₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Ok so it's basically dressing what is very much human capacity in religious garb.

Exactly.

This is bad and good at the same time, I mean the dressing...

LordReed:
Well if you can achieve this without a god how are you able to tell the difference?

Man by default loves life (is good) but has capacity to play out the converse of good. We have it in us.

How the above means is in the case where a kid cries for the Christmas chicken when it's being slaughtered. Even some adults cannot use the knife to take the chickens life.

Is that really so that man is good (and bad) by default? :

Yes.

Why "yes"?

Well, we look into the big laboratory of facts and life around us:

Sweden is noted to be one of the most atheist countries, such countries happen to be the most peaceful and compliant with the '10 commandments'.

Lesson: Love is actually the main business, not religion or believe in any deity. We have it by default.

This is actually the "God" you've been hearing of in the practical and real sense. Religions merely had it mixed up and replaced with ETs.

The identity of those beings is known mostly from sources outside Christianity. These men are active even today.

The issue is, whenever a christian happens on that information or even these beings who appeared to Abraham, the "reject at sight" mechanism kicks in. This is the job of the idea that everything must be found in the Bible for it to be accepted as a fact or truth...it's a trap for mental or spiritual crystalisis.

The persons who asked that the books which made their way into what Christians accept as 'the Bible' today still have more of such materials.

Sadly they can't ask that more books be added into the current Bible to satiate the "is it scriptural?" folks...

LordReed:
It's beautiful! I love it. It does sound like a movie soundtrack though. Do you know if it has been used in any movie?

Yep, "Madagascar".

HellVictorinho6:
Maynman is a line

triplechoice making it lines

LordReed can as well stay away

till i die unto Hell 2 define

spits

u created a baseless thread

am here 2 mean it


worthless comments


ur worst be damned


i dont expect anything useful 4rm it


until u chew my bones


he was also victorinho

Oh, we have a poet in the house...

privaldo:
Happy New Year fellow lover of God, welcome to the year of Graceful Living. I suspected so too, I'm far from any center, so I normally join in online.

Thanks a lot. I will always share when. Available.

Cheers to The the Year of Gracefully Leaving🎈

orisa37:
NO.
GOD CREATED US SELFISH THAT WE MAY SEEK HIM AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH CHRIST JESUS.

Care to explain what you mean please?

privaldo:
Good morning, do you the link to today's light and sound

Hello dear, I think all centers are geared towards today's in-person service in Chanhassen Minnesota.

I am not sure if any ECK center will hold service today.

Today is an ECK New year

Maynman:
Without eardrums there will be no sound, we should give thanks to the gift of existence.
There is no other life apart from this, enjoy it

You're right 👍

PythonTutorials:
I like this 👍🏻

Oh, thank you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYdQ-690-c

Lyrics

Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart

Live free and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star

Stay free where no walls divide you
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide


Born free and life is worth living
But only worth living
'Cause you're born free

Stay free, where no walls divide you
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide

Born free and life is worth living
But only worth living
'Cause you're born free

...they involve and are not limited to:

Atheists...

Religious explorers...

Those who have quit religion and searching...

Those not searching...

Students of ECK...

Students of Bhudha...

Grail...

Christian Mystics...

Islamic Mystics...

Traditionalists...

Christians and their Muslim counterparts...



The list goes on...Enjoy.

Maynman:
Without eyes, there will be no light or darkness and the spectrum of colors.
Without eyes, sun will not be light.
Without eardrums there will no sound.

Interesting. Have you heard about the eyes not actually what is used to 'see'?

Maynman:
Without eyes, there will be no light or darkness and the spectrum of colors.
Without eyes, sun will not be light.
Without eardrums there will no sound.

You are mixing Eckankar tales with science, I'd advise you do your research beyond Eckankar and go to the East where it was taken from.


What's the origin of "Aum", it's better you listen to it than shout it, guess they didn't teach you that.

You need your 5 SENSES to perceive Reality, this is reality, there's no other one.

Lol, it comes and goes at will ni?

triplechoice:
The difference is not the relevant thing here but the fact that anyone who handles it has an experience of it as proof of it's existence .

Were not arguing existence, were talking of objectivity.

Objectivity as defined talks about being true regardless of the subjective.

My argument is: if so, nothing is objective because as far as a human is concerned, he must use his senses (relative to it's well being, worldview etc) to perceive the so-called objective.

This leaves us with no generally exact result of perception and experiencing but an agreement to label something as objective.

This is what we did with legal tenders.

triplechoice:
@cheiveboy. See what I mean? . You failed to grasp what he meant the first time

Actually he reenforced my opinion that all what we label as objective is merely a collective agreement to label them so even though they actually are not objective in the very intent of the word and the truer state (visual, auditory, etc).

I just did an experiment on Lordreed with "purtanism" which isn't anything that we agreed is named so. It proves that a collection of subjectives needs to make an "aproval" and "acceptance" for anything to be objective


Now, when we perceive colors, visually we are not seeing the entirety of the color spectrum (thanks to the limits of our visual range), but to move on with life, we simply accept that the range of green our eyes see is the objective green. This buttress my initial hypothesis that " objectivity is merely an agreement to accept that objectivity" (though not true).

So objectivity relies on the subjective which often isn't perfect as in the case of zooming into a spider to see it eyes as earlier attached.

triplechoice:
Anyone,who handles, without any form of protection , a high tension cable carrying electricity, will surely be electrocuted .Not "agreeing "won't save you .

I have just given you something to work with to get your answer yourself .

Agreed, the drift (a very big one) is: this electrocution measured let's say in 50kw will register and be experienced differently relative to body-mass, bio-electric state of the cells, etc.

Maynman:
The joke is on you, you are in prison and you THINK you are free.

Like seriously you got it spot on. I am not joking.

People use their eyes, ears, noses, skins and brains to perceive whatever is branded as 'Objective'.

Their eyes, ears, noses, etc are all subjective paraphernalia.

So I am not actually kidding you, I meant you are right.

Maynman:
The word "puritanism" is already used as a symbol for some people representing something, it's here already.

The future does not exist, there's only Now.

It's "purtanism" not 'puritanism', check well.

Maynman:
The persons will use their subjectivity to decide the objectivity.
Subjectivity implies Objectivity, and vice versa.

Okay, I will insult you small

This is the first time you have really showed us you have 'number 6'. Impressive!

Lordreed, triplechoice

The stone the builders have rejected o...
Mayman has cracked the code for you guys.

Maynman:
Exactly, so, The word "puritanism" does not exist.
It has no shape or Color.

Who are the users and mentioners?

Those who will later decide to name one thing or the other "puritanism". This can be an invention or a future-occurring concept.

The catch: one or more persons must decide a level of objectivity. This is what my friend here fail to see.

Maynman:
The “name” for anything is an abstract concept.

..which is further agreed and accepted by the users and mentioners of that name to form an object or instance of objectivity

Maynman:
The word "puritanism" does not exist.
It has no shape or Color.

LoL tell us more

LordReed:
Right. So you are advocating a solipsistic position. That's fine and I told you I don't argue with solipsistic positions, it's pointless imo.

Fine.

No I don't know what purtanism is.

Good. This is me declaring the objectivity of whatever purtanism is. Cheers!

LordReed:
You are either advocating a solipsistic position or you just unwittingly created a solipsistic trap.

...or that since you couldn't address my response to you, you brought this angle as your classic withdrawal measures.

Else, I cannot see how objectivity is established exclusive to observers.

By the way do you know what is purtanism?

Maynman:
Wrong, the mind is an abstraction, it does not exist.

The process of walking belongs to the legs.
The process of thinking belongs to the mind.
The brain is needed to support both.

The mind thinks, the Heart feels.
You have a mind and a heart, you are not a mind or heart.

Okay, that's your perspective.

triplechoice:
Oh. A very suitable description of what he has been doing on a thread he created himself .

Ah, and I will really love to hear your views on the yardsticks aused to determine Objectivity. I will do this popcorn in hand.

Cc lordreed.

LordReed:
OK. I don't argue with solipsists or enter solipsistic traps so have a good one.

What are you talking about this time man?

LordReed:
I am not asking about your perception of the words, I mean the words themselves. Are they objectively existing outside of your perception?

"How do I know it is objectively existing" is what you should ask lol. You can't throw me away out of the 'agreement' and still ask me if it exists. What we don't know is not objective na. Objectivity is actually arrived at by a (substantial) Collective.

triplechoice:
One needs to be sure of what you have described
So,

1. Provide examples of how "a subject" perceives those experiences relative to the state of their "sensorial" nose ,eyes ,skin ,etc.

Very well, even though I'm surprised you're asking this.

Example: Dangote cement is agreed to be a cement product with distinct quantity and quality. Left to erstwhile definitions, that product is Objectively Dangote Cement.

Why? Because of its quantity and quality (compositions, branding etc). This is the yardstick for establishing a global on the objectivity of Dangote Cement.

Not going too far, if I can't see the qualities (because I am visually impaired), I am not able to join the group of those who say Dangote Cement is objectively Dangote Cement. My handicap prevents me from that agreement.

Since no two people are alike psycho-biologically, it means we can possible never observe anything the same way. This is more true given the fact that even what we thought were seeing isn't entirely what is there to see, for us to delimit the bounds of its reality and existence.

So we merely agree to work with what we are and have for the sake of 'peace' and order to reign. We can't kill ourselves...

2."perception not influenced by subjective influences " .How does this happen . Example or examoles also needed too so one can picture accurately what you 're referring to.

If i stated what you quoted here, this must be a mistake. I must have meant "perception is influenced by subjective dynamics" or so. This is in line with even my original argument from the beginning.

Look at the attached image, it is the same spider we all thought we objectively agreed is a spider. If you send someone this image and say it's a spider, they may beg to differ

LordReed:
So these words that I wrote and you are reading are not objectively the same?

Exactly. Depending on my mental state, I could come back and tell you "sorry I thought your wrote...." instead.

I also could have visual issues and not be able to read them entirely. So I am reading what you wrote by depending heavily on the quality of my visual 'perceptors' and the capacity of my mind to interpret and make meaning of what you wrote.

What you wrote hence is not universal as you will have it, and the idea of objectivity is becoming a mere agreement to accept...

LordReed:
Great so neither of these definitions match up to your conclusion. Reality exists or persists outside of our ability to perceive it so our act of perceiving it does nothing to it.

Exactly, it's why I said all we've been branding as reality or objectivity all the while is merely us agreeing to label our limited views (of larger and broader object, perspective or experience) as being objective and real in the sense of the word while it is not.