How do we know they are lies? Just because they are not what we believe doesn't mean they are lies.

Bin, where did this post come from? Ha. Have you been running around in my mind or something. I don't mind at all. You are coming around my friend. The "Bin" who posted the above words is not the same "Bin" that made the below statements in another threed:


"What about those that like their nation and refuse to be a part of your world nation?
Like me" (Post 34 in "One world nation or many nations")


"If there is no distinct land then the Nations will disperse and so will their cultures, and languages, and dress, and there will end up being one boring nation"(Post 31 same thread)


"Peace is between two nations, if there is only one nation then it can never really find peace with another". (Post 31 same thread)

The only exceptions I would make are minor IMO, the world was not created "incomplete" in that it will never be complete. It is unfolding and evolving and we are a part of that Divine process. The fact that we consider that process "limited and separate" from ourselves comes from "arrogance" due to the "perfection of our own creation" forcing us to assume our autonomy and being separate from it.

The three above quotes are, as it seems to me, offering "mixed messages" and I can only hope it is you coming to a better understanding. We are one, my friend and any effort to maintain those "separations" that identify us as "nations" will never lead to that "perfection" you mentioned. We are "one" people. There is much we can learn from each other once we effort to bring down those boundaries that separate us and that means establishing common ground founded in trush and respect. Once we recognise all are 'divine", then and only then will we begin to understand the "oneness" of which you speak.

Nice post.

William

Binyamin Tsadik,

Your post brought this Zen story to mind.

There was a Zen Master who used to invite his disciples to his house in order to meditate. The meditation was very soulful but unfortunately the Master owned a cat who used to come in and disturb the meditation. Therefore, before each meditation, the Master would tie up the cat to his bed; this would enable the master and his disciples to meditate in peace downstairs. After the Master's passing, his students still used to come to the house to meditate and tie up the cat to the bed.

Now one seeker had to travel to another country and he didn't return for another 5 years time. When he returned he was shocked to see that there were many more people coming to the Master's house. However, they didn't come to meditate, they only came to tie up cats to the bed. Even in such a short time the real purpose of the Master's house had been forgotten. The seekers were concentrating only on the trivial ritual of tying up a cat to the bed; they had forgotten the essential part of coming to his house which was meditation.

Nice story, but i hardly see the connection to my post, perhaps it was not connected and was just a story that you were reminded of. Thanks for sharing it. :a-ok:

Don't read Rose's Zen story literally.

I am sure you are sincere in your attempt to use the body as an analogy to "oneness" but I will have do disagree with that analogy. For then we must determine who is the "heart" and who is the "anus".

When I say embrace I mean let them be. People who express their beliefs by putting down other people's beliefs fail to see the bigger picture, of which I believe there is one.

we all know how detrimental war can be to scientific or even philosophic progress.

As I have stated previously in the physics section,
All perception is based on interaction.

The 5 senses, and all scientific Data must be attained through some type of interaction.

If one person said that he spoke to God in a cave (Mohammad) could we believe him?
The answer is no. How could the limitless perfection expect us to 'beleive' in Him or His Prophets without any type of proof?

If God were to provide proof of His 'existance' (for lack of a better word), it would have to be through some type of interaction.

Two completely independant systems have no evidence of each other unless there is some type of interaction or exchange.

Now, if God interacted in a past generation, how does this generation know that this interaction actually happened?
50 Years after the Holocaust people began denying that it ever occurred and there are still surrvivors that are alive today. What will happen when there are no more survivors to say "I was there! It happened!" How can we accept any history to be true for that matter?

If God interacted 3000 years ago, how can we know that this is true today?

First of all, it would have to be a Mass event that more than a small group or people witnessed.
This entire group would have to have recorded it in a physical form and there must be some proof that the generation that recorded it agrees with it.
The event would have had to have drastically changed the entire group and that change would have had to be a difficult change that goes against nature and the only reason that that change remains is because they agree with the occurrence.

Example

An alien comes to earth and makes a funny noise and then leaves.

one person witnessed it - Not enough proof -- could be lying
10 people witnessed it - Not enough proof -- could be a conspiracy
600 000 people witnessed it - Enough proof for someone to beleive it if he wanted to.

The Alien comes to earth and tells everyone to draw a circle once a year

one person does it, and then his decendants continue doing it.
Not enough proof -- could be lying to his children
10 people and their decendants -- not enough proof -- conspiracy
600 000 people and their decendants
-- enough proof but drawing a circle is not so challenging

The Alien comes to earth and gives over the recipe for a society but in that recipe there are 613 difficult laws for the society to keep that go against their natural inclination.

1 person and his decendants - could be lying
10 people and their decendants -- could be a conspiracy
600 000 people and their decendants -- enough proof to beleive but how do we know that nothing changed and evolved over time? The original occurance could have happened but how do we know that the nation preserved it?

When 600 000 people receive a book that says in it "They all heard the voice of God", and "They complained about the difficulty of the commandments" and "They are a stubborn people" (who would not beleive something that didnt happen).
And there is a cerimony that occurs for eight days, once a year where the father tells the son "Beleive that it happened. My father said it did, and his father said it did, and his father before him, all the way back to the people that were there that received this tradition to pass it on (pass over)"

And there is proof that the Text has not changed by a single letter in the last 2000 years and when the Arc is found it will be 3000 years.

Then all of that is enough proof to beleive that it occurred because it is far more probable that it occured than any other possible explanation.
Such as "Mass Hypnotism".

But beleiving in God without any proof is very rediculous. In fact there is no commandment in the Torah that says "Beleive"
The first of the 10 sayings (commonly mistranslated as commandments) is "I am the God that took you out of the land of Egypt" (Nothing mentioned about beleif.. Everyone heard the voice that said 'I AM')

Not "I am the God that created the world" because we did not witness the creation of the world. There is no proof of that. We did, however witness the Exodus of Egypt.
Which is a very great feat. Egypt was the Ruling Empire of Mesopotamia.

So, BK-Thinkaboom, there is nothing wrong with accepting this proof that there is a God today. It is a proof of Nature.

And there are tablets that were found in the last century in Egypt that describe the 10 plagues in the exact order that they occurred.

In short the gist of the story was to explain how certain traditions got started through misunderstanding and were past down through generations.

I firmly believe that the only way we can go about attempting to understand the universe any further than we already do, is to begin by looking at what we perceive as nature, and by assuming that these perceptions are real and true.

It is the difference between Eternal Truth, and Temporary Truth.

The Zen Master tied the cat as a Temporary Truth, but his students thought that it was an Eternal Truth.

I thought he tied the cat to the bed because it was interfering with his meditation.

Because of the lack of smiley Icons I will assume what you said was not a joke.

It was a temporary truth to tie the cat to the bed because it interfered with his meditation. It was a truth from that specific place and time and circumstance. His students mistakenly thought that it was an eternal truth and continued to tie the cat to the bed from different circumstance, place and time.

Understand yet?

It is highly likely that the entire universe is a single system. Whether that can be said to be a consciousness is debatable. After all, in order to be a consciousness, it should logically be capable of being conscious of itself.
Nothing outside a system can ever interact with that system without being part of the system.
We see many paradoxes only because our level of magnification is too high. We zoom in too much.
Zooming in too much can also explain many of the apparent differences between the different religious, philosophical and scientific views of reality. In this I agree with Rose in believing that not all those contradictions are what they seem to be.