5 of 5
5
Does being under supernatural control exonerate Eve of any sin?
Posted: 10 February 2014 06:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Lausten - 09 February 2014 01:54 PM
Greatest I am - 09 February 2014 10:29 AM

What I would say does not seem to matter at this point. You wish to argue. Not learn.

Regards
DL

To quote a Monty Python sketch, “this isn’t an argument”. You telling me what I think is not even a discussion. You can’t even define your terms. I guess you believe “higher mind” is something that I should know, something you can just name I would know what you mean.

If you have internalized a myth which is what this is all about, then you name your higher mind whatever you want. Since I push the esoteric Jesus, what you are seeking is his mind within you.

Name that whatever you like. It is just a fictitious character.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 07:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1124
Joined  2009-10-21
Greatest I am - 10 February 2014 06:50 AM
Lausten - 09 February 2014 01:54 PM
Greatest I am - 09 February 2014 10:29 AM

What I would say does not seem to matter at this point. You wish to argue. Not learn.

Regards
DL

To quote a Monty Python sketch, “this isn’t an argument”. You telling me what I think is not even a discussion. You can’t even define your terms. I guess you believe “higher mind” is something that I should know, something you can just name I would know what you mean.

If you have internalized a myth which is what this is all about, then you name your higher mind whatever you want. Since I push the esoteric Jesus, what you are seeking is his mind within you.

Name that whatever you like. It is just a fictitious character.

Regards
DL

I’m glad we agree that Jesus is fictitious. We also kinda agree that the mind is real, despite it being not completely defined (by anyone). I can accept a general definition of “mind”. I don’t accept “higher mind” or “his mind within you”. I don’t know what you mean by those. There are “thoughts”, there are regions of the brain, some higher functioning than others, there are lot of things we could agree on. But agreement and understanding are not what you are in to.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 07:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Lausten - 10 February 2014 07:02 AM
Greatest I am - 10 February 2014 06:50 AM
Lausten - 09 February 2014 01:54 PM
Greatest I am - 09 February 2014 10:29 AM

What I would say does not seem to matter at this point. You wish to argue. Not learn.

Regards
DL

To quote a Monty Python sketch, “this isn’t an argument”. You telling me what I think is not even a discussion. You can’t even define your terms. I guess you believe “higher mind” is something that I should know, something you can just name I would know what you mean.

If you have internalized a myth which is what this is all about, then you name your higher mind whatever you want. Since I push the esoteric Jesus, what you are seeking is his mind within you.

Name that whatever you like. It is just a fictitious character.

Regards
DL

I’m glad we agree that Jesus is fictitious. We also kinda agree that the mind is real, despite it being not completely defined (by anyone). I can accept a general definition of “mind”. I don’t accept “higher mind” or “his mind within you”. I don’t know what you mean by those. There are “thoughts”, there are regions of the brain, some higher functioning than others, there are lot of things we could agree on. But agreement and understanding are not what you are in to.

That last was not called for.

Don’t be an idiot.

Look up how the religious view the pineal gland. It happens to be the largest in the Vatican collection or carvings. It is considered the gateway to the higher mind. But if you do not open your mind to possibilities they will not come your way.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1124
Joined  2009-10-21
Greatest I am - 10 February 2014 07:08 AM

That last was not called for.

Don’t be an idiot.

Look up how the religious view the pineal gland. It happens to be the largest in the Vatican collection or carvings. It is considered the gateway to the higher mind. But if you do not open your mind to possibilities they will not come your way.

Regards
DL

I want to keep this simple, since it’s gone on for so long and you’re just now giving something remotely tangible. So, I’m going to use Wikipedia. Feel free to correct me or add to my knowledge. I’m also using my general knowledge to make the claim that what I’m quoting here is THE general consensus. Even if I’m wrong, I’m telling you that’s where I’m coming from, so if you are trying to explain something to me, that’s good to keep in mind.

Baruch de Spinoza criticized Descartes’ viewpoint for neither following from self-evident premises nor being “clearly and distinctly perceived” (Descartes having previously asserted that he could not draw conclusions of this sort), and questioned what Descartes meant by talking of “the union of the mind and the body

Although I have problems with Spinoza, I agree with him on this issue. I say that only to make the point that I’m not in left field on this issue. I seriously doubt the Vatican could add much to this.

Numerous spiritual philosophies contain the notion of an inner Third Eye that is related to the Ajna chakra and also the pineal gland, and to which is attributed significance in mystical awakening or enlightenment, clairvoyant perception, and higher states of consciousness. This idea occurs historically in ancient central and east Asia, and also in contemporary occult theories relating to yoga, Theosophy, Pagan religions, and New Age spiritual philosophies. There is no clinical evidence to support these assertions.

Bold added by me. Because it’s the whole point. They are just assertions. It’s interesting that we’ve identified some physical evidence that relates to these feelings and experiences we have, but it doesn’t mean any of these ancient ideas are correct or useful in the way that they claim to be.

I think you have a misconception that I only accept what is proven or something like that. Or that I dismiss all mythic references or any philosophy over 100 years old. Not true. I recognize those things as part of the spectrum of the human experience. They are records of us discovering ourselves. It seems to me you are the one who is dismissing all of the new evidence, all of the new attempts to understand just how these experiences manifest and how we relate to them in a way that is actually enlightening.

Stuff like this:

Melatonin is N-acetyl-5-methoxy-tryptamine, a derivative of the amino acid tryptophan, which also has other functions in the central nervous system. The production of melatonin by the pineal gland is stimulated by darkness and inhibited by light.[21][22] Photosensitive cells in the retina detect light and directly signal the SCN, entraining its rhythm to the 24-hour cycle in nature. Fibers project from the SCN to the paraventricular nuclei (PVN), which relay the circadian signals to the spinal cord and out via the sympathetic system to superior cervical ganglia (SCG), and from there into the pineal gland.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10

“It seems to me you are the one who is dismissing all of the new evidence,”

Sure. As I promote these ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Seems you have reversed what I do and say so I don’t know where you want to go from here friend.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1124
Joined  2009-10-21
Greatest I am - 10 February 2014 01:16 PM

“It seems to me you are the one who is dismissing all of the new evidence,”

Sure. As I promote these ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Seems you have reversed what I do and say so I don’t know where you want to go from here friend.

Regards
DL

I haven’t reversed anything. What do you mean? Are saying a YouTube about the Bible is “new evidence”. Are you saying DesCartes ideas about the pineal gland are modern science? We aren’t going anywhere until you start being honest about what it is you are saying instead of making claims about higher minds then treating me like I’m stupid for not knowing what you’re talking about.

I know how the term “higher minds” has been used. I know many ways that people have attempted to define it. I just think they have failed. I would use the existence of the pineal gland as evidence that they failed, but you point to it like it supports your statements. Why do you think that is? This is not a rhetorical question, it does not carry any hidden insults, unlike your posts that have unhidden insults.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Lausten - 09 February 2014 01:54 PM
Greatest I am - 09 February 2014 10:29 AM

What I would say does not seem to matter at this point. You wish to argue. Not learn.

Regards
DL

To quote a Monty Python sketch, “this isn’t an argument”. You telling me what I think is not even a discussion. You can’t even define your terms. I guess you believe “higher mind” is something that I should know, something you can just name I would know what you mean.

Speaking of Monty Python, here’s the script for The Argument Clinic. Which fits right in here. M is the man looking for an argument, R is The Receptionist, Q is the Abuser, A is the Arguer. Eric Idle was the Man looking for an Argument, John Cleese was the Arguer.

 

M:   Ah. I’d like to have an argument, please.
R:    Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M:   No, I haven’t, this is my first time.
R:     I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M:   Well, what is the cost?
R:    Well, It’s one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M:   Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R:     Fine. Well, I’ll see who’s free at the moment.
Pause
R:    Mr. DeBakey’s free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M:    Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q:   WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M:   Well, I was told outside that…
Q:   Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M:   What?
Q:   Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M:   Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
Q:   OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
M:   Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q:   Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M:   Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q:   Not at all.
M:   Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A:   Come in.
M:   Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A:   I told you once.
M:   No you haven’t.
A:   Yes I have.
M:   When?
A:    Just now.
M:   No you didn’t.
A:   Yes I did.
M:  You didn’t
A:   I did!
M:  You didn’t!
A:   I’m telling you I did!
M:  You did not!!
A:   Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M:  Oh, just the five minutes.
A:   Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M:  You most certainly did not.
A:   Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M:  No you did not.
A:   Yes I did.
M:   No you didn’t.
A:   Yes I did.
M:   No you didn’t.
A:   Yes I did.
M:   No you didn’t.
A:   Yes I did.
M:  You didn’t.
A:   Did.
M:  Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
A:   Yes it is.
M:   No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
A:   No it isn’t.
M:  It is!
A:   It is not.
M:  Look, you just contradicted me.
A:   I did not.
M:  Oh you did!!
A:   No, no, no.
M:  You did just then.
A:   Nonsense!
M:  Oh, this is futile!
A:   No it isn’t.
M:  I came here for a good argument.
A:   No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
M:  An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A:   It can be.
M:  No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A:   No it isn’t.
M:  Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A:   Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M:  Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A:   Yes it is!
M:   No it isn’t!
A:   Yes it is!
M:  Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A:  No it isn’t.
M:  It is.
A:  Not at all.
M:  Now look.
A: (Rings bell)  Good Morning.
M:  What?
A:   That’s it. Good morning.
M:   I was just getting interested.
A:   Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M:  That was never five minutes!
A:   I’m afraid it was.
M:  It wasn’t.
Pause
A:   I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue anymore.
M:  What?!
A:   If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
M:  Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A:  (Hums)
M:  Look, this is ridiculous.
A:   I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
M:  Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A:   Thank you.
short pause
M:  Well?
A:   Well what?
M:   That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
A:    I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
M:   I just paid!
A:   No you didn’t.
M:   I DID!
A:   No you didn’t.
M:  Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
A:  Well, you didn’t pay.
M:  Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A:   No you haven’t.
M:  Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
A:   Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M:  Oh I’ve had enough of this.
A:   No you haven’t.
M:  Oh Shut up.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 5
5