X-Ftn-To: Foo Fighter

Foo Fighter wrote:
>In article ,
>dturina@geocities.com says...
>>
>> Ne, Ti znas. ;>
>>
>
>Znam, i zato ti se cudim sto govoris. Navodno stujes poslanje Isusa iz
>Nazareta, no ne stujes Njegovu srz, nego samo praznu ljusturu. Odbacujes
>srz Njegovog poslanja, da se svijet spasi po Njemu. Ako to odbacujes,
>odbacujes i Njega. Izvrces sve naopako, crno prikazujes bijelim, bijelo
>crnim.

Dobro si se opisao. :)

>Govoris da si spoznao Boga, no mogu ti reci da si u zabludi.
>Ljudi koji su spoznali Boga i govore o Bogu, jednostavno zrace mirom,
>spokojem, vjerom, radoscu, i kad ih se cuje kako govore i pisu, covjek
>se namah osjeca bolje.

:)))

>Ti naprotiv, si uvijek mracan, u grcu, samo gledas koga uvrijediti, kome
>se nasmijati, koga povrijediti, na koga izliti zuc. Iz tebe ne izvire
>svjetlost, nego tama. Ponos, oholost i megalomanija su te zavele.

Ti si totalni idiot.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Foo Fighter

Foo Fighter wrote:
>> Ma, bolji je temelj za tumacenje Isusa pet sekundi iskustva Boga nego
>> dvije tisuce godina crkvenog licemjerja i nedostatka uvida.
>>
>
>Danijele, jel' ti uopce znas o cemu govoris?

Ne, Ti znas. ;>

>Ti bi 5 sekundi tko zna
>kakvog iskustva zamijenio za 2k godina?

Isti cas. Naime, bolje je pet sekundi gledati Boga nego 2K godina
gledati budale kako seru.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Adam Meadows

Adam Meadows wrote:

>> This would mean that
>> you're so far gone, that you didn't even have enough touch with God to
>> feel sorry for losing it. So, it's much better to feel guilt, because
>> it means that you are essentially good.
>
>Hmmmm. The idea of God building in morals to every human seems fishy.

Naaah, God didn't do it. It's merely a result of our contact with the
supreme reality. If we're in touch with it, we are fulfilled. If we
lose that touch, we feel inner emptiness and wrongness. Guilt is just
a word that describes a small part of that.

>Especially when you consider that all feelings originate at the neuronal
>level and any random mutation in DNA or unique up-bringing could create a
>very unusual moral system.

Actually, human consciousness is a result of bi-directional link of
the soul and the body; if you disturb the link on either side, you'll
get strange results, usually negative. The body is an equivalent of a
radio - if the receiver malfunctions, or if there is a distortion of
the radio waves themselves, you will get less than perfect
manifestation of the radio waves. Now make that bi-directional like a
modem, and you'll understand how body and soul mix.

This all means that you can at one hand have absolute moral
principles, and that people can have distorted perceptions of morality
caused by education and upbringing. So, the right upbringing would be
the one that helps people develop moral concepts that perfectly
reflect their inner sense of rightness. Otherwise you'll have terrible
problems - for instance, if you're taught that some wrong thing is
right, and you happen to do it, you will not understand why you
suffer, and you'll try to rationalize it in some way.
The other form of distortion is also common, when people have guilt
about things that make them feel good, because they were taught that
some good thing is actually bad.
In spiritual practice, people very soon get in touch with the absolute
morality, and they come to see that it has very little to do with
human concepts of it, but is nevertheless very real.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>Time does exist at
>the same instant that matter does. However, time is not required before the
>non-causal event. The fluctuation takes place in time. It does not need a
>prior temporal or material event to cause it.

The fluctuation takes place in time and space, and you imply that,
basically, the universe and some of its laws need to exist in order
for the universe to exist, which actually means that you believe that
one fundamental aspect of the universe resulted in manifestation of
what we see today. It's all ridiculous to me, because it shows that
you just can't accept the state of nonexistence of the universe - you
always imply that it needs to be there in order for it to be. It
doesn't sound even a least bit convincing.

>> , and therefore,
>> if time is created with the space, it cannot exist prior to the event
>> of creation, and therefore the event itself can never come to be,
>> because everything is frozen into static nonexistence, in which
>
>This argument could be used against your god.

Not against my God, if you listened carefully (which I doubt). As I
said, videogame's time begins when you run it, but it says nothing
about computer's time. It is already boring, but I'll once again
repeat that my God does not exist within the universe - the universe
exists within God, as a figment of his mind. The universe itself has
no existence outside of God. God is the sole reality, and the universe
is as real as any dream or a simulation.

>Relativity predicts that time
>would be infinitely dilated in the singularity.

Actually, all those theories are just crap. None of that has any
scientific basis. It's like all those particles generated in the
accelerators - any fool can tell you that, according to the equations
regarding mass and energy, if you make enough tests with enough
energy, you'll end up getting any possible form of condensed energy,
in statistical distribution. If it amuses people to call those things
elementary particles, so be it, but it's all total bullshit of a
proof. With such "evidence", you can prove any theory you like, but
sooner or later somebody will figure out that this is not the way to
do things. Likewise with the superstrings, quantum fluctuations of the
vacuum and like. Those theories are scientific bullshit, invented with
the sole purpose of avoiding to admit defeat, when it is obviously
demonstrated.

>Therefore your god could do
>nothing causal.

:)) As I thought, you're not really listening to what I write, you're
too obsessed with attempts to prove that something that doesn't exist
doesn't exist. Get over it. I don't believe in God by most
definitions. They suck, and such God would be a limited, frustrated
being made on human image. Your problem is that you believe that God,
according to some bad definition, exists, and now you're trying to
spite him by proving that he doesn't exist. It's childish. The God
that you believe in doesn't exist. A much better one does exist.

>> If you define this universe as the totality of existence, all events
>> freeze with the singularity, and any change of that condition is not
>> possible, except by external force.
>
>A particle and an anti-particle pair are a net zero change.

And those particles and anti-particles existed where, in rat's ass?

>> This is not a proof of God, but
>> it's reason enough not to believe that this universe came out of
>> nothing,
>
>Nobody said it came out of nothing.

Aha, so it always existed. In spite of the evidence of the contrary.

>Nothing cannot by definition exist.

Oh, but a state in which no thing has existence can exist.

>it will not have any of the properties attributed to god by
>established religion.

Depends on the religion. I would advise that you look up vedanta,
according to Shankaracarya. You'll be surprized.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>> >> >God is so fundamental that we can find absolutely no evidence in material reality
>> >> >for god?
>> >>
>> >> If you are completely deluded with a perception of a virtual reality,
>> >> you can hardly find any evidence for the existence of the computer.
>> >
>> >I believe the term for your above comment is ignorantio elenchi.
>>
>> Actually, the term for your above comment is non sequitur. Look that
>> up and then come back to me.
>
>There is nothing that is a non sequitur about your ignorantio elenchi. You have stated
>something that is not relevant to the discussion at hand. I simply called you on it.

Actually, I answered your question, by showing that it is perfectly
logical that you can't see any material evidence of the existence of
God if your existence and perception are given within his mind; an
analogy is that if you perceive a videogame as your world, you'll have
no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the computer.

The rest was, as I said, non sequitur, because you expressed
objections that are unrelated to the subject and don't address it.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Denis Simoda

"Denis Simoda" wrote:
>> :)) Vidim da malo previse gledas svijet kroz Hare Krishna naocale. :)
>
>:) Ne gledam. Cini ti se zbog terminologije. "Prabhupadov Krishna" kaze
>kad prica o dvije prirode, da se onaj tko dostigne njegovo vjecno
>prebivaliste, nikada ne vraca u ovaj svijet sjena. "Neelov Bog" govori
>nesto drugo.

Koliko se ja sjecam, HK teologija govori da oslobodjenje nije cilj,
nego da je predano sluzenje cilj, a predano sluzenje implicira
oslobodjenje, tako da se cisti bhakta koji predano sluzi moze ponovo
radjati u bilo kojem svijetu i tamo sluziti Krsnu. :) CWG rijecnikom,
nakon izbora Boga covjek nastavlja zivjeti na Bozanski nacin, a radja
li se ili ne, to je irelevantno.

>:)) Ionako ne zelis nista reci.

Nije istina, samo ne zelim odgovarati na pitanja na koja se ne moze
nista pametno odgovoriti, zato sto ih postavljas iz konteksta koji
implicira nerazumijevanje bilo kojeg moguceg odgovora.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Foo Fighter

Foo Fighter wrote:
>Zasto mislis da je tvoje tumacenje Isusa ispravno? Isus je osnovao svoju
>Crkvu, ona tumaci Isusa? Crkva nasljedjuje Isusa 2k godina, a ti si na
>svijetu nekoliko desetaka godina. Otkud tebi smjelost da govoris da je
>tvoje tumacenje ispravno a crkveno nije?

Ma, bolji je temelj za tumacenje Isusa pet sekundi iskustva Boga nego
dvije tisuce godina crkvenog licemjerja i nedostatka uvida.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: E r i n i j

"E r i n i j" wrote:
>Sta vi mislite o ovome?

Svoji na svome. :)))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Aco Momcilovic (a.k.a. Never)

"Aco Momcilovic (a.k.a. Never)" wrote:
>Evo da ja tvorim ovaj post buduci da sam zadnji dosao i igrom slucaja
>prvi otisao :)
>
>Daklen, dokle je trajao , jesam li sto propustio?

Nista bitno, i ostali su se pokupili za kratko vrijeme. :)

>Komentari?

Jao. :))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Adam Meadows

Adam Meadows wrote:
>So if I don't feel that sensation of wrongness, then obviously I have not
>sinned.

Or you have no contact with your conscience. This would mean that
you're so far gone, that you didn't even have enough touch with God to
feel sorry for losing it. So, it's much better to feel guilt, because
it means that you are essentially good. It's best, however, not to do
things that give you the feeling of a terrible mistake. But if you
happen to do it, it's better to spit it out than to swallow it and
make it a part of you.

Of course, guilt can be misplaced, as anything else, and there are all
sorts of guilt, but I have to simplify things.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org