How is the Bible the Word of God?

[viole]

Sure, I'll start with the Godhead... the Atom, or as I like to call it, "God's Three Dimensional Pixel"...

As you can see, each Sub-Atomic Particle is associated with part of the Trinity.

The Holy Ghost is where we get "Power", or Electrons.

Jesus is the Word or Proton. Why the Proton? Because the Protons are what determine what type of Atom it is. One Word = Hydrogen. Two Words = Helium and so on.

The Father is the Neutral Party.

So for example...

Mark 13:26
"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory"

The Son of Man (Proton) comes in the Clouds (Electrons). The two combined would be Hydrogen, the Chief Cornerstone of the Periodic Table. Numero Uno.

Electron "Clouds" look like this...

Put it all together and you get the Glory, or the Rainbow...

Question. Where is the Father in the Hydrogen atom?

Ciao

- viole

 

[atpollard]

Question. Where is the Father in the Hydrogen atom?

Ciao

- viole

Deuterium and Tritium ... so it balances out with the Fatherless Protium.

[Nobody believes in the existence of God and the Trinity more than me, but ... for the record ... I am not defending the 'God is an Atom' hypothesis; I just like Chemistry.]

 

[viole]

[Nobody believes in the existence of God and the Trinity more than me, but ... for the record ... I am not defending the 'God is an Atom' hypothesis; I just like Chemistry.]

Well, then we need to find a remedy aginst that, don't we?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Let me see whether I understood you correctly.

You think there is a cause for whatever initiated your decisions. You don't know what it is, apart from it not being physical, but you believe there is one.

Let's call it C1. For the moment, I do not care if it is physical or not, but only if it qualifies as a cause for your decisions. What interests me now is wheher you believe that C1 has a cause C2. And C2 a cause C3 and so on until you have a cause C99999999.... that initiated the chain before your existence.

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

Ok, let me just cut to the chase here. Your description is close but I would prefer the use of the term explanation instead of cause, not that cause is wrong just that explanation might be better. I can see what your trying to do. Your trying to put me into a situation where I have two choices, both inconsistent with my position. I would either have to supply a list of causation which determined my choice, or I would have to deny cause and effect in the case of my decision. This is not a real dilemma however, because the explanation of freewill is almost impossible to explain, it merely appears to be a dilemma.

1. Let me first point out that the existence of a thing (or the nature of it) has nothing to do with whether I can perfectly account for it. For example you cannot provide an adequate chain of causation for any contemporary event yet you still conclude they are all determined by events billions of years ago. So if you can draw conclusions without complete explanation you cannot deny me the ability to. Or I am justified to conclude that marshmallows are not an explanation of a nuclear reactor whether I can adequately explain the reactor or not in another way.
2. While the explanation of a freely willed decision is complex it is far simpler to see what does not explain it. Remember my original claim was not that I know what explains freewill it was that determinism does not explain reality. So my burden is not to fully explain freewill but you do have to show that determinism explains all of reality (at least where challenged).
3. While I am not qualified (nor would I think anyone is or would ever be) to establish the full explanation of a freely willed decision some have simply said that we are the cause of our decisions. Philosophers refer to this as agent causation.

 

[viole]

Ok, let me just cut to the chase here. Your description is close but I would prefer the use of the term explanation instead of cause, not that cause is wrong just that explanation might be better. I can see what your trying to do. Your trying to put me into a situation where I have two choices, both inconsistent with my position. I would either have to supply a list of causation which determined my choice, or I would have to deny cause and effect in the case of my decision. This is not a real dilemma however, because the explanation of freewill is almost impossible to explain, it merely appears to be a dilemma.

1. Let me first point out that the existence of a thing (or the nature of it) has nothing to do with whether I can perfectly account for it. For example you cannot provide an adequate chain of causation for any contemporary event yet you still conclude they are all determined by events billions of years ago. So if you can draw conclusions without complete explanation you cannot deny me the ability to. Or I am justified to conclude that marshmallows are not an explanation of a nuclear reactor whether I can adequately explain the reactor or not in another way.
2. While the explanation of a freely willed decision is complex it is far simpler to see what does not explain it. Remember my original claim was not that I know what explains freewill it was that determinism does not explain reality. So my burden is not to fully explain freewill but you do have to show that determinism explains all of reality (at least where challenged).
3. While I am not qualified (nor would I think anyone is or would ever be) to establish the full explanation of a freely willed decision some have simply said that we are the cause of our decisions. Philosophers refer to this as agent causation.

Yes, I can draw conclusions without complete explanations. Which is obvious since we do not know a lot about how the brain works, yet. But they are conclusions, nevertheless. It appears to me that you have no conclusions either, as plausible or implausible they can be.

So, what do you believe (even without justification)? I can only see two alternatives:

1) there is a causal chain that leads to our decisions and this causal chain goes beyond the time of our existence all the way down to the "beginning" of the Universe
2) there is not such a causal chain. And if there is, it is time limited. Our will, or its originators, just pop out out uncaused at a certain moment in time.

Feel free to replace "cause" with "explanation" if that makes you feel more comfortable. Please note that I am not interested in the details of the causal/explanation chain, but only if you believe that there is one/none.

You can still say "I don't know" but even if you do not know which one is true, I hope you agree that both alternatives cover all cases, since they are logically complementary.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JoStories]

Yes, I can draw conclusions without complete explanations. Which is obvious since we do not know a lot about how the brain works, yet. But they are conclusions, nevertheless. It appears to me that you have no conclusions either, as plausible or implausible they can be.

So, what do you believe (even without justification)? I can only see two alternatives:

1) there is a causal chain that leads to our decisions and this causal chain goes beyond the time of our existence all the way down to the "beginning" of the Universe
2) there is not such a causal chain. And if there is, it is time limited. Our will, or its originators, just pop out out uncaused at a certain moment in time.

Feel free to replace "cause" with "explanation" if that makes you feel more comfortable. Please note that I am not interested in the details of the causal/explanation chain, but only if you believe that there is one/none.

You can still say "I don't know" but even if you do not know which one is true, I hope you agree that both alternatives cover all cases, since they are logically complementary.

Ciao

- viole

Interesting but I don't think it's as simple as that. What I mean is that first of all, we define time as movement from point A to point B with no end or discernible beginning. Why could god( call this concept whatever makes you comfortable or fits within your belief system) not have been there, outside of what we understand as time, and set certain things in motion. Not strictly causal but rather like one person stirring a pot after adding carrots, while the next adds potatoes and turns the heat up. Sort of like putting a bodily fuild in an algae medium and seeing what will grow. Could be viral, bacterial, fungal, protozoan, etc. it's very much like your very first sentence about not needing to come to a conclusion without a full explanation of all factors. Is it not possible that God started this, much like the algae plate and sat back to see what happened?

 

[viole]

Interesting but I don't think it's as simple as that. What I mean is that first of all, we define time as movement from point A to point B with no end or discernible beginning. Why could god( call this concept whatever makes you comfortable or fits within your belief system) not have been there, outside of what we understand as time, and set certain things in motion. Not strictly causal but rather like one person stirring a pot after adding carrots, while the next adds potatoes and turns the heat up. Sort of like putting a bodily fuild in an algae medium and seeing what will grow. Could be viral, bacterial, fungal, protozoan, etc. it's very much like your very first sentence about not needing to come to a conclusion without a full explanation of all factors. Is it not possible that God started this, much like the algae plate and sat back to see what happened?

Yes, very interesting. Alas, I do not see how that relates to the discussion we are having.

We are discussing the possible origins of the will. Is it caused? And if it is, what caused the cause....etc.
Or is there an uncaused beginning that set in motion things like deciding to go to the movies vs. staying home?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[JoStories]

Yes, very interesting. Alas, I do not see how that relates to the discussion we are having.

We are discussing the possible origins of the will. Is it caused? And if it is, what caused the cause....etc.
Or is there an uncaused beginning that set in motion things like deciding to go to the movies vs. staying home?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

The op was how is the bible the word of God. Maybe I missed something however. In my belief system, the will is sort of decided before we are born. What I mean by that is that we choose the lessons we wish to experience. So your analogy about deciding to go to a movie is designed, IMO, to help us learn. For example, a very long time ago, I went to see The Deer Hunter at the theater. Having been on the USS sanctuary during that war, it struck too close to home and I walked out of the movie. In my belief I had to experience the war and see the movie to understand the depths of how far humankind will go for pretty much no reason whatsoever. We have the free will to make these choices to learn for ourselves. God may assist us in getting to those choices via allowing us to choice these experiences but we make the choices. The will is ours. Does this help? Lovely discussion. Jo

 

[1robin]

Yes, I can draw conclusions without complete explanations. Which is obvious since we do not know a lot about how the brain works, yet. But they are conclusions, nevertheless. It appears to me that you have no conclusions either, as plausible or implausible they can be.

My conclusion is that a massive number of events have no deterministic explanation. I can't even think of a bad one.

So, what do you believe (even without justification)? I can only see two alternatives:

1) there is a causal chain that leads to our decisions and this causal chain goes beyond the time of our existence all the way down to the "beginning" of the Universe
2) there is not such a causal chain. And if there is, it is time limited. Our will, or its originators, just pop out out uncaused at a certain moment in time.

There is an explanation for my decision but it contains no deterministic absolutes. It includes a causal chain that involves my will. Now I cannot fully explain how my will works, none the less will is the best explanation for my choice. Since this is a very well established line of reasoning I am sure you can find tons of scholars that have extrapolated how agent causation works but here recently I have not had time to do so myself. I have limited time currently and people keep asking my one line questions that would require volumes to answer.

Feel free to replace "cause" with "explanation" if that makes you feel more comfortable. Please note that I am not interested in the details of the causal/explanation chain, but only if you believe that there is one/none.

I believe there is a causal chain but that it involves something mysterious commonly called will, self, me, free will, etc....

You can still say "I don't know" but even if you do not know which one is true, I hope you agree that both alternatives cover all cases, since they are logically complementary.

Nothing is known to a certainty here. I do feel like the claim that determinism lacks an explanation for vast swaths of events is very close to certainty, the idea that freewill explains them is fairly certain, but what the factors are that compose freewill and how they function is far less certain. We only have two choices, freewill or determinism. I am all but certain determinism does not account for these events, as vague as freewill may be it is all that is left.

 

[viole]

I believe there is a causal chain but that it involves something mysterious commonly called will, self, me, free will, etc....

Do you believe that this chain begins at a time prior to the existence of your self?

Ciao

- viole

 

[JoStories]

Do you believe that this chain begins at a time prior to the existence of your self?

Ciao

- viole

I do. Buddhists, at least some, believe we choose to come back to either learn new things or re-experience something. We have several 'selves' in my belief. I thought I had said that. But it seems to need to work on being more clear.

 

[viole]

I do. Buddhists, at least some, believe we choose to come back to either learn new things or re-experience something. We have several 'selves' in my belief. I thought I had said that. But it seems to need to work on being more clear.

Do you remember any of your other selves?

Ciao

- viole

 

[JoStories]

Do you remember any of your other selves?

Ciao

- viole

How odd you ask that. Yes, I have, but mostly in dreams. In fact, my bestest friend has been my friend through several lifetimes and we have compared our dream journeys-- I am NA and dram journeying is a part of our culture; and found that we were together in several of them. It was intriguing and eye opening to say the least. What I find most interesting is that I find I have evolved over the course of these lifetimes and come to understand more obtuse and abstract concepts much better and in much more depth. I hope this answers you
jo

 

[sojourner]

How odd you ask that. Yes, I have, but mostly in dreams. In fact, my bestest friend has been my friend through several lifetimes and we have compared our dream journeys-- I am NA and dram journeying is a part of our culture; and found that we were together in several of them. It was intriguing and eye opening to say the least. What I find most interesting is that I find I have evolved over the course of these lifetimes and come to understand more obtuse and abstract concepts much better and in much more depth. I hope this answers you
jo

I've always been fascinated by NA spirituality, and find that it meshes curiously with Christianity.

 

[JoStories]

I've always been fascinated by NA spirituality, and find that it meshes curiously with Christianity.

Not really. My meemaw used to tell me there was no corrolation. And in my experiences, I have not found that to be true. Others have, mind you, but IMO, it's unquely different. I can explain why if you have interest.

 

[sojourner]

Not really. My meemaw used to tell me there was no corrolation. And in my experiences, I have not found that to be true. Others have, mind you, but IMO, it's unquely different. I can explain why if you have interest.

I'd love to hear your take. My experience is with Peruvian Shamanism, which I find meshes quite well with Xy, so long as you hold each mythos gently.

 

[outhouse]

My experience is with Peruvian Shamanism,

Northern or Southern Andes ???

 

[sojourner]

Northern or Southern Andes ???

Northern

 

[outhouse]

Northern

What area?

I know the country very well. the furthest north I have been is Trujillo and all surrounding areas Chan Chan ect . But in the Andes ive been all around the Huaraz - Ancash area. Chavin ect ect

Mid, east of Lima and we had a summer home on the other side of the Andes.

South, Cuzco and Macho Picchu, Ica, Nazca.

No jungle yet for me other then Oxapampa.

 

[JoStories]

I'd love to hear your take. My experience is with Peruvian Shamanism, which I find meshes quite well with Xy, so long as you hold each mythos gently.

Thanks. Many do not care to learn. Now, your experience with Peru is colored by the fact that most South American countries have been exposed or have adopted a Catholic outlook on religions. Its much like Haiti and their adoption of Catholic lore with Voodoo or Santeria. In the USVI and some states here, its Rastaferianism. Getting back to NA thoughts on this, it is varied, to say the least. Many tribes were nomadic, while others, like mine, were more settled. God, as a concept, was just as varied. Most saw or see God as a being that is in all people, animals, and earth life, such as plants, etc. All of which are revered and deeply honored. In North and South Dakota, they honor God with sun dances. And many tribes do various rituals that they feel bring them closer to this ideal of God. Most have a shaman, who is a person who deals with sickness, whether biologic or spiritual. The practices of that Shaman may vary too. Some lead the tribe, some are just a figurehead. In my own tribe, we had shamans but now we have elected council heads. They are into the political regimes of this country, attempting to keep the lands safe from America's greed. Of course, there must be concensus with all members of the tribe. There are very clear gender roles, or used to be. Men were the hunters, and women were the ones who had the children, raised them, which btw, was very communal. IOW, children were the responsibility of the whole tribe. This included and includes care of elders. Nursing homes were not used and seen as in direct contrast to what God wants. Also, God in some tribes has very different names. IN my tribe, Abnaki, it is Tabaldak. IN the Blackfoot nation, it is Apistotookii , and so on. I hope this helps somewhat. There is so much more I could share that we would have a book at the end of this.