₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
Simple.

The poster was warning others by using his father as example, but failing to mention anything about his father that was deemed negative or evil.

Quoting Manly P Hello, " The pre-eminence of any philosophical system can be measured by the quality of its out put".

Morals and ethics are the standard measure of the quality of a person's mind.

What morals and ethics will you be referring to? Who determines them?

Are they not subjective?

If so, how can you or anyone else use them as - using your specific words above - a standard measure?

As I am sure you are well aware, Rosicrucian philosophy, has, for ages, been molding and bequeathing to humankind, the finest minds that have greatly influenced and shaped civilization, most notably the freedoms and human dignity that we take so much for granted.

Yes i am aware.
However what makes a mind fine and what measures dignity?

plaetton:
Since you brought your dad into this matter, mindly tell us about your dad and his personal attributes,his moral and ethical standards, etc.

Why should the bold matter?

Aside the fact that a life lived as a wager absent conviction is a genuine waste; the truth is that neither belief nor unbelief of the sort depicted here renders safe passage for the soul of man upon exit from its physical garment. Only a heart full of undimmed love for all that rests in creation does.

usermane:
Thank you. I deliberately left that out because the advocates of the veil insist that most women wear the veil out of choice, not under coercion.

How do they know this?
What percent of veil wearing Islamic women would have the courage to admit it if they really did not wish to wear the veil?

Although I am absolutely for freedom in terms of attire, I must say that there are considerable civil rights reasons in favor of banning veils, and one that must not be overlooked is the fact that a lot of women do not even voluntarily choose to wear it but do so under extreme social, cultural, religious and psychological pressure up to and including the threat of physical harm.

For such persons, the ban is liberation.

^ I am well, my friend, I hope you and family are well.

However I see that you are still in the business of comparing belief in your creator to belief in the tooth-fairy and the like.

~: It is no matter; for every soul will come to recognition at some time or the other.
Either within this Earth-Life, or at Death.

plaetton:
Bullshyte Deepsight.
Its like saying that no child can live without profound love for the toothfairy.

Long remains your journey.

Psycho-Social conditioning.

benodic:
The Laws Of Wisdom are the laws that speak of divine power and how it manifests in the universe

under the Laws of wisdom you have
1. the law of causation
2. the law of change
3. the law of consciousness
4. five spiritual laws of this world
5. the law of God
6. the law of grace
7. the law of HU
8. the law of life
9. the law of Mksha
10. the law of the physical universe
11. the law of self
12. the law of soul
13. the law of spirit
14. the law of spiritual evolution
15. the law of spiritual nonperfection
16. the law of strength
17. the law of survival

Dearest Brother Benodic.
How have you been. Hope well.

Please I would appreciate it if you can briefly explain each of these laws.

Thank you.

kingolaola:
I was with Folake at around 12 pm today. I got an alert from Gtb. It was one ALEX OKORO TOCHI who made payment of N3000. Whoever you are. God will bless you.

I showed the alert to Folake and before I knew it, tears had fulled her eyes and I was about to talk but mine got worse. God bless every one who cares for us.

Please remember that your prayer is also needed.

We still have a long way to go as the treatment will continue for the next 8 weeks. Basically, N60, 000 a week.

PLEASE WE STILL NEED MORE SUPPORT
Thanks

Hello. I don't think you should publish names of donors unless they state that they dont mind. If the above donor is fine with your mentioning his name here, that is okay, but I honestly dont think its right if you dont have the donors permission. Some people would not wish to make their contributions publicly known.

I wish the ill woman the very best and strong recovery.
Stay blessed.

^^^ Here's wishing you the best of GOD's BOUNTIFUL BLESSINGS IN 2015 and always: and the reward of GOD's SPIRITUAL INSIGHT.
Amin.

^^^ Yes. Happy New Year Bro. Whats up?

plaetton:
Again, I disagree.
Once you trigger an event, nothing ever remains the same.
For example, once you open a thread, although you still remain deepsight, the experience of creating a thread and posting your opinions adds to, alters and sometimes irrevocably changes the sum of your worldviews and who you are, or becoming.

Everything is a constant state of becoming.

I have not had time to return here. I will as soon as I can.

But one quick comment on the bold is this - if indeed this is the principle that stands - namely - that change is constant - then you can see clearly that whereas change constantly occurs, the principle that change is constant does not change.

That principle remains immutable, eternal.

This is why I said that whatever is, is.
We are having a discussion at the level of principles of eternity but unfortunately you are, in your assessment, locked into the finite.

This is why I said that God is immutable.
Because at that level, we speak of adamantine principles.

Will revert later... if needed.

Happy New year...

ooman:
Exactly. If we are talking about a singularity from which everything came and to which everything return, and if this singularity is the only thing that can exist before anything is (which I think I and DeepSight agree on), then ability to cause by changing must also be present in it. Therefore, it must be mutable, else only this singularity will exist for infinity.

If this is not true, then something else is needed to bring about plurality from this singularity. DeepSight does not see this as a contradiction to his view of one "eternity" however.

God is not the physical singularity predating the Big Bang of this universe... just a note. Also an ability to cause events does not connote that the intrinsic nature of the causer thereby changes. However, will expand on both your concerns when free. Take care.

plaetton:
Change is the only constant in the universe, not time, not eternity, and not god.

Well at least you were nuanced enough to say "in" the universe: you ought to know of course, that the precepts at play here far transcend this or any conceivable universe.

God and Eternity are precepts that transcend the material dimension and the universe indeed.

Indeed, it is the very fact of the constant change of matter and the universe that we derive the logical understanding that neither can be eternal in the past - as they lack the quality of self existence. This leads us to apprehend the fact that they must proceed from a transcendent extraneous cause or factor.

ooman:
I do not seek elongation. I seek understanding.

Fair enough and well understood.
I will touch on a few of your points later.
Cheers, and good post.

..... Ain't it funny how these days, those who have thoughtlessly gobbled imported religious ethics, proclaim that skimpy or nude dressing is "un-African"!

Very un-African indeed!

plaetton:
Perfect.
I couldn't have nailed it better.

By treating eternity, a mental extrapolation, as an object , he inadvertently confirms what most us continue to remind him and others: that god is simply a mental extrapolation.

It would appear that you do little thought of your own these days. Ah wait - it has always been the case I think. You may see my revert to ooman above (not that it is likely to help you out of your wrong presumption above).

Whatever is, is.

EDIT: p.s: you really need to do some deep thinking on what you mean when you classify eternity as "a mental extrapolation", lol. Think well, think deep.
https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time#11185834

ooman:
I do not want this to get longer than it should. So I will just clarify some points.

Actually, I think its a belief system for you, rather than that this concept is hard to grasp for most people.

No, I doubt that it is a belief system. It is rather the simple and self evident. As with most people, you do not grasp it either. It has thus become a tiresome point for me to discuss, and these days i'd rather not worry myself much discussing same. This is moreso because this is only one step of understanding what is at play. If you cannot grasp this simple step, why should we bother with the many steps ahead of it which will clearly confuse you the more? I do not mean to sound as though I know something special or the other, I simply mean to convey that if we cannot get past 1 is 1, we cannot discuss.

1 is 1 truly, but what if there are different charges of 1? Negative and positive that could attract and so, build up some complexity.

You see, this exactly shows again why I hardly bother these days. Because if you happen to know anything about that which I have written ad infinitum ad nauseum on this forum, you would know that indeed, this is exactly what I have espoused: namely - that the God Head, by natural law must exude both the positive and the negative. This does not mean that the God Head is changing anymore than (by analogy only) a magnet with both north and south inclined magnetic pulls/ negative and positive magnetic charges could be said to be changing in terms of the intrinsic quality of what it is. It would attract or exude these charges all the same.

God, Reality and such self existent things as Eternity do indeed exude charges that result in the created complexity of everything you see around you in the cosmos and infinitely far beyond.

This does not mean that the God Head itself changes or that Eternity Changes.

I have, in the same vein, used this very same principle to explain the inevitable existence of Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Positive and Negative, Up and Down, and even Right and Left.

What if 1 is "read" differently from 11 and differently from 111 and also differently from 1111? If you are familiar with binary systems, you'd know that 1 is 1, 11 is 3, 111 is 7(octal decimal), 1111 is 15 (F - hexadecimal), 11111111 is 256 (FF hexadecimal).

Aside from the fact that I used "1 is 1" as a representation and exemplary statement only - an analogy - the quantities you state are different quantities and only bear similar representative figures within their written forms. This is a bad response to that which I tried to convey.

It is also light years far away from anything to do with the precept of self-existence I described.

I could go one, but the point is that it all depends on how this singularity is affected.

You could certainly go on to show how little you grasp of what is discussed here. No matter. I don't have the energy for needless brick-batting.

You assume that eternity is an object.

This again just shows how far away you are from understanding anything I have written. I do not assume this. In fact, I have in the past described time as the continuum into which events are interpolated and space as the void into which objects are interpolated.

If you reflect carefully on this alone you will see that your characterization of my thoughts is wrong.

Eternity is not "something",

Well if it is not something, then it must be nothing. I hope you see yourself how this contradicts your own statement yesterday where you acknowledged that there is no such thing as nothing.

Again, if it is nothing, then nothing would exist. There would be no time, no space, no universes - aboslutely nothing, for: into what would all these be interpolated? Into "Nothing"?

Again though, I verily doubt that you will appreciate this simple point.

rather its an abstract that is used to describe an object. Its more like saying time is an object. Eternity qualifies infinite time period, and both are abstracts.

This is not true to the extent that infinite real time is an unavoidable reality in all scenarios that one may project.
Your statement is the same as saying that Space is abstract, or that infinite space is abstract. As a matter of fact it is a reality as there can be no conceivable limits to, or borders of space - even micro-space is infinite. And this is not an abstraction but the reality that we live in and that all things are interpolated into.

In fact, eternity does not make sense if there is no object that could exist for all eternity.

Again this is wrong because, object or no: Eternity is Eternity. It cannot be circumscribed or limited by perception of interpolated objects.

If you could describe an abstract as if its a real existent object, I see the reason why you could think a god exists. All gods are abstracts, none is real.

As discussed above, you are very wrong, but I sense of course that there is no point to an elongation of the matter. You may carry on with your views, it is fine: neither your opinion nor mine hurts anybody.

Take care.

I am certain Plaeton will love this write up.

ooman:
From the post in your link, I think that it is invalid to conclude that because something is self-existent, it is therefore immutable. Since existence is the inherent property of this "thing" as already said in your post in the link, the only criterion needed to be satisfied is for this thing to exist, not that it must exist in its original form.

I think that this self existent thing may change (morph), however, what is constant to it is that in any form of its existence, it may return to its original form and no more. And this "limit of change", which satisfies existence, is the singularity.

No, something that is self existent cannot change because its intrinsically existent property cannot but be what it is: it cannot be something else. This is as simple as saying that 1 is 1, however this particular issue I find, has been rather hard for most people to absorb or grasp - I just don't know why. It is perfectly clear to me.

I said that an example of a self existent thing is eternity. Eternity is Eternity and it cannot be something else. It cannot change: it is immutable. Many events and times may be interpolated into it: but eternity forever simply remains eternity. Nothing more, just that: constant, unchangeable, immovable, indestructible, having no beginning and no end. It is intrinsically what it is and thus cannot change. It is also intangible.

And as I said prior: this is one key to slightly apprehending the nature of God: and this is the simple secret as to the ancient truth repeated in most ancient religions and orders of thought: the truth that God is unchangeable.

This is because God is the sum of all self existent realities - and self existent realities are immutable and intangible. Thus God itself is immutable and intangible.

I fear I go too far and should try to halt here. My recent experiences give me to revere that which is referred to as the God Head much much more than I could previously imagine. I therefore find it somewhat presumptuous - and even rather sacrilegious for me to attempt to explain or deconstruct the unfathomable God Head.

CrazyKaps:
Thanks for sharing, and yes it does clarify your belief about the immutability of anything that is self-existent.

I guess that concludes the primary aim of my post. However, if it's not much of a bother (or a proven hopeless task in your opinion) would you mind taking a gander at the other questions I posed and pass on your own opinion about them?

Hello. What specific ones. Also might I ask the purpose for which you ask these questions.
Many thanks.

CrazyKaps:
Funnily enough, I liked that last bit. However, if say it is possible for us to create a universe and we have an origin, what is to say that the god that created us has no origin. It could be that whatever created this universe had a creator too. Our universe beinf the First is but an assumption and it is equally likely this universe is just a creation of some higher universe's beings, hell, we have Sim City now, so a Sim Universe shouldnt be all that tough for a species thousands of years more advanced than ours (assuming similar exponential rates of growth, of course). Then again that is still passing the buck. Assuming we aren't the first, who created our creators?

CrazyKaps:
Having checked the time stamps, I have realised, to my great mortification that I have and still am posting on an old, and seemingly dead thread. To answer the eternity question, I agree with the way you state it is and then point you to the part about universes being created and collapsing back to nothing before it leads to the birth of another and so on ad infitum. An explanation derived from the tiny understanding I have of Quantum Mechanics. Again, conjecture, but so is god.

No, kind sir, nowhere have I presumed nor would I presume this universe to be the first such universe: or to be even directly created by God. I would rather think that it is preceded by and perhaps subsumed in virtually infinite prior and succeeding universes and dimensions of reality.

CrazyKaps:
The irony is that you who understands the strangeness of the universe dismissa off hand all explanation QuantumMech offers as ridiculous or "obviously incorrect/farcical" because of its inherent strangeness with regards to conventional science; as I've gleaned from an earlier thread (where you did not even bother reading the links regarding these possible explanations because it was so "obviously false" to you).

Just because it is strange does not mean it is incorrect. Even the current model of the solar system was strange to comprehend and an alien to conventional wisdom at one point of time. Also, strangness is no guarantee of correctness either, but if what they derive from the equations if the theory result in tangible advances in science, wouldn't you say they are on the right track?

So now all i have to do is wait for quantum computing or some other product derived from these theories to take the world by storm. Perhaps if and when that happens you shall agree that maybe QM isn't all just hogwash and be a little more open to its ideas?

This is not a correct surmise on my position on Quantum Physics - there is nothing wrong with continued inquiry of every kind, this included. Rather, I only pointed out the wrong logic of those who attempted to use the apparent emergence of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum as evidence that something may emerge from nothing. I pointed that out simply by showing that a quantum vacuum is not "nothing" and there is indeed no perfect such vacuum.

Hello Crazycaps -

https://www.nairaland.com/570326/linear-chance/1#7369083

Hope that clarifies.

Cheers.

dein77:
Thanks for the advice dear.

Reporting her, like you suggested, seems the best thing to do. The problem is, coworkers almost always believe you've a sinister motive whenever you REPORT them to their superiors.

I think I will have to do that.

Do you have any idea if her productivity is thereby affected? Does her activity disturb the productivity of others or a team? Are there any complaints from her supervisors regarding her performance? If the "prayer" was done without you knowing - such as silently at her desk without assuming any particular posture, how would you know, and how would it be your concern? If the reading of scripture is done online, or perhaps on a tablet or phone, would you know, and would it be your concern?

Finally, if you worked in a multi-national with Middle-Eastern Muslim Arabic colleagues who took time out at various points everyday for their prayers, would you raise this same concern and "report" them? I once worked in just such a place where my colleagues from Pakistan would do just that, even using a meeting room for same, with prayer carpet and all.

Just a few posers for you to think on before embarking on your Police Inspector moves, o.

sinequanon:
God is a subjective place, direction or destination.

For those who believe in a god, it represents what they would like to be if they were let lose and free.

But fear of their god -- what they wish to be -- keeps them in check and imprisoned.

God is fear of their own "demons" -- a glimpse of themselves let lose and running amok.

It is a psychological condition.

Can you elaborate. What really does this mean? If you don't mind, a line-by-line elucidation of the above.
Many thanks.

^^^ O you will... hopefully today... been busy, my apologies. I hope you are well.

AlfaSeltzer:
^^^black man's stuppidity.

Next, you'll be forcing your children to believe in your dreams because they can't prove you didn't have it. And you make laws based on that dream. Then you tell them not to discuss it because it serves no purpose.

How do you know I plan to have children?
Presumptions, you see?

Breathe deeply and relax my friend. Nothing here is that serious.

AlfaSeltzer:
^^^black man's stuppidity.

Don't worry, I love you too.

@ Sinequanon.

Err. . . well, how do I put this. . . maybe you should start backwards. Make the point first, then assert the argument that supports it. Such that the point you are driving at is clear. I say this because some of the times I have tried to discuss evolution in the past, the first thing that people like Evil Brain did was to brand me a Christian. Such amazing leaps of joy, no? The man, and his ilk, would not stop to know that I actually believe in Evolution. But as you said, some people have problems distinguishing an argument from the conclusions derived.

Secondly, let it occur to you that so long as you dare to point out ANYTHING in the Theory of Evolution that seems amiss, some of these people will consider you ignorant and uneducated forever. It is, for them - scientific apologists that they claim to be - yet still a cardinal sin to question any aspect of the theory of evolution - or the question whether, by itself, it may account for life as we know it. Notwithstanding the fact that questioning theories is the bedrock of science.

Finally, evaluate carefully in your mind whether the excercise you are embarking on is a worthwhile use of your time and intellectual energies. People will be people. The religious will be religious. The irreligious will be irreligious. The logical will be logical and the illogical will be illogical. One fine day some logical persons will see logic in the illogic of the supposed illogical people, and some illogical people will see logic in the logic of the logical.

This will happen not by any length of arguments, or any erudition, or any extent of the articulate quality of one's treatise - but simply by what people experience as they go along in life.

It will be extremely hard to convince me that I did not have a dream last night about one matter or the other. It may be true that I had the dream. However I will never be able to prove anything about the dream to you. It is not a matter for argument.

It is a matter for experience.

In summary, what am I saying? If you wish to argue these things, carry on - it can be an enjoyable pastime. Do, for the sake of those who will misunderstand your perspective, state that perspective before debating its merits. However consider closely whether you should bother at all.

Life is a journey that metes out its lessons gradually to all we journeying students.

If there are people who believe that life is a meaningless accident in a meaningless universe, that's up to them. There is something that Jayriginal says that I like: "It is what it is", regardless of any amount of arguments. In other words, if God exists, arguments here will not wish God out of existence. If God does not exist, arguments here cannot wish God into existence. We will just argue.

The great and unfathomable reality out there will remain what it is. Forever beyond we minuscule presumptuous creatures.

Peace.