'I' REMAIN the SAME, no matter what. But how my use of the words 'thee' and 'the' make the sentences differ is that the word 'thee' is to reinforce that there is One 'I' ONLY.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:35 amFair enough. Then, what is "thee I" and how does it differ from "the I"? Other than using an archaic spelling of the word "the" how is one distinct from the other?Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:47 pmLike I have previously said, I am looking for those who are Truly interested. These ones will explain what 'things' they WANT clarified.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:51 pm
OK. Then you've lost me. Feel free to clarify things.
the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
I have NEVER used the 'you' word with a capital 'Y', (except for when beginning a sentence). So, 'your' use of the words here have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'me'.
And, what 'you' wrote here SHOWS and PROVES just how LITTLE an understanding you have of the way I write and of what I ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN. 'you' can NOT even get see and passed your OWN ASSUMPTIONS to SEE what I ACTUALLY SAY and WRITE. Even though what I SAID has been CLEARLY WRITTEN down.
This is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of how the brain becomes DISTORTED and TWISTED from the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS held within them.
Again, this "You" and "you" is a FIGMENT of your OWN IMAGINATION, which has arisen BECAUSE of your OWN previous ASSUMPTIONS. This "You" and "you" is of your OWN MAKING and DOING, ALONE.
And the WORST PART is 'you' BASE the rest of your views on this PREVIOUS ASSUMPTION, which NEVER even existed.
"age" NOR 'I' BELIEVE ANY thing.
It is YOUR BELIEF "atla" that "age" has a belief.
In my view the 'I' is the One Mind, in the non visible, or the spiritual, sense.
Did 'you' or did 'you' not say that; Millions of people before Age had this idea in regards to 'I' being the invisible Mind?
If it was 'you', "atla", then WHY do you now propose that ONLY "age's" belief that the 'I' is a 'One Mind'?
Will you CLARIFY this apparent contradiction of yours?
Or, are you now saying that ONLY 'I' have come up with this 'new' idea?
Re: the righteous tyrant
Seriously?
I'm not going to read through your lengthy volume of excuses, nor until your communication is less convoluted. I hope you have a therapist or someone to talk to.
And here
you've attributed things to me that I didn't say. Please correct it.
-
- Posts: 8342
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: the righteous tyrant
I would tend to disagree. I've seen people changed by their experiences in life. People who have experienced trauma are often not the same people they were before the trauma.Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:08 pm'I' REMAIN the SAME, no matter what. But how my use of the words 'thee' and 'the' make the sentences differ is that the word 'thee' is to reinforce that there is One 'I' ONLY.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:35 amFair enough. Then, what is "thee I" and how does it differ from "the I"? Other than using an archaic spelling of the word "the" how is one distinct from the other?
As far as being "one I only", not sure what you mean by that. Obviously, you and I are different "I's" or different instances of an "I." Or else two different I's. Whatever way you want to frame it, it's debatable and there's not much in the way of evidence that can be objectively communicated about it. Even mystics seem to say that their experiences of "oneness" are ineffable. So, no, I don't think it can be irrefutably demonstrated.
Re: the righteous tyrant
Yet another long comment full of bullshit, without a shred of the evidence that was promised. All the readers can see this.Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:23 pmI have NEVER used the 'you' word with a capital 'Y', (except for when beginning a sentence). So, 'your' use of the words here have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'me'.
And, what 'you' wrote here SHOWS and PROVES just how LITTLE an understanding you have of the way I write and of what I ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN. 'you' can NOT even get see and passed your OWN ASSUMPTIONS to SEE what I ACTUALLY SAY and WRITE. Even though what I SAID has been CLEARLY WRITTEN down.
This is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of how the brain becomes DISTORTED and TWISTED from the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS held within them.
Again, this "You" and "you" is a FIGMENT of your OWN IMAGINATION, which has arisen BECAUSE of your OWN previous ASSUMPTIONS. This "You" and "you" is of your OWN MAKING and DOING, ALONE.
And the WORST PART is 'you' BASE the rest of your views on this PREVIOUS ASSUMPTION, which NEVER even existed.
"age" NOR 'I' BELIEVE ANY thing.
It is YOUR BELIEF "atla" that "age" has a belief.
In my view the 'I' is the One Mind, in the non visible, or the spiritual, sense.
Did 'you' or did 'you' not say that; Millions of people before Age had this idea in regards to 'I' being the invisible Mind?
If it was 'you', "atla", then WHY do you now propose that ONLY "age's" belief that the 'I' is a 'One Mind'?
Will you CLARIFY this apparent contradiction of yours?
Or, are you now saying that ONLY 'I' have come up with this 'new' idea?
Re: the righteous tyrant
Age is an autistic schizophrenic with a split mind. She/he thinks that God is speaking through her, that's the "I" in her head. And her human self is the "i" in her head. She projects this split mindedness on everyone else too, she thinks that God speaks through all of us.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:54 pmI would tend to disagree. I've seen people changed by their experiences in life. People who have experienced trauma are often not the same people they were before the trauma.Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:08 pm'I' REMAIN the SAME, no matter what. But how my use of the words 'thee' and 'the' make the sentences differ is that the word 'thee' is to reinforce that there is One 'I' ONLY.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:35 am
Fair enough. Then, what is "thee I" and how does it differ from "the I"? Other than using an archaic spelling of the word "the" how is one distinct from the other?
As far as being "one I only", not sure what you mean by that. Obviously, you and I are different "I's" or different instances of an "I." Or else two different I's. Whatever way you want to frame it, it's debatable and there's not much in the way of evidence that can be objectively communicated about it. Even mystics seem to say that their experiences of "oneness" are ineffable. So, no, I don't think it can be irrefutably demonstrated.
Re: the righteous tyrant
But ANY person CAN claim ANY thing. As evidenced and proven throughout this forum, and throughout human history.
Well considering the FACT that the word 'I' can refer to Everything, and thus 'I' am Everything, then this One can claim to KNOW ANY thing, and by your logic here "dontaskme' would be accurate and correct.
Of course 'you' are not a tree. 'you' here refers to human beings, correct. So, 'you' are a human being, and thus NOT a tree.
However, and furthermore, when 'you' say "tree" here, then what EXACTLY are 'you' referring to? And, HOW does ANY one else KNOW what 'you' are referring to when 'you' say, "tree"?.
In other words, 'you' KNOW what you are talking about and referring to, EXACTLY. Therefore, 'you' do KNOW 'a tree'.
But if 'you' ever want to LOOK AT 'things' from another perspective and break 'things' right down to thee ACTUAL Truth, then what is discovered and learned is that 'you' are NOT the 'knowing'. 'you' are, in fact, the 'thinking', which comes from the brain within a human head. 'I' am the 'Knowing', which comes from thee Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, by the way.
This is from the perspective of the 'thinking' occurring to the one known as "dontaskme", here in this forum. Or, are 'you' inferring that what you say here is an absolute and irrefutable truth?
Also, do not forget that what you just said here in these last four sentences completely contradicts each other. That is; What happens if 'I' am Everything, then I could KNOW ANY and EVERY thing, correct?
And, if as you say, 'you' ARE the knowing, then 'you' would have to be that 'thing' that you KNOW OF, and so whatever 'you' KNOW, then that is what 'you' ARE, correct?
First you would have to inform us of who and/or what is 'the observer', EXACTLY?
Also, how would this work when one is observing a tree? Would they then be the 'tree'? And, if there were, then they could KNOW the 'tree', correct?
If you say so, then it MUST BE irrefutably so, and true, correct?
Re: the righteous tyrant
'Knowledge', to 'you', "advocate" is "justified belief". But 'knowledge' to "others" is something else.Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:53 pmKnowledge is justified belief and it's easier to have more about not-you than about yourself, as almost everyone does... and always has,Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am You cannot claim to know any thing.
To know a thing you would have to be that thing.
To know a tree you would have to be the tree, but you are not the tree, the tree is just a concept known, but not by the tree.
You cannot know any thing because you ARE the knowing. The knowing is one, and cannot be split into knower and known. The observer is inseparable from what it observes. The objective world is a projection of the subjective knowing, both the subjective and objective arise simultaneously together as one seamless reality. Same as it ever is, was. Nothing changes, any change is a changeless change.
.
because people don't think about themselves rigorously and there's no external validation that carries weight.
You are correct in that 'almost' everyone does.
Also, gaining the knowledge of "one's" 'self' and thus working out and KNOWING; 'Who 'I' am' is a VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE thing to do and accomplish. But that is only AFTER learning and knowing HOW to achieve and obtain this 'knowledge'.
Some people have thought about "themselves" rigorously enough to arrive at the proper and correct answer the question; 'Who am 'I'?'.
AND, there is PLENTY of, so called, "external validation", which carries weight. As will become evidently CLEAR ENOUGH, soon enough.
Re: the righteous tyrant
Since WHEN is 'fact' NOT a fact?Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:48 pmBelieve? No.Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:52 amSo, are you saying here that you now actually believe and accept the fact that there could be one Truth and/or one ultimate Reality?Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm You are exaggerating. You once asked me if there was any possibility at all that there could be one ultimate reality, and I acknowledged that anything is possible. However, there is no proof, and there is nothing that would point to such a thing except man's NEED to believe he knows of something.
Fact? It's not a fact.
And, in who's "world" is a 'fact', NOT a fact?
OR, are 'you' 'trying to' imply or infer that the fact I wrote in that sentence is NOT a fact?
Because if you are, then this REVEALS FULLY YOUR BELIEFS here.
So, if you REALLY want to 'prove "yourself" ', then you WILL answer these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly.
It becomes tiring listen to 'you', people, here in this forum, saying things like; "your distortions", to "another", but NEVER actually saying NOR pointing out what the SUPPOSED and ALLEGED "distortions" are meant to be.
I could say the EXACT SAME about 'your distortions'. But it helps readers when I point out what the EXACT distortions ARE, EXACTLY.
Either list what my, supposed and alleged, 'distortions' are, to you, then explain how and why you see them as, and think of them as, 'distortions', and then REMAIN OPEN to SEE what my reply will be.
That is HOW True and Right discussions take place, in, so called, "philosophical" discussions.
If you do not do this, then what you are actually just doing is revealing and showing your OWN BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS, ONLY.
Re: the righteous tyrant
When ANY one uses the word 'ineffable' in relation to what they want to say and express but can NOT, just SHOWS and REVEALS that one's OWN INABILITIES and BELIEFS.Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:59 pmActual Reality, aka Actuality, is the ineffable font from which new justified beliefs by way of replication spring eternal. Regular Reality is consensus experience.
If some 'thing' is NOT YET able to be expressed in words, by some one, then that does NOT mean that that 'thing' is ineffable. That just means that that 'one' has some more to discover and/or learn. Which is just an OBVIOUS FACT for EVERY 'one'.
Re: the righteous tyrant
What does it REALLY matter what just one human being, labelled "jesus" said?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pmWell, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:27 pm...the majority of human souls end up discarded. Is that not true?
Could a human being named "jesus" have said ANY thing which was somewhat not right or partially incorrect? Or, is this just NOT a possibility in that tiny little 'thinking' within that head?
Saying, "enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide" is an obvious contradiction. So, a more satisfying question, to me, is; WHAT 'gates' are being referred to, EXACTLY?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?
And, if you do NOT ALREADY KNOW, then I suggest REMAINING OPEN until you can find out, AND SEE, what thee True and Right answer ACTUALLY IS.
What you are essentially asking here is; One side of the line is 'destruction' and one side of the line is 'life', so which side of 'that line' are you wanting to be?
You ask this without EVERY explaining WHERE nor WHAT is 'that line'?
All you are really 'trying to' to do is speak like "jesus" but never really knowing what 'it' IS that you are speaking of nor about.
Re: the righteous tyrant
BELIEVING things, which have NOT YET been substantiated NOR understood FULLY, I find MORE illogical and nonsensical.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:36 pmContradicting Jesus Christ now, are we?Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:16 pmFalse dichotomy fallacy.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm
Well, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?
Re: the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
What do you mean by "nothing" here.Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:52 pmEven if a historical Jesus is granted, nothing that is contained in the bible follows.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:36 pmSo you don't agree with the vast quantity of historical evidence, including the many skeptical documents, that all still insist that Jesus Christ actually existed?
http://coldcasechristianity.com/writing ... the-bible/
So now, I guess, historians are also "imaginary people."
From what I have observed EVERY thing in the bible, the koran, and all the other religious texts I have seen 'follow', and ARE in harmony with each other.
But, then again, 'I' do LOOK AT and SEE most things VERY DIFFERENTLY than 'you', human beings' do. But this is because 'I' KNOW who (and what) 'I' am. Whereas, the human beings I KNOW do NOT.
Now, if you would like to explain WHAT, EXACTLY, to 'you', supposedly does NOT follow, then, at least, we would have some thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS. Until then we have NOTHING.
Re: the righteous tyrant
But "christianity" does NOT 'need' help in being dismantled. "christianity" is dismantling itself.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:00 pmSee? You answered the question, but didn't answer it -- I'm sure -- the way you were supposed to, so someone will proclaim you're bein' deceptive or cowardly.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pmWell, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:27 pm...the majority of human souls end up discarded. Is that not true?
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?
What it comes down to is: Mannie won't cooperate and help me dismantle Christianity so he's bad.
ANY hypocritical views dismantle them self. For example, saying and expressing the view; "Love thy neighbor", but then going out and killing ones neighbor, ESPECIALLY in the name of religion and/or God, IS HYPOCRITICAL.
Fighting wars in the name of God, (or Allah), IS HYPOCRITICAL.
Saying, "Do not judge", but then judging "others", IS HYPOCRITICAL.
Some of those people who call themselves "christians" are the BIGGEST HYPOCRITES of them all.
"christianity" is dismantling itself, quite nicely, without the help of any one else.