some honesty. Coming along and shouting: 'self', 'magnet' and 'shadow' while trying to include the word 'god' in there for no good reason and without any valid justification doesn't change anything.

Yes, they "want". But it's not a conscious will, or a human will, and it is not a feeling.

Then they do not 'want'.

The willpower we have is the same thing as the magnetic "thing" which makes them unite or repel, except that in us, since we are able to think, it was converted into a "mental" form.

This is total and utter gibberish, and you know it.

Humans are like magnets.

No they're not.

Consider a male. It doesn't want to unite with another male because it is the same as he is.

Many do. But regardless to whether they do or not in no way makes them like a magnet.

But when he sees a woman, he realizes that he is only one half of the self, he is no longer what he is, he needs more, he needs "happiness".

It's not about happiness, it's a genetic compulsion to reproduce - nor does he "realise" he is 'one half of the self'.

It sounds like bollocks because you haven't found me in you yet.

No, it sounds like bollocks because it is bollocks.

It makes you puke because you think all words must be true for you.

Not at all. It makes me want to puke because you think it's true and you continually drag me into this nonsense even though it is highly irrelevant to my first post to you. I have, for a while now, taken it upon myself not to reply to any post you make - but alas I didn't pick up on the name change until it was too late - and now feel forced to respond to your blatant insanity in the hope that you will realise everything you have said is irrelevant to my first post to you.

But no one says that you have to believe me.

Funnily enough I am aware of that. Does it look like I'm "believing" you?

No one says that you have to listen to me when I use the word "truth". It's just a word. It's worth nothing unless you create its value.

I disagree with you. I find "just a word" to be a rather pitiful statement. Language is complex and important to any species that 'talks' to one another. My speciality is language usage and how it says a lot more than many people think it says - and thus I do tend to consider words as more than "just words" - because they are more than "just words".

What does it matter?

It matters a great deal considering it was the point of my first post to you - and I have since then been dragged into the festering sludge.

What about the religious who say: I have found God. I hope God forgives me.

They are asking a fictional sky being that they happen to believe in for forgiveness.

And the non-religious who say: I have found myself. I hope I can forgive myself.

I have never heard a non-religious man say such a thing, and even if I had the only consistency between the two is that these people feel the need to be forgiven - be it by themselves, gods, leprechauns or the north and south pole. Why they feel the need to have to be forgiven would take some looking into, but it doesn't change anything I've said.

They're talking about the same thing.

To you, yes - to them, no. You believe in a all encompassing 'self' that's like a magnet that doesn't want to be a magnet. They believe in an external being that lives in the clouds someplace and punishes jews. They are not the same thing. That's the way it goes.

It is found everywhere in the Bible.

Forgiveness from god? Certainly, because they believed that this external being could provide them with the forgiveness they thought they needed.

Like in the beginning when Abel (I think) killed his brother and he was wondering if someone saw him

It was Cain and there is no mention of him wondering if someone saw him. Paul has explained a bit more in his post, and while it burns my balls to agree with a religious nut, in this instance I do.

... You're so funny

And you are braindead.

If you have read psychology, you know that there are many "selves", like the lower (animal) self, personal self and higher self (god).

I am a registered Psychologist and I will happily tell you you're still talking bollocks.

 

[c7ityi_]

Why was he jealous - because GOD had no regard for his offering, So if he is GOD then he
rejected his on offering and killed his brother.

Ok, but we "are" not God, God is the goal.

How can any part of self be any more real than any other part of self?

One self - many drives (biologically or emotionally motived) may-be but only one self.

Yeah, there is only one self, but it can be divided into many parts, like light is divided to colors. People evolve all the time, they become better persons, closer to themselves, closer to what they really are. For example, I never want to do anything wrong, still I do many things which are wrong, which means that I am not myself yet. When I reach the goal, I won't do wrong anymore, "I" (higher self) will be able to control "myself" (body, person) in any situation.

psychology - some of its good some of its trash.

Like with everything...

"we are not what we are" are you sure that is what you want to say- it's a nonsensical statement.

Nonsense is what you haven't understood, recognized and found in yourself yet. I don't think what you say is nonsense, it's just a different perspective.

And even more amusing than that is the fact that you actually believe you make sense.

I don't believe it makes sense to you... and most of the things I say won't make sense to me either, after a while. They're just temporal thoughts, I don't "believe" in them, I just say them.

Does it look like I'm "believing" you?

I meant that you believe that I believe my words.

To you, yes - to them, no.

I know.

I am a registered Psychologist and I will happily tell you you're still talking bollocks.

I don't believe in ordinary psychologists... only those who are good, like Jung and Freud.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. . . .16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod

*************
M*W: WTF was this? Read excerpts from the forum rules below:

6. Propaganda

For the purposes of this forum, "propaganda" is defined as material copied verbatim from other web sites, books or articles, which demonstrates clear bias for or against a particular religious belief or religious group.

Posts consisting solely or partly of propaganda, as defined, may be edited or deleted as appropriate to remove the propaganda.

7. Preaching - "My God is bigger than your God!"

11. Cutting and pasting / plagiarism

Posting large verbatim extracts of text from other sites is undesirable for several reasons:
It uses up storage space on SciForums.
It duplicates information that is easily accessible elsewhere.
It can disrupt the flow of a thread, because posters have to scroll through large amounts of text that they may not wish to read.
It may breach copyright laws.

b. Quoting religious texts
Large extracts from religious texts such as the bible or the Qu'ran will be removed, as these are readily available on the web and elsewhere.

"Last edited by James R : 06-01-04 at 01:49 AM. Reason: Updated rules"
*************
M*W: Consider this a friendly reminder from a fellow forumite. If you have any questions, contact James R.

 

[SnakeLord]

They're just temporal thoughts, I don't "believe" in them, I just say them.

Well then, there's little surprise it's all bollocks. My advice would simply be to take some time to think about and consider what you're saying before you go ahead and say it. In doing so you will avoid making statements like: "a magnet is not what it is", and other such utter nonsense.

I know.

Thus was my first post to you.

I don't believe in ordinary psychologists..

What you 'believe' in or not is entirely inconsequential in this instance.

only those who are good, like Jung and Freud.

Alas you're in no position to be claiming knowledge of who's good or not. But hey, that's what happens when you 'just say things' without taking the time to think about it first.

 

[Hapsburg]

It is found everywhere in the Bible.

Forgivness? No.
Pain, suffering, revenge, murder, treachery. Yeah, the christian god does all of those, many times over.