It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unlimited being

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

Why do you figure that art should be intellectually dissected, as if were an attempted factual statement?

Not sure what's so artistic about a "babbling brook of trivialities", but since I brought up that term in my first comment and got a response from the OP, I might as well explain a bit more why I brought up the term "babbling brook of trivialities". And I already got started, so might as well finish up or elaborate a bit. After all, the phrases in the OP are presented as some kind of clever insight (light, enlightenment), which they are not. A babbling brook of trivialities can be used for dark purposes, keeping people in the dark as to the difference between true insight and enlightenment (truths/facts about important matters) and nonsense to keep one distracted from that.

...How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. [whereislogic: including philosophical nonsense, or lame human philosophy, remember my definition for "lame"? "Lacking needful or desirable substance"?] Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject.

However, we do not want to be so narrow that we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking. How can we find the right balance? By adopting a standard with which to measure new information. ...

Use discernment: ...

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?

Put information to the test: [whereislogic: i.e. analyze it] ... Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it [is false or nonsensical] or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.
...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000


There are plenty of BS false statements on the ATS board, that could use your surgical analysis.

I agree, bet I happened to stumble upon this thread and made an initial short concise comment about the OP, which got me started as soon as the responses got in. It's not like these other threads are more worth responding to. I've pretty much ignored this whole philosophy forum in the past, so might as well spend some words on it now. Most of what I said is applicable or useful in regards to this whole subforum anyway. The OP is just a nice example of a babbling brook of trivialities in contrast to ‘a bubbling torrent of wisdom’. (Proverbs 18:4) Perhaps it's easier to recognize for others than some other threads that are more sophisticated (Krahzeef_Ukhar and TzarChasm seem to have noticed something of the sorts, Krahzeef_Ukhar even brought up self-importance).

For me: one of the beautiful aspects of written art forms, is that 'reality/truth/fact/certainty', can be suspended for a few moments.
We go to that place of 'not-knowing', and simply revel in possibilities.

Yeah but I'm a truth seeker who likes to encourage others to also seek truths that matter and true enlightenment, true spirituality and true insight so it can safe(guard) their lives(/souls) and set them free from the things I mentioned and explained in more detail. Truly free their minds. Not merely fueling the illusion of freeing one's mind, the illusion of insight and enlightenment, the illusion of having wisdom, darkness posing as light as per Isaiah 5:20,21. See my signature for the bible text that mentions that "love rejoices with the truth", if you truly love people, you want them to know what is true as well (especially about important subjects that will affect their way of life and future prospects of everlasting life). Often it's useful to realize what's false so you can contrast it to what is true. It helps with the process of truth seeking (which includes seeking true enlightenment, spirituality, knowledge, wisdom and insight; and it will train one's thinking abilities if done right). Agnosticism stands in the way of the process of truth seeking, by most people, it's used to give up trying to figure something out with the type of certainty that we have established for the law of gravity for example. It is the ultimate cop-out to close one's mind to truths/certainties/realities/facts that one doesn't want to accept, acknowledge or even consider or think about and still call it or think of it as having an open mind (or "the next level of awareness" as someone else in this thread called it, i.e. darkness posing as light to make it appear more appealing and play on people's pride and fuel self-importance if they go to this supposed "next level of awareness" which actually closes the door to proper truth seeking by using inductive reasoning or common sense on observations of the facts, considering and analyzing those facts in a reasonable manner*). And agnosticism is way too popular (coming back to what I said about popularity and popular opinion not being a reliable barometer for truth, nor for true insight, enlightenment, knowledge or wisdom, i.e. real light, not fake light).

*: "Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
" -Isaac Newton (with proper instructions for real truth seeking, making actual scientific discoveries such as the facts/certainties/truths/realities described in the Law of Gravity)

To be enlightened or gain awareness, you first need to figure out (become aware of) the facts/certainties, things that are true/factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error.
edit on 26-11-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Nothin
..."...Often it's useful to realize what's false ..."...


Hey!
We almost mostly kinda sorta have something to agree upon!



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin
Also remember that "philosophy" (from the Greek) literally translates to "love of wisdom", not "love of imagination, imagined possibilities and agnosticism", as philosophers often demonstrate their preference to be and thus not to be true wisdom (light) at all, not even love of knowledge: a familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities, or things that are true/factual/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. They already have issues with the beginning of true wisdom, the first step as described in the bible (which I have as well but of a different kind, different issues, I don't have issues with accepting the first step as a reality/fact that that's the path to true wisdom, in my case it's more of a problem taking that step and not succumbing to other things that prevent me from taking that first step to develop true wisdom; nevertheless I don't feel the need to ignore what is true in favor of agnosticism just because the facts aren't tickling my ears).

Speculation is not the same as wisdom, often it actually stands in the way of true wisdom or knowledge for that matter.

Philosophy: Reasoning From the Scriptures

Definition: The word philosophy is derived from Greek roots that mean “love of wisdom.” As used here, philosophy is not built on acceptance of belief in God, but it tries to give people a unified view of the universe and endeavors to make them critical thinkers. It employs chiefly speculative means rather than observation in a search for truth.

How can any of us acquire true knowledge and wisdom?

Prov. 1:7; Ps. 111:10: “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge . . . [and] of wisdom.” (If the universe were not the product of an intelligent Creator but only of some blind, irrational force, then no unified view of the universe would be possible, would it? Nothing that would qualify as wisdom could result from a study of something that was itself irrational, could it? Those who attempt to understand the universe or life itself, while endeavoring to leave God and his purpose out of account, meet with constant frustration. They misinterpret what they learn and misuse facts that they glean. Leaving out of account belief in God destroys the key to accurate knowledge and makes impossible any truly consistent framework of thought.)

Prov. 2:4-7: “If you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God. For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; out of his mouth there are knowledge and discernment. And for the upright ones he will treasure up practical wisdom.” (Jehovah provides needed help through his written Word and his visible organization. An earnest desire and personal effort, including the use of one’s thinking ability in a constructive manner, are also necessary.)

Is it realistic to expect to find absolute truth from this Source?

2 Tim. 3:16; John 17:17: “All Scripture is inspired of God.” “[Jesus said to his heavenly Father:] Your word is truth.” (Is it not reasonable that the Creator of the universe would have full understanding of it? In the Bible he has not told us everything about the universe, but what he has had recorded there is not speculation; it is truth. He has also stated in the Bible what his purpose is for the earth and for mankind and how he will accomplish it. His almighty power, superlative wisdom, flawless justice, and great love guarantee that this purpose will be fully accomplished, and in the best possible manner. His qualities thus assure us that his statement of purpose is completely dependable; it is truth.)

What is the origin of human philosophies?

They come from people who have limitations: The Bible informs us: “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jer. 10:23) History testifies that trying to ignore that limitation has not produced good results. On one occasion, “Jehovah proceeded to answer Job out of the windstorm and say: ‘Who is this that is obscuring counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me. Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding.’” (Job 38:1-4) (Humans by nature have limitations. Additionally, their experience in life is relatively brief and is usually confined to one culture or one environment. The knowledge they possess is thus restricted, and everything is interconnected to such an extent that they constantly find aspects that they had not adequately considered. Any philosophy that they originate will reflect these limitations.)

They are developed by humans who are imperfect: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23) “There exists a way that is upright before a man, but the ways of death are the end of it afterward.” (Prov. 14:12) (Because of such imperfection, human philosophies often reflect a basic selfishness that leads perhaps to momentary pleasure but also to frustration and much unhappiness.)

They are influenced by demonic spirits: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) “The one called Devil and Satan . . . is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Rev. 12:9) “You at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience.” (Eph. 2:2) (Philosophies that encourage people to disobey God’s wholesome and upright requirements reflect such an influence. No wonder that, as history testifies, human philosophies and schemes have often brought grief to large segments of humankind.)

Why is it an evidence of clear thinking to study the teachings of Jesus Christ instead of human philosophy?
...
How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

Now my analysis of the mantra-like phrases in the OP is to show how "foolish" they are. They are not wise phrases. One can begin to see this when one puts it to the test of logic (or uses one's thinking ability properly, as designed and given by God, common sense, something every baby is born with as part of the gift of God: the miracle of life).

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories
edit on 26-11-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Am not gonna remember that.

Can see that you are trying to be honest, and that's fine.
Just that none of it flies for me, sorry.



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin
Well "remember" is just part of an expression that I also could have started with "Also note that...". It's just a way of me to introduce a point (sometimes a point I've made before, allthough not on this occasion, unless you count making that point in another thread in this subforum months or even years ago, or possibly to some of the people that have been commenting here; cause it's not the first time I mentioned this fact about the Greek words from which the english word "philosophy" is derived).

What is the etymology of the word “philosophy”? (Quora.com)

Heera Kumar, B.A Literature and Philosophy, Banaras Hindu University

The term ‘Philosophy' is coined from the Greek words ‘Phylos’ meaning ‘to love’ and ‘Sophie’ meaning ‘Wisdom’. Thus, in its etymological sense, Philosophy accounts for the ‘love of wisdom’.

If you google "philosophy etymology" you can find out the origin of words and their original meaning.
edit on 26-11-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Yes. Good point about the ah, err, point. (LoL).

Etymology can be interesting sometimes.



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
If you mean most human beings throughout the dawn of time imagining the self as unlimited everlasting conscious energy, then if we imagine it to be true, then I personally could never be happy nor fulfilled settling into life only as a limited being.


originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
What's the difference between unlimited and everlasting?

Seems strange that you would use both words.

Well, skipping past your question about the difference, it does seem rather more appealing to be both unlimited and everlasting doesn't it? So using both terms is a useful marketing tool for this idea/philosophy of us being "unlimited everlasting conscious energy". Either will do, both is better in terms of 'tickling people's ears'. Of course, by using the word "if", InTheLight is demonstrating and acknowledging his own limitation in knowledge regarding the truth/fact/reality of the matter and inability to enlighten us regarding the matter (which requires correct answers to the questions: Is it true? And how can we know for sure? Otherwise, you're not enlightening anyone, the ability to distinguish between fact/truth and fiction, is what enlightens regarding a matter). A demonstration of a reality in itself (i.e. evidence he is a limited being and even sort of giving his game away, if you wanna call engaging in pure fantasy without evidence nor attempt at using logic, reason and one's thinking ability, a 'game').

Earlier you mentioned:

What do you believe an unlimited being to be?
The term seems a little too vague for my liking.

Which reminded me that even God is not an unlimited being, he can't lie. But that's a bit of a sidenote cause it's obvious that humans are limited beings. If people can't come to terms with that simple straightforward and easy to understand reality/truth, various bible texts are quite appropiate in describing their state of mind:

"always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. ... these also go on opposing the truth ... Such men are completely corrupted in mind, ... Nevertheless, they will make no further progress, for their folly* [Or “foolishness.”] will be very plain..." (2 Timothy 3:7-9)

It is not "light" that shines there, sometimes, it's almost like there's no light burning up there (in their minds) at all. They've gone to sleep, their minds have gone dull from drinking too much "shade of the evening" or something (2:28):

edit on 26-11-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: whereislogic

Am not gonna remember that.

Can see that you are trying to be honest, and that's fine.
Just that none of it flies for me, sorry.


None of it flies for me either, so whereislogic, just gonna be me.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Am not even taxing for takeoff.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I too don't need to tax off before takeoff, it's a clear path.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join