Demons

[XianeX]

smart answer!

let's summarize, shall we!

Heresy - believes in a Christian-like derivative of his own fabrication. since the established forms of his belief system are inadequate he has constructed a mass of speculation out of the facts he likes.

XianeX - believes in nothing that can't be proven outside of the natural/scientific/logical realm.

Heresy - believes spooks are real in a spiritual but real context.

XianeX - believes that spooks are only real in figurative imaginary contexts.

Heresy - believes that people persih from lack of knowledge.

XianeX - believes that useless knowledge is perishable for people.

Heresy - believes that XianeX's disregard/disrespect for fiction facts is a bad thing for him and others.

XianeX - believes that Heresy's propogation of fiction facts is bad for him and others.

Heresy - believes that XianeX is a dummy for fucking up fiction facts.

XianeX - believes that you you can't fuck up fiction because the facts are useless.


I'm sure I could go on but why. I've said before eliminate theology and you eliminate the trap. You say eliminate human error. if the errors are in theology you've proven my point.

my "The One" concept is something that you won't speak on because it will diminish/compromise many parts of your own construct. There are many fiction facts that compete with one-ism but a compendium of bullshit only confounds common sense.

To quote you. "we'll roll with that one. For now"

P.S. Are you sure you don't want me to make you useful???

 

[miggidy]

Just like angels, demons have a hierarchy system....
They're not necessarily different from one another, but they do have different rankings, for lack of a better word....

The spirit I "think" I saw, or should I say demon?
Looked a lot like the grays people claim to see when they're abducted by aliens and ish....

 

[HERESY]

Lets summarize one more time.


Heresy - Does not believe in a "christian" like derivitive because he does not accept "christianity" as a valid doctrine/dogma. He does not adhere to such a belief system based on two facts which are:

a.) He has researched the dogma for himself.

b.) He has learned the truth from the source.

Xianex - Discounts doctrine and dogma without doing any type of validation. This is a gross error on his part which is why he often makes statements about doctrines/dogmas that aren't cohesive with the belief system. He claims to believe nothing can be proven outside of science/nature/logical realm and supports his belief system with self defeating statements such as:


"An all-powerful God can't make a stone that he can't lift. Therefore he can not be all-powerful and since he is not all-powerful he is not god. "


In order to make himself appear "correct" or to nullify his errors he will often claim he made them jestingly. He claims his reason for making such errors is done to show how theism is in error.


Heresy - believes humans are not the highest forms of intelligence in the universe. As new technologies are being implemented and mans knowledge is increasing it would be unwise to say beings we cannot detect with our eyes do not not exist. One might say if "I don't see it it doesn't exist". This is an error on the part of humans and a slight example is provided:

Humans are not capable of hearing frequencies below 20hz yet they exist. Humans are not capable of hearing frequencies over 20KHZ yet they exist. Humans are not able to see a frequency yet they exist.


Heresy also believes "spooks" were used by man to simply explain things that were not known at the time. He believes this due to research of "spooks" and his own experience with sleep paralysis (which has been attributed to spooks in the past).


Xianex - believes "spooks" are not real but has not studied "spooks" in any context figurative or spiritually.


Heresy - believes that people persih from lack of knowledge. A fact which history and science has shown to be true. He also believes info should not be considered "useless" until it is validated and a proper assessment is formed.


Xianex - believes that useless knowledge is perishable, however he does not comprehend that knowledge (useful or not) can still be contaminated in order to achieve desired results.


Heresy - does not believe that XianeX's disregard/disrespect for fiction facts is a bad thing for him and others. Heresy believes people should not disregard anything without looking at all possible solutions, theories and outcomes. Heresy does not see how people can say "x" is "y" when the person has not validated the two.


XianeX - believes that Heresy's propogation of fiction facts is bad for him and others. Yet XianeX has given no signs of actually having knowledge of said "fiction facts". Although he considers "fiction facts useless" he still manages to provide superficial info.


Heresy - Heresy does not believe that XianeX is a dummy for fucking up fiction facts. Heresy believes XianeX is a dummy for not researching "fiction facts" to see if they are indeed "fiction facts". Even if said research is accomplished Heresy would still believe Xianex is a dummy.

XianeX - believes that you you can't fuck up fiction because the facts are useless. He also believes it's appropriate to give misinformation which can further the idea that the fact IS fiction.




I'm sure I could go on but why. I've said before eliminate theology and you eliminate the trap. You say eliminate human error. if the errors are in theology you've proven my point.


I've ALWAYS said flaws were found in "theology" and I've said that from the start. I come to my assessment that flaws in in theology based on the fact that I actually took time to research HUNDREDS of religions, doctrines and dogma's. You say theology is flawed based on science and logic but so far NONE of it has been from YOUR research of science and logic.


Since flaws are found in theology does that mean theology should be discounted? Of course not. Flaws are found in science and flaws are often found in logic yet we continue to use them each day provided they suit our needs and opinions.


my "The One" concept is something that you won't speak on because it will diminish/compromise many parts of your own construct.


Thats like saying a theist is forced to become an agnostic because science shows a-b and c. That's wrong. The reason why I *REFUSE* to go into it with you has been shown over an dover again. It has nothing to do with me but EVERYTHING to do with YOU.



To quote you. "we'll roll with that one. For now"


No we won't.



:hgk:


Ps I make myself useful now fetch my slippers Pav....

 

[XianeX]

"pinwheel pinwheel spinning around. . . ."

 

[XianeX]

Since we are at the "cut the shit" portion of the convo

theology and derivatives are useless.
All one needs to study is omniscience and omnipotence.

omni- = all

do the math.

1 is the presence of any value 0 is the absence of any value. as I've stated before the absolute is absence and presence inclusively.

multiples of 1 (whole numbers and integers) and real numbers are fractions of 1 divided. this isn't just a theory I've read. just common sense. proven by the use of a calculator or pen and paper.

"An all-powerful God can't make a stone that he can't lift. Therefore he can not be all-powerful and since he is not all-powerful he is not god. "

simple logic. omnipotence that "can't" is not omnipotent. "capability/ability" is subjective. the only truth is whether "IT" "is" or "isn't" doing (kenetic versus potential (another illustration of 1 and 0))

hence my use of "he" to illustrate that I don't believe in the genderization of the Divine.

All "I see" is 1 (presence) and the 1 is Divine, devoid of discounting absence. an individual is not aware of "unknowns" and thus the definition of unknown.

thank you. you see, you've been useful once more.

 

[XianeX]

:: one for the road ::

spooks are unsubstantiated actuals. in other words "virtual". they "can" exist but that doesn't mean they do.

theology is a beautiful albeit harmful exploration of virtuals.

 

[HERESY]

Since we are at the "cut the shit" portion of the convo

theology and derivatives are useless.
All one needs to study is omniscience and omnipotence.

omni- = all

do the math.

1 is the presence of any value 0 is the absence of any value. as I've stated before the absolute is absence and presence inclusively.

multiples of 1 (whole numbers and integers) and real numbers are fractions of 1 divided. this isn't just a theory I've read. just common sense. proven by the use of a calculator or pen and paper.

"An all-powerful God can't make a stone that he can't lift. Therefore he can not be all-powerful and since he is not all-powerful he is not god. "

simple logic. omnipotence that "can't" is not omnipotent. "capability/ability" is subjective. the only truth is whether "IT" "is" or "isn't" doing (kenetic versus potential (another illustration of 1 and 0))

hence my use of "he" to illustrate that I don't believe in the genderization of the Divine.

All "I see" is 1 (presence) and the 1 is Divine, devoid of discounting absence. an individual is not aware of "unknowns" and thus the definition of unknown.

thank you. you see, you've been useful once more.

:Shaking my head:

What you're simply typing is a combination of agnosticism, your personal views and a touch of deism. Thanks for taking the bait X I knew I could always count on you to show your hand for the world to see. Don't you find it ironic that I told YOU this is what you wanted to do (discuss "the one")? You went over the SAME thing ("the one") with V and 916 in two different threads.


So heres your take "because he doesn't answer me he must not know what I'm talking about so I'll go ahead and type it" WRONG! I resfuse to answer and don't know why you keep avoiding that issue. I throw you a bone and you were foaming at the chops to sink your teeth in it (just like my bull mastiff we wont use pavlov this time).

Watch:

simple logic. omnipotence that "can't" is not omnipotent. "capability/ability" is subjective. the only truth is whether "IT" "is" or "isn't" doing (kenetic versus potential (another illustration of 1 and 0))


Simple logic? Is "god" found in nothingness? Simple logic? Is a rock that a "god" can't lift a logical impossibility? Simple logic? Can "god" do what is logically impossible? When you DROP the "christian" perspective of god being "omni" (a perspective I don't and never endorsed but a perspective you constantly attack) I'll allow you to stop chasing your tail.....

X it should have ALWAYS been "cut the shit" but you took it upon yourself to disregard that and well.........I won't keep playing the same chord..... :classic:





:hgk:

ps I could careless about your anthropomorphisms or how you do or don't see "the divine" as a he. The "devine" is not a "HE" but the devine IS "ALL".

 

[XianeX]

you are a platform that I stand to speak on. (maybe he missed me warning him i'd make him useful)

you see and then you speak. like I didn't target that line directly at you. HAHAHAHAH like anyone else would have taken note of it (they didn't, but you did). you still don't get it, do you. ironic is small pavlov & doggy darts trying to shut me up ROFL.

you never fail to amuse me. you still think that you dangle me when everytime it's me that leads you to speak (since the beginning for that matter).

can and can't is subjective like good and evil. things such as can and can't are personifications.

Retarded ass statement of "omni" being solely christian. HAHAHAH. the etymology of the word may find christian roots but not the concept my dear theologian.

When I use "god" I speak the generic term. I'll refrain from it from now on. thank you. BTW I don't believe in "god" i think we discussed that with the etymology of god convo. maybe not.

of course you don't believe in "omni" if you did the entirety of your theological position would be dismissed.

"thing" is found in nothing. if the absolute is all things nothing is a thing too.

wonderful. another factor exposed.

 

[HERESY]

You'll continue to bore us all


you are a platform that I stand to speak on. (maybe he missed me warning him i'd make him useful)


I took it as an invintation not a warning.


you see and then you speak. like I didn't target that line directly at you. HAHAHAHAH like anyone else would have taken note of it (they didn't, but you did). you still don't get it, do you. ironic is small pavlov & doggy darts trying to shut me up ROFL.

Useless.


you never fail to amuse me. you still think that you dangle me when everytime it's me that leads you to speak (since the beginning for that matter).


Not exactly. You notice me and base your questions and rhetoric around that. I simply don't pay attention to you and dare not ask questions because of the insane "bullshit" factor.


So who's playing who here?


can and can't is subjective like good and evil. things such as can and can't are personifications.


Jargon.


Retarded ass statement of "omni" being solely christian. HAHAHAH. the etymology of the word may find christian roots but not the concept my dear theologian.


MORE PROOF THAT YOU DON'T READ LOL! DID I EVER MAKE THE CLAIM THAT "OMNI" WAS SOLELY CHRISTIAN? I'll quote myself Ray.....


When you DROP the "christian" perspective of god being "omni" (a perspective I don't and never endorsed but a perspective you constantly attack) I'll allow you to stop chasing your tail.....


Now show me where I said it was solely christian my blind and retarded lap dog. I'll give you a chance to wordsmith and clean up your act. No one said anything about omni being solely christian (which is why I made christian BOLD in the first place). Different perspectives of "omni" exist but the one you attack is the CHRISTIAN perspective. Your overall christian perspective (lacking or not) allows you to constantly equate HERESY with theology which is quite irrational considering I don't adhere to the doctrine, have never been baptized and believe "christianity" (as you know it) to be just as "satanic" as satanism.

When I use "god" I speak the generic term. I'll refrain from it from now on. thank you. BTW I don't believe in "god" i think we discussed that with the etymology of god convo. maybe not.


Thats great and you can call "god" "uefywb78ti378wni4te" for all I care. I've already stated what you believed in (just read my past 2 posts). No need to make a frail attempt to explain it.


of course you don't believe in "omni" if you did the entirety of your theological position would be dismissed.


The thing is YOU don't know if I have a theological position because I've never told you. You can assume or you can go by what you read here but when you said this:


Heresy - believes in a Christian-like derivative of his own fabrication. since the established forms of his belief system are inadequate he has constructed a mass of speculation out of the facts he likes.


It was proven false by this:


Heresy - Does not believe in a "christian" like derivitive because he does not accept "christianity" as a valid doctrine/dogma. He does not adhere to such a belief system based on two facts which are:

a.) He has researched the dogma for himself.

b.) He has learned the truth from the source.


While I do believe and accept "OMNI" my belief is not one that you can understand. If you could understand it you would have no problem answering:


Simple logic? Is "god" found in nothingness? Simple logic? Is a rock that a "god" can't lift a logical impossibility? Simple logic? Can "god" do what is logically impossible?


Instead you type idiocy laden answers:


"thing" is found in nothing. if the absolute is all things nothing is a thing too.




LMAO


Go ahead and type the bullshit you are KNOWN to type. I have to record someones album within a 9 day span (starting monday) and tonight is possibly the last night I'll devote attention to you and this thread. If I do respond (don't hold your breath) it will be short. Please......MAKE YOUR RESPONSE GOOD! CONTINUE TO DEVOTE POSTS TO ME IN MY ABSENCE AND CONTINUE TO MAKE POSTS EXPOSING "HERESY".........AHA HA HA HA!!!!!


:HGK:



PS "I WAS JUST BULLSHITTING".........LMAO!!!!!!!!

 

[inferno]

interesting conversation

 

[1/2 On It]

As new technologies are being implemented and mans knowledge is increasing it would be unwise to say beings we cannot detect with our eyes do not not exist. One might say if "I don't see it it doesn't exist". This is an error on the part of humans and a slight example is provided:

Humans are not capable of hearing frequencies below 20hz yet they exist.
Humans are not capable of hearing frequencies over 20KHZ yet they exist.
Humans are not able to see a frequency yet they exist.

^^This statement isn't theology... it's true scientific fact. There are beings that humans are unable of detecting through sight, they are called microbes and bacteria. Is this what you meant?

Heresy also believes "spooks" were used by man to simply explain things that were not known at the time. He believes this due to research of "spooks" and his own experience with sleep paralysis (which has been attributed to spooks in the past).

I agree, there's really nothing supernatural about it, it's just how the unknown was explained back then. Which has now been found to be more simple logical things, not of supernatural nature.

 

[HERESY]

^^This statement isn't theology... it's true scientific fact. There are beings that humans are unable of detecting through sight, they are called microbes and bacteria. Is this what you meant?



I agree, there's really nothing supernatural about it, it's just how the unknown was explained back then. Which has now been found to be more simple logical things, not of supernatural nature.

To answer the first part of your statement that is correct but I chose frequencies (specific ones) because they are NOT living, not visible, cant be heard but still exist. We as humans tend to believe "if it's outside of my comprehension, what I "believe" to be logical, what I "believe" to be backed by science and what I cannot perceive with my five senses it does not exist".


500 years ago did the technology exist to study a microbe or bacteria? No but they still existed right? Now let's play casper for a second. What if these "spooks" DO exist but they can't be detected due to inferior technology?


To comment on the second part of your statement man has always used the supernatural to explain the natural. Lightning and thunder=The roaring gods and punishment. Rain watering the crops or a river overflooding=angry river god who may or may not have recieved his sacrifice. Mans misconceptions and stupidity have led him to create ideas that are not limited to theology or religion. The common belief that black people had TAILS is a prime example. You can say thats a racial or social issue and I'll simply leave it up to you to classify it as you see fit. Now let's rewind back to this "spook" stuff. You have skeptics who have not experienced the "unexplained", skeptics who have experienced the "unexplained" yet provide a shallow explanation, people who have experienced the "unexplained" but call it "unexplained" and you have people who experience the "unexplained" but call it "supernatural".


Knowing that which would you classify yourself? What would the majority of athiest be classified as? What would the majority of "theists" be classified as? What about agnostics? Now lets say 98% of athiest are group 1 (the ones who have not experienced the unexplained). Are they this way because they do not BELIEVE in the unexplained, are they lacking a gene (or chemical) which prohibits them from experiencing it or has some great "god" in the heavens closed their senses so they can't see it? Or do they not see it because they shun "theology" and "spookism"?


I don't require an answer to the questions it's simply something I wanted to share and now I'm off to bed (it's 2 am and I just finished getting stuff set up in the lab for this project I'm working on). What I'm saying might not make sense but think about it.


:hgk:

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Since we are at the "cut the shit" portion of the convo

theology and derivatives are useless.
All one needs to study is omniscience and omnipotence.

omni- = all

do the math.

1 is the presence of any value 0 is the absence of any value. as I've stated before the absolute is absence and presence inclusively.

multiples of 1 (whole numbers and integers) and real numbers are fractions of 1 divided. this isn't just a theory I've read. just common sense. proven by the use of a calculator or pen and paper.

"An all-powerful God can't make a stone that he can't lift. Therefore he can not be all-powerful and since he is not all-powerful he is not god. "

simple logic. omnipotence that "can't" is not omnipotent. "capability/ability" is subjective. the only truth is whether "IT" "is" or "isn't" doing (kenetic versus potential (another illustration of 1 and 0))

hence my use of "he" to illustrate that I don't believe in the genderization of the Divine.

All "I see" is 1 (presence) and the 1 is Divine, devoid of discounting absence. an individual is not aware of "unknowns" and thus the definition of unknown.

thank you. you see, you've been useful once more.

You went over the SAME thing ("the one") with V and 916 in two different threads.

Speak of the devil...


The assumption in monist philosophy is that oneness necessarily means homogenous.

According to the "hindu" "theists", this is called mayavadi philosophy; to categorize any sense of variegatedness as being maya, i.e.: of the illusory material energy. There is a similar philosophy called sunyavadi that amounts everything to zero, which is similar to Buddhism.

All "you see", being that of "1", is conceptually no different than to "see" "0". It ultimately comes down to a matter of semantics because it is only after you homogenize this "1 Divine" that you proceed to place this superficial value of "1" upon it. It may be 1 or 0 and so mayavadi and sunyavadi philosophy boil down to the same thing, no practical value; only word-jugglery and mental masturbation. It is the debate on whether anything exists or not, which is pointless.

On the other hand, what I "see" is a oneness that does not rule out variegatedness. I do not attempt to speculate my way to a homogenous generalization of that oneness. I accept its value (call it what you may) as an existential fact and then seek to understand its nature independent of my speculative conceptual trappings. In this way I am not forced to make premature conclusions on things that far exceed my scope of speculation. Of what is emprically known to exist, I will have no part in homogenizing it with God. Oneness can very much logically constitute the eternal distinction between God, the Energetic, and His energies. Theists - those who believe in a transcendental God - are simply in a more confidential position than the monists in the same way the man who gets a close up view of a green bird resting in a green tree is in a more confidential position than the man who sees the bird enter the tree from a distance and thus concludes that the two merged homogenously together. The man who views from a distance may attack the knowledge of the other man by saying that what he sees is merely an illusion, but what value does the monist's judgement have when he himself is only semantics away from incorporating "nothing" into "all things"?

 

[HERESY]

It is the debate on whether anything exists or not, which is pointless.

I agree with this and it's part of the reason why I keep telling him I KNOW what he wants me to elaborate on but I have to refuse the invintation. It will simply be 010101010101010101=binary=the divine=The absolute=does not exist as deity but does exist as presence.


On the other hand, what I "see" is a oneness that does not rule out variegatedness. I do not attempt to speculate my way to a homogenous generalization of that oneness. I accept its value (call it what you may) as an existential fact and then seek to understand its nature independent of my speculative conceptual trappings. In this way I am not forced to make premature conclusions on things that far exceed my scope of speculation. Of what is emprically known to exist, I will have no part in homogenizing it with God. Oneness can very much logically constitute the eternal distinction between God, the Energetic, and His energies.


Do you believe the "presence" or "divine" is the energy or substance that God creates/generates?


but what value does the monist's judgement have when he himself is only semantics away from incorporating "nothing" into "all things"?

I agree with this and agree with it when I read the monists making statements such as:

"thing" is found in nothing. if the absolute is all things nothing is a thing too."


I believe "god" is something we cannot perceive entirely due to physical, spiritual and mental "shortcomings". We can apply words to explain "god" and apply attributes (as we know) to "god" but due to "blindness of the spiritual eyes" or belief in "maya"( I'm borrowing from you 9) we fail to understand the SIMPLE concepts. And if we fail to understand the SIMPLE concepts it is impossible to understand the complicated. The more you try to "walk" like god (the walk is similar even amongst different religions and dogmas) the more you can understand god but even that understanding is limited. It's better than those who are bound to this "world" i.e. secular beliefs and practices or those who simply believe in "random".


Am I saying you need religion to understand god? No.

It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there.


:HGK:

 

[XianeX]

str8. conversation is finished. if you'd like me to delete all the shit i've directed at you i will. in some regards I already have.

It has been fun. and we've exhausted all angles.

Now that everything has been established. I see no point in irking you with this shit anymore.

Back to reality. did you get to peep that song?

I apologize for dragging all this shit out of you. I've said to you before I meant you no harm and that this was all fun and games; an elaborate excercise in futility. Without question I think we are both brilliant black guys that are extremely strong willed. which is a beautiful thing to examine in itself.

we may never meet philosophically but I don't think that our positions are much different at base.

I've been trying to get you to say that "you don't need religion to understand 'god'" for the longest. now that it has been said I'm pleased. This isn't what you've said in the past, but I accept your new present position.

now that YOU'VE said it. hopefully the rest of the board gets it and the theological discussions can be replaced with more political economical and social discussions.

 

[HERESY]

@heresy - You HAVE said what you're theologial position was before and it was a christian derivative. review your old posts. (I'm not going to bring up your son of god divine prophet bullshit from the past with yeshua and etc) one of my ensnarements to get you to talk. you did



I have LEARNED from THE SOURCE. You can throw theology out the window.


yeah you didn't say solely but that seems to be the inference.


NO it is NOT the inference. I said you look at it from -->the<-- "CHRISTIAN".


"and if you think my perspective is the christian one you need to crack your books again."

Your perspective that you believe is NOT a christian one. The perspective that you ATTACK ***IS*** the christian one. Please spend more time READING instead of typing. I'll type it again for you Stevie...oops I mean RAY.

When you DROP the "christian" perspective of god being "omni" (a perspective I don't and never endorsed but a perspective you constantly attack) I'll allow you to stop chasing your tail.....

How could I say your perspective is christian when I said "a perspective you constantly attack"?????

Simply put stop coming at me like I hold the "omni" christian position because it's something I don't adhere to. Once you do that you'll understand part of my position.

I answered your questions simply and directly. you just don't get it.
any belief in an "omni" kills theism. so if you aren't a theist you get it and my perspective. if you are a theist then you're . . .


No. Any belief in OMNI does not kill theism because some forms of theism do not endorse "OMNI" by your definitions/standards. A theist who does not believe in the "omni" by your definitions (I'm not talking about me) is at liberty to ask "is creating a rock a logical impossibility"?



if the "god" you are refering to is the figurative/speculative/subjective/theological one which is by definition virtual or unreal yes "god" can do anything you make him to do in virtual reality. but no he can't do anything in reality. if that's the page you're on that's then we've been on the same page if not oh well.


Your getting warm I'm almost proud of you. Seriously. Thanks for showing part of your deistic perspective I appreciate that. Yes you can make a virtual or unreal god do anything you want just like you can manipulate facts to further your agenda. You can have this "god" chanting "ambamaba bababababababababa" and transforming pigs into butterflies but if he can't transform those pigs in reality or you can't SEE or HEAR him chanting whatever the hell it was he was chanting guess what? He exists in your perspective and your realm thus making him real to you and not to the next man. Now the question is can this deity do the logical impossible and if it can't do what is logically impossible is it still "OMNI"?

if this is where you're at again I'll say we're speaking the same language but across purposes.
figuratively speaking, the purpose of me questioning "god khiller" was to see if you have found the page of when i put the book down.


"God" cannot be found in "the book". "God" is found IN *YOU* and AROUND *YOU*. If you believe it has something to do with atheist being forced to convert to agnosticism thats not my take. "god" imho Experience is found in that....EXPERIENCE.


you say that we aint on the same page and that you don't need to catch up. sometimes that is indicated. i probe you to gauge your evolution (and you have in areas). your behavior of propogating fiction is what perplexed me.


I don't propogate fiction I simply explain what I myself have learned from THE SOURCE (and no I don't mean the magazine). To spread fiction is something you're average "preacher" will do and it's something I find to be of NO value.

if you know the distinction between real and fake and you propogate it you are either creating a cult,


LMAO! Thats a good one! I can see it now HAIREISTHAI OMNI....Hmmmmmmmm "the cult of kefka" lol!!!!


"trying to ensnare folks in theism"


No. I myself am not ensared with theism. Theism/theology could be considered an area of interest or hobby of mine but "god" is not limited to what you will read from tablets and writings. God is revealed by learning and experience.


"or you don't know how to get out and you are bartering data from others."

You would be shocked if I told you were I've been, who I've sat down with, what we discuss yadayadayda. It's of no importance but the worst thing one can do IS stay "inside".


"but i get it now. anything other than that is pure kindness (the 'character' i mentoned before) by letting someone solve the problem for themselves. which is still harmful and a problem in itself."


Lets say teh above were true. Which would be worse for them. Misleading them with BULLSHIT (something you openly endorse and have admitted to) or telling them to research and form your own assessment?


"@ your dumber response to 916 - if people didn't have the technology to recognize shit that we recognize today HOW THE FUCK WOULD THEY KNOW ABOUT SPOOKS IF THEY TRUELY EXISTED. if they "are" REAL WE could ASCERTAIN them NOW. LMFAO. virtual reality and fiction facts homie."


I didn't make a response to 916 about spooks is your comment directed at me or 916? If it's not directed at meno problem. If it's directed at me start READING what is being posted and WHO it's directed at. I'll simply say they may not be able to study or evaluate "yet" because the equipment or technology may not be around. When you DO see people studying for "spooks" they are 9 times out of 10 studying ENERGY and have energy gauging equipment. So how would they know about spooks and the existance? How did man know the sun is a star? How did men in different areas know to build temples and buildings and align them to the stars? Maybe the methods were "unconventional" but I'll say this. WE are FAR from our ancestors and how they lived. 2-0-6 posted a thread about the small tribes of natives who KNEW about the tsunami and MOVED before it hit. WE are out of tune and out of touch with what we really are. Just because we don't have the means doesn't mean THEY (the ancients) didn't. Btw what if the means involved more "spookism"?


"I'm not agnostic. I use uni-deism as rhetoric that is similar to my belief but is flawed because of it's subjectivity."

Your approach is at times agnostic, uni-deistic is something I've already tagged you with (see previous posts) and your monist belief is what I mean by "your own".

"I'm atheist because I don't believe in "god(s)"."

ok........LOL! I'm not laughing at what you believe you are entitled to that, but it seems kinda weak coming from a person such as yourself. Strong athiesm or weak athiesm? Do you label your atheism as a belief? Do you believe your disbelief in god is the same as god not existing?

"I do believe in a source that is devoid of personification, but you believe in a source that is personality at the source."


no.

you're logic is flawed.


apply this to yourself and take a hint before you take a slander:


Theists - those who believe in a transcendental God - are simply in a more confidential position than the monists in the same way the man who gets a close up view of a green bird resting in a green tree is in a more confidential position than the man who sees the bird enter the tree from a distance and thus concludes that the two merged homogenously together. The man who views from a distance may attack the knowledge of the other man by saying that what he sees is merely an illusion, but what value does the monist's judgement have when he himself is only semantics away from incorporating "nothing" into "all things"?

 

[HERESY]

@x you typed your last response and posted it before I was finished with my response. I peeped teh cut and I did enjoy it to some extent (especially rapper#2) but why would you get down with someone who is talking about god and job? You two agree to disagree?

btw you guys dont sound country.

I have constantly said religion is not needed (see past posts that were made in your absence).



Side note did you watch c-span last night? DEEP
:hgk:

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

On the other hand, what I "see" is a oneness that does not rule out variegatedness. I do not attempt to speculate my way to a homogenous generalization of that oneness. I accept its value (call it what you may) as an existential fact and then seek to understand its nature independent of my speculative conceptual trappings. In this way I am not forced to make premature conclusions on things that far exceed my scope of speculation. Of what is emprically known to exist, I will have no part in homogenizing it with God. Oneness can very much logically constitute the eternal distinction between God, the Energetic, and His energies.


Do you believe the "presence" or "divine" is the energy or substance that God creates/generates?

What Xianex refers to as the "presence" or "divine" equates to the impersonal Brahman conception, which is, in its highest understanding, the energy effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, aka: Brahmajyoti. This impersonal Brahman conception is impenetrable by the jnanis (speculative philosophers). But beyond that impersonal effulgence is the Supreme Person, Who is known only by the devotees. That is the grace God gives to His devotees. Although He is equal to everyone, only those surrendered unto Him can understand His Transcendental Personality.
On a side note, God and His energies are co-eternal. This is just like saying God and His power are co-eternal. Of course, because the title "God" is meaningless without power/energy. There was never a moment when God was lacking.

It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there.

I like this. It is a good example of acintya bhedabheda tattva philosophy, which means, inconceivably one and different, simultaneously. Just see how God is the All and yet it is from Him that the All comes forth. He is simultaneously one with and distinct from the All. The monists cannot understand this verse properly because to them the All is one without distinction.

 

[HERESY]

But beyond that impersonal effulgence is the Supreme Person, Who is known only by the devotees. That is the grace God gives to His devotees. Although He is equal to everyone, only those surrendered unto Him can understand His Transcendental Personality.



I agree with this. It's the same thing as Yeshua/Jesus telling the people He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. and For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

People equate it with martyrdom but the essence should be loosing your "secular" life (something I equate with your "maya") to achieve a spiritual one. As long as you're bound by the "world" and what it offers you'll never achieve LIFE as it is SUPPOSED to be.


"On a side note, God and His energies are co-eternal. This is just like saying God and His power are co-eternal. Of course, because the title "God" is meaningless without power/energy. There was never a moment when God was lacking."


This I agree with. If all you can feel or see is the "energy" you must be able to trace it to it's source which would be GOD. So yes they DO go hand in hand.



I like this. It is a good example of acintya bhedabheda tattva philosophy, which means, inconceivably one and different, simultaneously. Just see how God is the All and yet it is from Him that the All comes forth. He is simultaneously one with and distinct from the All. The monists cannot understand this verse properly because to them the All is one without distinction.


You've spoken the truth.



:hgk:

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there.

By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. -Bhagavad-Gita 9:4-5



Also, to elaborate on God's energies, it is explained in the Shastra (Vedic Scripture) that they are of two general categories: God's external and His internal potencies. Although both are eternal, the external, material universe is sometimes manifest and other times unmanifest. The internal, spiritual energy is eternally manifest beyond the scope of the defective material senses. What is "material" in this sense, is that through which is sought enjoyment absent from the pure association of God. In other words, by seeking to live secular lives, we become enamored by material sense enjoyment (Maya), which constitutes our ignorance of God. Only the devotees of God will find a place in His eternal kingdom, which is free from birth, death, disease and old age.