Enigma:

^^^ And to you!

And if it is not too late to make New Year resolutions here is one recommendation: to learn not to mischaracterise other people.

I have other suggestions but I will stick to just this one for now.

I hear you sir, and i take that comment to heart and in good faith. I have one suggestion as well for you - do drop hard feelings. Lets have a cordial and pleasant 2012. I never had as extensive and explosive debates with you as I did with people like noetic and davidylan, yet neither of those display any bitterness towards me till this day. In your case, the bitterness just reeks everywhere. U no need am bros.

Cheers.

InesQor:


When I say Karma is an action, I expect you to add the context of our discussion. Whether you lift your hands or you pick your teeth doesn't seem to bear weight on this conversation.

I am just trying to show you that it is absolutely insufficient to describe Karma as an action. That is just a transliteral definition which does not grasp exactly what karma is. Karma is actually the threads of fate.

Recap:

Now, this entire karma gist was spawned by Pagan 9ja, who misconstrued my post and Deep Sight decided to agree with him without carefully considering what I said. i.e. karma is a teaching that began with the Hindus, and not that reincarnation began to be taught among them.

He came back with, and I paraphrase, "Anyways, reincarnation as popularly understood depends on karma so when you say that karma began with the Hindus you are still saying reincarnation began with them"

And I have shown that there are people like the ancient Aztecs (as Pagan 9ja also said, there are also pagan tribes from ancient times who believed in reincarnation) who believed in reincarnation without having karma or action-driven cycles of reincarnation, in view.

Deep Sight's riposte is that their cycles, which do not depend on their actions necessarily, are NECESSARILY karmic just BECAUSE they are cycles, and Samsara is a cycle.

This discards the reason employed when one sees that one of the cycles (Samsara) is caused by the human while the other one (the Aztecs') is uncaused by the human, and is just a natural flow.

We have gone way off the topic, and I think I am done.

---

Back to the topic, I have posted my beliefs about how reincarnation really happens. I do not believe that souls move from body to body. Buddhism apparently does not believe there is any permanence of soul i.e. body to body soul transfer will mean that a soul is transmigrating - either. Christianity mentions nothing of the sort, although some people believe that it insinuates that. I believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

Deep Sight:

I hear you sir, and i take that comment to heart and in good faith. I have one suggestion as well for you - do drop hard feelings. Lets have a cordial and pleasant 2012. I never had as extensive and explosive debates with you as I did with people like noetic and davidylan, yet neither of those display any bitterness towards me till this day. In your case, the bitterness just reeks everywhere. U no need am bros.

Cheers.

Well, the history of my interaction with you is still available. At least I have never deleted any of my posts directed to or concerning you.

Go back and read my relevant posts carefully and if you make the adjustments to be done, I might possibly be willing to discuss. If not, my atitude remains very much the same.

My conscience is wholly clear and my heart is wholly clean; I have dealt with you truthfully, honestly and even with much forebearing especially in the earliest interactions when you were throwing ridiculously vituperative insults my way ---- without any cause or warrant whatsoever.  

Wait a minute. So everybody I've been sleeping with - lemme count: John, Martin, Linda, Sarah, Stefan, Andrew, Andrea, Simon, your mother - I've been masturbating all these while?

Enigma:


Well, the history of my interaction with you is still available. At least I have never deleted any of my posts directed to or concerning you.

Go back and read my relevant posts carefully and if you make the adjustments to be done, I might possibly be willing to discuss. If not, my atitude remains very much the same.

My conscience is wholly clear and my heart is wholly clean; I have dealt with you truthfully, honesty and even with much forebearing especially in the earliest interactions when you were throwing ridiculously vituperative insults my way ---- without any cause or warrant whatsoever.  

Well, lets cordially look to the future. Thanks and Cheers.

We will cordially look to the future but, as is my wont, I will not guarantee getting engaged in discussion.

Enigma:

We will cordially look to the future but, as is my wont, I will not guarantee getting engaged in discussion.

This man!

No worries. Cheers.

We have gone way off the topic, and I think I am done.

*Grabbing Inesqor by the belt of his jeans ala naija police style*

No no no, you are not done, come back hia by force sir, we are off topic, but you cannot be done, oya, forward march!

Lolzzz

InesQor:

Recap:

Now, this entire karma gist was spawned by Pagan 9ja, who misconstrued my post and Deep Sight decided to agree with him without carefully considering what I said. i.e. karma is a teaching that began with the Hindus, and not that reincarnation began to be taught among them.

He came back with, and I paraphrase, "Anyways, reincarnation as popularly understood depends on karma so when you say that karma began with the Hindus you are still saying reincarnation began with them"

And I have shown that there are people like the ancient Aztecs (as Pagan 9ja also said, there are also pagan tribes from ancient times who believed in reincarnation) who believed in reincarnation without having karma or action-driven cycles of reincarnation, in view.

Deep Sight's riposte is that their cycles, which do not depend on their actions necessarily, are NECESSARILY karmic just BECAUSE they are cycles, and Samsara is a cycle.

This discards the reason employed when one sees that one of the cycles (Samsara) is caused by the human while the other one (the Aztecs') is uncaused by the human, and is just a natural flow.

We have gone way off the topic, and I think I am done.

---

Back to the topic, I have posted my beliefs about how reincarnation really happens. I do not believe that souls move from body to body. Buddhism apparently does not believe there is any permanence of soul i.e. body to body soul transfer will mean that a soul is transmigrating - either. Christianity mentions nothing of the sort, although some people believe that it insinuates that. I believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

No no no no, this your summary is wrong. You misrepresenting me and misrepresenting the discussion. But i don tire. Anybody interested in taking up the discussion, meet me for drinks at Freedom Hall. Later.

PS: Freedom Hall is a free stand up for poets, artists, spoken word, music where everyone shares artistic talent. It holds every Thursday at teh Penthouse Hotel, top floor of Mulliner Towers (former NNPC building on Kingsway Road, Ikoyi). I'm addicted to it.

Deep Sight:

No no no no, this your summary is wrong. You misrepresenting me and misrepresenting the discussion. But i don tire. Anybody interested in taking up the discussion, meet me for drinks at Freedom Hall. Later.

PS: Freedom Hall is a free stand up for poets, artists, spoken word, music where everyone shares artistic talent. It holds every Thursday at teh Penthouse Hotel, top floor of Mulliner Towers (former NNPC building on Kingsway Road, Ikoyi). I'm addicted to it.

What time does the meeting hold & what days ?

Interesting topic. The original post encapsulates the deep philosphical underpinnings of some of the worlds religions. There is only one(monad) singularity ceaselessly interacting with itself within and outside of time and space. Though theist would refer to this singularity as god , I ,as an athiest would simply call it energy. Does it really matter?
Now if the soul is ceaselessly interacting with the ultimate goal of perfection, we can then confidently say that the soul is always evolving and by extension, god is also evolving. Agree?
If so , matter, especially organic matter, which are the material or physical analogues of soul and god, should, and infact, by compulson, also evolve. Therefore, evolution, from this point of view, should be elevated from the realm of theory to reality.
Why do thiests have so much problems with evolution?

InesQor:

@Uyi Iredia:

I must say that the Bible does not clearly discuss reincarnation. As such, personally I believe either
(a) It is not an important aspect of faith, or
(b) It lacks verity

Either of the above have to be the case, in my opinion.

As for Jesus' statement to the Pharisees and Sadducees, I think he deliberately said it like that to cause arguments between the two parties who had come to look for his trouble, thus it was a distraction. As you said, Sadducees don't believe in resurrection, and as such arguments would begin; or at least they would leave Jesus Alone.

Meanwhile, Jesus' statement about the afterlife does not mention reincarnation but it says when they RISE from the dead. That looks like resurrection to me.

As to your question,

I will essentially say that I am a Christian, but my beliefs on many things are so different from that of the usual Christian that I do not know if I qualify to use that term on myself. I can rather drop it and just refer to myself as a Theist. I believe in God. One God. His son by essence is Jesus Christ. And I believe in all of Jesus Christ's teachings. I  believe there are teachings in many other religions that compliment and support Jesus' Christ's teachings. I have found some of them in Buddhism for instance. I like to have an open mind BUT upon the foundation of Jesus' teachings. This means that if I find anything which His teachings disagree with, I will most likely discard it.

I believe "In the quest for truth, one should listen to what is being said, and not look at the one speaking"; and I also believe that many of my beliefs are along a very thin line. I may need to explain and explain and explain (quite tiresome) before my belief is expressed in a way that can be conventionally understood.

I hope that answers your question.

Same with me . . . to a larger extent.  

I believe "In the quest for truth, one should listen to what is being said, and not look at the one speaking"

I look at both what is being said & the one speaking.

lol!  Deepsight don start again.  Don't worry, I haven't read the last few posts.  I started reading and felt a headache coming on and I quickly stopped.  

I just want to say that

1)  Karma is simply the law of Cause and Effect.  The Idea that one action will have a bearing on subsequent events

2)Reincarnation is the belief that a person can enter in to the body of another after they have died.

In many cultures reincarnation has nothing to do with Karma.  In yoruba people reincarnate according to the family they come from.  So we get names like bAbatunde, yewande, yetunde etc.  meaning father has returned, mother has returned etc.  There is nothing about Karma here.

It was in India that I am aware of the idea of being reincarnated according to the deeds of one's past life.  In other words Karma plays a part in the process of reincarnation.

@plaetton: Welcome to the conversation! I must say you generalize when you say theists do not believe in evolution. Some theistic faiths do. I am a theist and I believe in a type of evolution; though not the way it is generally understood as an alternative way of describing origins of flora and fauna species. I believe the physical nature is gradually growing towards maturity in a linear fashion of time; and I believe at the start God planted "seeds" into the realm. These seeds grew the same way plants grow in soil, and the fossils show different stages of maturation of species. God is still the initial source of all the seeds (as creator) but he employed a process of maturation that we'll today call evolution. Just like how a seedling grows until it reaches a stage of near maturity as a tree and it no longer seems to increase in size, I believe creation has matured and this is why evolution doesn't seem to occur any longer. These are just my views from observing nature. I believe there is a lot to understand about the spiritual by looking closely at the physical.

@Uyi Iredia: Interesting! I kinda guessed

@Pastor AIO: Exactly!!! Thanks for the Yoruba illustration; reincarnation has nothing to do with karmic ideas in their belief! And yes indeed, the idea of Karma began with Indian proponents; and they applied it to the already established teachings on reincarnation.

InesQor:


@Pastor AIO: Exactly!!! Thanks for the Yoruba illustration; reincarnation has nothing to do with karmic ideas in their belief! And yes indeed, the idea of Karma began with Indian proponents; and they applied it to the already established teachings on reincarnation.

[size=32pt]GBAM![/size]

InesQor:

@plaetton: Welcome to the conversation! I must say you generalize when you say theists do not believe in evolution. Some theistic faiths do. I am a theist and I believe in a type of evolution; though not the way it is generally understood as an alternative way of describing origins of flora and fauna species. I believe the physical nature is gradually growing towards maturity in a linear fashion of time; and I believe at the start God planted "seeds" into the realm. These seeds grew the same way plants grow in soil, and the fossils show different stages of maturation of species. God is still the initial source of all the seeds (as creator) but he employed a process of maturation that we'll today call evolution. Just like how a seedling grows until it reaches a stage of near maturity as a tree and it no longer seems to increase in size, I believe creation has matured and this is why evolution doesn't seem to occur any longer. These are just my views from observing nature. I believe there is a lot to understand about the spiritual by looking closely at the physical.

@Uyi Iredia: Interesting! I kinda guessed

@Pastor AIO: Exactly!!! Thanks for the Yoruba illustration; reincarnation has nothing to do with karmic ideas in their belief! And yes indeed, the idea of Karma began with Indian proponents; and they applied it to the already established teachings on reincarnation.

Thanks for that insight.
However, I do want to point out that the evolutionary process cannot stop since change is the only constant ,and that would also assume that perfection has been achieved, We assume that evolution has stopped simply because we cannot observed the process. It is a very slow process that spans over many many generations.

In my mind, Sickle cell anaemia is a typical evolutionary process that is still ongoing, where the cell is trying to adapt to the scourge of malaria in sub-sahara Africa. Since evolution is a slow trial and error mechanism, it would seem that we are currently at the error stage of that process, hence, a deformed red blood cell that we know as sickle cell anemia. I believe that over time, perhaps several millenia, the process would correct itself and achieve the desired or most beneficial result.
We also have to take into account the fact that drugs, artificial chemicals and radiations, have, over the last few centuries been introduced into our ecosystem. These were definitely bound to have effects on the evolution of organic matter.
Thank you.

plaetton:

Interesting topic. The original post encapsulates the deep philosphical underpinnings of some of the worlds religions. There is only one(monad) singularity ceaselessly interacting with itself within and outside of time and space. Though theist would refer to this singularity as god , I ,as an athiest would simply call it energy. Does it really matter?

What really interests me in what you wrote above, Plaetton, is whether or not you believe that that 'one monad singularity' has, or is, Consciousness?

plaetton:

Now if the soul is ceaselessly interacting with the ultimate goal of perfection, we can then confidently say that the soul is always evolving and by extension, god is also evolving. Agree?

. . . and, oh yeah, To evolve you need to be contained in Time. What if God dwells in Eternity? Then there is no evolution. what we see evolving is a facet of diety from the perspective of the temporal.

plaetton:

Interesting topic. The original post encapsulates the deep philosphical underpinnings of some of the worlds religions.

True. It also has space for humanism.

plaetton:
There is only one(monad) singularity ceaselessly interacting with itself within and outside of time and space. Though theist would refer to this singularity as god , I ,as an athiest would simply call it energy.

I should think this energy is different from nuclear, mechanical and electromagnetic energy. Does energy exist TO a dead person ? Put another way: Will you PERCIEVE energy if YOU are dead ? Note that the emboldened words are abstracts.

plaetton:
Does it really matter?

It doesn't. In the same way nothing matters to a DEAD person.

plaetton:
Now if the soul is ceaselessly interacting with the ultimate goal of perfection, we can then confidently say that the soul is always evolving and by extension, god is also evolving. Agree?

From energy to soul. You are importing concepts shared by religions. Why didn't you say brains ? I'm looking at God as the singularity. He/She/It doesn't need to evolve in the same way nothing needs to evolve. It is mankind which does. Nietzsche said Morality is the self-division of mankind & I agree. Here's my punt on it.

"Humanity is the self-division of God"
- Uyi Iredia

plaetton:
If so , matter, especially organic matter, which are the material or physical analogues of soul and god, should, and infact, by compulson, also evolve. Therefore, evolution, from this point of view, should be elevated from the realm of theory to reality.

Who/What is doing the compulsion ? And given all you've said why will you mock the theist who asserts God magically created animals, which is what I'm looking at ? If you believe pink unicorns, FSM, rocks, water & God are equally real, I will gladly join you in believing evolution is reality.

plaetton:
Why do theists have so much problems with evolution?

Simple, it deceives itself. It denies teleology and utilizes teleology. Only minds determine what is favorable, not matter. Thing is . .  .you (as a mind) can equally deny this.

@Pastor AIo:
My definition of consciousness is that it just another derivative of the energy stream or singualrity. Conscioussness occurs when a certain electromagnetic or mathemathical threshold is reached during the interaction of certain configurations of energy.
Therefore, the singularity would of course have the potential for consciousness already contained within it.

The idea that god exists outside of time sounds good but lets not forget that it is merely conjecture. If god exist outside of time and space, then god is not observable. If god is not observable, then god , by that definition is Nothing.

Following this idea,So god was nothing before the big ban.g, just a potential that contained all that was possible(everything in potency), a function and not a substance. Doe s that make any sense to you?. Its quite a brain twister, but it makes a lot more sense. Infact this idea can be reperensented by a mathemathical symbol as a hyperset with no members( representing the nothing). But functions, which are nothings, can be members of that set.

Even in eternity, time  still exist because a frame of referenece for time has already been created by the big b.an.g event. Once an even occurs, a frame of reference has been created through which time can be measured.

So at the big b.ang, matter arose as a result of the continuned differentiations of nothings(functions and potentialities).  Once there is differentiation, a function and the potentialities take the properties of something.
I can say that god came into time with the big ban.g.
If every matter is derived from god, the changes in matter are also  changes in the godhead.
@Uyi Iredia:
Energy is energy. It just has countless frequencies or configurations. every proces is simply an energy swap or conversion process. Al the diff forms of energy just act withing their own mathematical thresholds.
And yes, I use the terms soul. spirit and energy interchangably because I view them in the same way i would view drops of water and ocean. They are one and the same, just acting in different capacities.

Pastor AIO:

What really interests me in what you wrote above, Plaetton, is whether or not you believe that that 'one monad singularity' has, or is, Consciousness?  

. . . and, oh yeah,  To evolve you need to be contained in Time.  What if God dwells in Eternity?  Then there is no evolution.  what we see evolving is a facet of diety from the perspective of the temporal.  

As you should note from what's written here, Pastor AIO is thinking along my lines.

You already have my response. Think deeply about it

plaetton:

@Pastor AIo:
My definition of consciousness is that it just another derivative of the energy stream or singualrity. Conscioussness occurs when a certain electromagnetic or mathemathical threshold is reached during the interaction of certain configurations of energy.
Therefore, the singularity would of course have the potential for consciousness already contained within it.

Energy is of no meaning where there is no consciousness. A dead body doesn't fear fire.

plaetton:
The idea that god exists outside of time sounds good but lets not forget that it is merely conjecture. If god exist outside of time and space, then god is not observable. If god is not observable, then god , by that definition is Nothing.

I think people misuse the terms time & space. I'm of the opinion that space & time are logical constructs. I think people conflate space with matter & time with motion. By the way, the concepts that logic, evil, good and numbers refer to are not observable except in the way they are expressed.

plaetton:
Following this idea,So god was nothing before the big ban.g, just a potential that contained all that was possible(everything in potency), a function and not a substance. Doe s that make any sense to you?. Its quite a brain twister, but it makes a lot more sense. Infact this idea can be reperensented by a mathemathical symbol as a hyperset with no members( representing the nothing). But functions, which are nothings, can be members of that set.

God is the substance of everything. Even if some were to suppose it/He was nothing, I ask: If nothing can be thought of isn't it (i.e nothing) something by its Nature ? The purpose of the question is to force one to infer that God simply is. IOW, His existence is independent of matter.

plaetton:
Even in eternity, time  still exist because a frame of referenece for[b] time has already been created by the big b.an.g event.[/b] Once an even occurs, a frame of reference has been created through which time can be measured.

The Big Bâng did not start time or space. It started the universe. Put simply it was the time matter began to exist. Space & Time is a function of thought not matter.

plaetton:
So at the big b.ang, matter arose as a result of the continuned differentiations of nothings(functions and potentialities).  Once there is differentiation, a function and the potentialities take the properties of something.
I can say that god came into time with the big ban.g. If every matter is derived from god, the changes in matter are also  changes in the godhead.

Who or What was doing the differentiation ? Can nothing act, or differentiate, on its own ? Or do you consider nothing to be God ?

plaetton:
@Uyi Iredia:
Energy is energy. It just has countless frequencies or configurations. every proces is simply an energy swap or conversion process. Al the diff forms of energy just act withing their own mathematical thresholds.

Here's a quote from an eminent physicist. Note the underlined text:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
— Max Planck
Lecture, 'Das Wesen der Materie' [The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter], Florence, Italy (1944).

plaetton:
And yes, I use the terms soul. spirit and energy interchangably because I view them in the same way i would view drops of water and ocean. They are one and the same, just acting in different capacities.

Fair enough.

plaetton:

@Pastor AIo:
My definition of consciousness is that it just another derivative of the energy stream or singualrity. Conscioussness occurs when a certain electromagnetic or mathemathical threshold is reached during the interaction of certain configurations of energy.
Therefore, the singularity would of course have the potential for consciousness already contained within it.

Many things to say. Firstly, I'll ignore the fact that I haven't asked you for a definition, I don't think your 'definition' is very comprehensive.

Secondly, Energy is a concept created to explain certain phenomena, it is not such a foolproof idea as you seem to think. 'Energy' is usually used to explain differing states in a system. For instance you can have 2 vessels full of air. One is 20 degrees adn the other is 50 degrees. The difference between them is explained as the latter one having more energy. That doesn't mean there is a substance called energy strictly speaking, it's just hte best way to explain the various states of various systems.

Can there be any thing such as pure energy? ie. Energy that is not part of a material system.

E may equal mc squared, but the Energy must still manifest as the state of some material system or body.


Then finally, I think it would do us a world of good to make a more thorough research into consciousness before we start building concepts around it.

@Pasor AIO:

No one can give an all-encompassing definition of energy or consciousness.
The study of both are still a great work in progress.
But we are allowed to make general statements based on the little we know so far, and we all stand to be corrected and upgraded whenever know knowledge becomes available. thats is the great difference between science, philosphy and religion.
I think That is ok.
Yes we use observable differentials to explain the interaction of energy. That is the only way we can. We have meters to show us how much electrical energy is moving through a system at any given point. we dont have isolate the electric current in order to validate its existence.

when we examine an atom, we can hardly see anything aside from the atomic particles, but when we spit the atom, just imagine th amount of energy released. can we say that energy is not real and is just a concept?

plaetton:

@Pasor AIO:

No one can give an all-encompassing definition of energy or consciousness.
The study of both are still a great work in progress.
But we are allowed to make general statements based on the little we know so far, and we all stand to be corrected and upgraded whenever know knowledge becomes available. thats is the great difference between science, philosphy and religion.
I think That is ok.
Yes we use observable differentials to explain the interaction of energy. That is the only way we can. We have meters to show us how much electrical energy is moving through a system at any given point. we dont have isolate the electric current in order to validate its existence.

when we examine an atom, we can hardly see anything aside from the atomic particles, but when we spit the atom, just imagine th amount of energy released. can we say that energy is not real and is just a concept?

No time to fully address your post, bu tfor now . . . Yes we can say that the energy is just a concept because what happens is that when we split an atom all the matter around it explodes with immense kinesis and there is a burst of light and heat. All these effects are evidenced in the matter around the split atom. We explain it using the concept of energy. We say that energy from the split atom goes into the surrounding matter making it act so explosively.

Energy is a very useful concept for understanding physical systems but trying to use it to explain primordial states, or states where there is no matter is kinda stretching it a bit.

I'll be back with more.

Ehen, where was I

@ plaeI believe in just one thing: God. plaetton, Can you tell one thing you believe in ?

^ He is a confirmed pantheist, , , ehen, where was I

Deep Sight:

^ He is a confirmed pantheist, , , ehen, where was I

Please make it Christian pantheist

Definitely not Christian. But my ultimate persuit, hopefully in this lifetime, is to be Christ-end.

Uyi Iredia:

@ plaeI believe in just one thing: God. plaetton, Can you tell one thing you believe in ?

I try as much not to embrace any belief system because I see beleifes as heavy burdens to carry. They slow down and retard one's quest for knowledge and undersanding. One tends to end up spending more time defending beliefs than on seeking new knowlwedge and understanding.
Even at the risk of contradictions, I'm more interested in considering possibilities and drawing connections across a wide array of different discliplines.

I prefer the scientific approach to discerning reality simply because it is self- auditing, self-correcting and alway leaves room for more questions.