Secular Intolerance

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

God's people are not secularists who put a face on an imaginary conception of God.

So you say . You are no doubt as much one of God's people as any secularist.Even such silly people as you and I are as much God's people as anyone else.

Why do you seek to divide people up Nick?

[seeds]

Humans are part of nature. What humans are doing is what nature is doing. Nature tends to be underestimated. The Earth has produced humanity with perhaps more interesting things yet to come. Humans are just the most articulate expression of the Earth so far. Sixty million years ago it was the dinosaurs. Three hundred million years ago it was trilobites. Two billion years ago it was prokaryotes. Before that it was simply rock.

Yes, and before that there was (and still is) an informationally-based, “mind-like” substance (the quantum underpinning of reality) that is capable of being shaped into absolutely anything “imaginable.”

From whence did this infinitely malleable substance come?

Furthermore, it is a substance that appears to have been “impregnated,” not only with an inherent teleological impetus to bring us into existence as the culminating apex to the successive entities you mentioned (from rock to prokaryotes to trilobites to dinosaurs to humans), but also with every possible ingredient and means to complete the task.

Seems a lot to ask of “nature,” which is basically just an anthropomorphic rendering of the word “chance” dressed up in a mother's apron.
_______

[davidm]

Humans are part of nature. What humans are doing is what nature is doing. Nature tends to be underestimated. The Earth has produced humanity with perhaps more interesting things yet to come. Humans are just the most articulate expression of the Earth so far. Sixty million years ago it was the dinosaurs. Three hundred million years ago it was trilobites. Two billion years ago it was prokaryotes. Before that it was simply rock.

Yes, and before that there was (and still is) an informationally-based, “mind-like” substance (the quantum underpinning of reality) that is capable of being shaped into absolutely anything “imaginable.”

From whence did this infinitely malleable substance come?

Furthermore, it is a substance that appears to have been “impregnated,” not only with an inherent teleological impetus to bring us into existence as the culminating apex to the successive entities you mentioned (from rock to prokaryotes to trilobites to dinosaurs to humans), but also with every possible ingredient and means to complete the task.

Seems a lot to ask of “nature,” which is basically just an anthropomorphic rendering of the word “chance” dressed up in a mother's apron.
_______

It does seem a lot to ask of nature, which is why what you wrote above isn't true.

[Harbal]

From whence did this infinitely malleable substance come?

It came from God, allelujah, how great though art.

Oh Lord my God
When I in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds
Thy hands have made

Grow up, seeds.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

God's people are not secularists who put a face on an imaginary conception of God.

So you say . You are no doubt as much one of God's people as any secularist.Even such silly people as you and I are as much God's people as anyone else.

Why do you seek to divide people up Nick?

The division is biblical. Those who do not feel the calling cannot understand those who do and seek to kill it in them for the good of the state. This passage isn't PC. Try not to react to it but undersand it as natural for the human psych which values the attraction to objective human meaning over earthly attachments.

Matthew 10: 4 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

There will always be secular efforts within the world which seek to absorb God's people into the world of earthy attachments. Jesus brings a sword to separate animal love from divine love. They are both needed but when divine love is sacrificed for earthly attachments, it is a spirit killer.

[Harbal]

Those who do not feel the calling cannot understand

That's exactly it. Despite all the things you've been called, you stubbornly persist in not understanding what a crank you are.

undersand it as natural for the human psych which values the attraction to objective human meaning over earthly attachments.

If there were such a thing as objective meaning we would all see the same significance in the same things, we wouldn't be capable of not doing.

Matthew 10: 4 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn.....

You and your sodding quotes. Just because somebody once said something doesn't automatically mean it carries any weight.

There will always be secular efforts within the world......

And there will probably always be religious fruitcakes shouting from their soap boxes, making fools of themselves.

Jesus brings a sword to separate animal love from divine love.

Particularly for those frustrated at not being able to get their share of animal love.

when divine love is sacrificed for earthly attachments, it is a spirit killer.

You just don't like the idea of anyone else having what you don't have.

[Nick_A]

Those who do not feel the calling cannot understand

That's exactly it. Despite all the things you've been called, you stubbornly persist in not understanding what a crank you are.

undersand it as natural for the human psych which values the attraction to objective human meaning over earthly attachments.

If there were such a thing as objective meaning we would all see the same significance in the same things, we wouldn't be capable of not doing.

Matthew 10: 4 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn.....

You and your sodding quotes. Just because somebody once said something doesn't automatically mean it carries any weight.

There will always be secular efforts within the world......

And there will probably always be religious fruitcakes shouting from their soap boxes, making fools of themselves.

Jesus brings a sword to separate animal love from divine love.

Particularly for those frustrated at not being able to get their share of animal love.

when divine love is sacrificed for earthly attachments, it is a spirit killer.

You just don't like the idea of anyone else having what you don't have.

Behold secular intolerance and shudder. it is why Jesus and Socrates had to be killed. The only way for man to evolve beyond the domination of the world by secular intolerance is the conscious death and the help from above it invites. Will humanity ever outgrow resorting to the pitchforks and the torches in modern form is an open question. All I do know is that secular intolerance will do whatever it takes to defend its prestige even to the extent of inflicting metaphysical repression on the young. It knows no shame.

[uwot]

Try reading the second part of the Nicolescu article.

Try reading my previous post. Then try reading the second part of the article yourself. Do that and you will appreciate that I quite obviously did read it, because I quoted and responded to it.

Are you open to the law of the included middle as explained or do you deny it. If you are open to it a reasonable explanation of levels of reality creating our universe is natural.

Like I said, try reading my previous post.

Reality is not only a social construction, the consensus of a collectivity, or an intersubjective agreement.

Right; this is where post-modernism pops up. Usually this causes much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the holy. Do you understand this claim?

I agree. If an asteroid crashes into the earth destroying it and all life upon it, the universe will continue on with its same objective meaning and purpose.

That's a no, then.

[Greta]

Humans are part of nature. What humans are doing is what nature is doing. Nature tends to be underestimated. The Earth has produced humanity with perhaps more interesting things yet to come. Humans are just the most articulate expression of the Earth so far. Sixty million years ago it was the dinosaurs. Three hundred million years ago it was trilobites. Two billion years ago it was prokaryotes. Before that it was simply rock.

Yes, and before that there was (and still is) an informationally-based, “mind-like” substance (the quantum underpinning of reality) that is capable of being shaped into absolutely anything “imaginable.”

Hi Seeds. Long time no chat.

Could be. Your thought process here recalls Democritus's atomism, with everything made of smaller things (which is fine). However, guessing attributes of the finest grain of reality, though, is a much more fraught activity and not something that Democritus, a highly disciplined thinker for his day, did not do.

People look within and see something godlike in their subjective experience and sometimes figure that "they have the answer". Trouble is, many have been sure they "had the answer" [to whatever problem] and been wrong. To me it's all an unknown.

Furthermore, it is a substance that appears to have been “impregnated,” not only with an inherent teleological impetus to bring us into existence as the culminating apex to the successive entities you mentioned (from rock to prokaryotes to trilobites to dinosaurs to humans), but also with every possible ingredient and means to complete the task.

Seems a lot to ask of “nature,” which is basically just an anthropomorphic rendering of the word “chance” dressed up in a mother's apron.

The biosphere is growing, maturing and developing more or less like any of its denizens; it has its ups and downs but usually it's growing and evolving. Growth and development itself is not chance. Barring mishap, life is probably inevitable in suitable conditions, with abiogenesis shaped by the physical laws. However, the direction and success (ie. not dying) of any biology relies a great deal on chance.

[Nick_A]

I’ll show you something that has always awed me while comparing the Law of the EXCLUDED middle (non-contradiction) with the Law of the INCLUDED Middle Dr. Nicolescu refers to.

Regardless of what the NY Times thinks, male (yang) and female (yin) are mutually exclusive at one level of reality. Men and women are not the same.

The Law of the Included Middle suggests that the expressions of yin and yang at one level of reality represented by a horizontal line can be reconciled at a higher level as ONE by a vertical line rising from the middle uniting the extremes producing a triangle. This triangle is a unified whole uniting above and below.. It is easy to see how Man became “them” (male and female) in Genesis through the process of involution or fragmentation. Once science has a better appreciation for universal laws, levels of reality will become common knowledge and the Source which connects them will be understood as essential. We will consciously outgrow defending the duality of cave life and its reliance on the excluded middle and open to the logic of the reconciling force of the included middle. Of course society is not ready for this and the heels of the “experts” are dug in defending the Great Beast as God and its reliance on the Law of the Excluded middle denying the vertical third direction of thought. But at least a path can open in which science and and the essence of religion are complimentary.

[Arising_uk]

I believe you have a scientific mind so this won’t go over your head. But if you read in this link how science is normally reliant on the Law of the Excluded Middle, you will se how Dr. Nicolescu’s introduction to the Law of the Included Middle brings a new direction not only to science but of appreciating the relativity and potential for the evolution of human being. ...

Took a read and saw no sign of any Logic at all?

Lots of lovely sounding propositions but no actual Logic one could use?

[Arising_uk]

...
The Law of the Included Middle suggests that the expressions of yin and yang at one level of reality represented by a horizontal line can be reconciled at a higher level as ONE by a vertical line rising from the middle uniting the extremes producing a triangle. This triangle is a unified whole uniting above and below.. It is easy to see how Man became “them” (male and female) in Genesis through the process of involution or fragmentation. Once science has a better appreciation for universal laws, levels of reality will become common knowledge and the Source which connects them will be understood as essential. We will consciously outgrow defending the duality of cave life and its reliance on the excluded middle and open to the logic of the reconciling force of the included middle. Of course society is not ready for this and the heels of the “experts” are dug in defending the Great Beast as God and its reliance on the Law of the Excluded middle denying the vertical third direction of thought. But at least a path can open in which science and and the essence of religion are complimentary.

Great! Can you make a kettle with it as we'll need a good cup of tea methinks.

[Arising_uk]

If I want to inspire I have to become a demagogue. ...

Just try being a teacher first.

I’m trying to discuss the fallen human condition which has created so much unnatural atrocity in the world. This isn’t inspirational. Is it inspirational to talk about the black plague? However there are those who are unafraid to ponder the problem rather than become demagogues. You may ridicule them but I have the highest regard for their efforts. ...

This 'fallen human condition' is your christian slip showing. The people of the world are measurably better off than in Greek times, it's just that some don't want to believe it due to their blinkers.

[Arising_uk]

...
The division is biblical. Those who do not feel the calling cannot understand those who do and seek to kill it in them for the good of the state. This passage isn't PC. Try not to react to it but undersand it as natural for the human psych which values the attraction to objective human meaning over earthly attachments. ...

Er! No, the Bible says that it is the Christians who will be doing all the slaughtering.

There will always be secular efforts within the world which seek to absorb God's people into the world of earthy attachments. Jesus brings a sword to separate animal love from divine love. They are both needed but when divine love is sacrificed for earthly attachments, it is a spirit killer.

And yet in the end you and Jebus will be slaughtering billions and enslaving the rest eh! Nice 'divine love' you got there.

[Nick_A]

If I want to inspire I have to become a demagogue. ...

Just try being a teacher first.

I’m trying to discuss the fallen human condition which has created so much unnatural atrocity in the world. This isn’t inspirational. Is it inspirational to talk about the black plague? However there are those who are unafraid to ponder the problem rather than become demagogues. You may ridicule them but I have the highest regard for their efforts. ...

This 'fallen human condition' is your christian slip showing. The people of the world are measurably better off than in Greek times, it's just that some don't want to believe it due to their blinkers.

What does it mean to be better off? If the collective IQ and head knowledge that measures it has grown does that make a person better off if collective EQ has remained the same? All it means is that humanity has knowledge but doesn't know what to do with it as human beings. I'll post a simple link to show what I mean by EQ

https://www.verywell.com/iq-or-eq-which ... nt-2795287

IQ represents abilities such as:

Visual and spatial processing
Knowledge of the world
Fluid reasoning
Working memory and short-term memory
Quantitative reasoning
EQ, on the other hand, is a measure of a person's level of emotional intelligence. This refers to a person's ability to perceive, control, evaluate, and express emotions. Researchers such as John Mayer and Peter Salovey as well as writers like Daniel Goleman have helped shine a light on emotional intelligence, making it a hot topic in areas ranging from business management to education.

EQ is centered on abilities such as:

Identifying emotions
Evaluating how others feel
Controlling one's own emotions
Perceiving how others feel
Using emotions to facilitate social communication
Relating to others

All this means is that we define intellectual intelligence because we measure it and can teach critical thinking but have no standards for emotional intelligence. We know it exists but don't know what it is so just BS about it. Consequently as intellectual intelligence and head knowledge has grown over the years, emotional intelligence or qualitative heart knowledge and its recognition of objective values has remained the same. Can people really be better off under these conditions as human beings?