Religion has only ever been a means to control the masses. Nothing else. It therefore playes a major

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2002 @ 11:54 PM
Psalm 137

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea we wept, when we remembered Zion.

We hanged our harpe upon the willows in the midst therof.

For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.

How a shall we sing the Lord' s song in a strange land?

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.

If I do not remember thee, let me tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Remember O. Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, rase it
rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewaredeth thee as thou has served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dashesth thy little ones against the stones."

OK UP and Thomas lets cut to the chase, what does this mean to you? My understanding is that each Psalm is to be treated as stand alone. This meaning any interpretation would reflect the particular psalm by itself. My personal impression is that it was politically motivated and therefore not actually the word of God.

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 10-9-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 04:57 PM
Toltex, are you a subscriber to the Copenhagen interpretation, or leaning toward Esoteric Theory? From your posts, you seem to be swinging in multiple directions.

posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 07:00 PM
daniel O, i do not even hear you or what you just said.

You do "not' know me and what ive seen.

I am not blinded, i did NOT grow up with religion being fed to my brain.

Im 21 and JUST realized who god was through "miracles" and

Up until i was 18 i did not know who jesus was nor what a christian was.

i don't even see your message saying im blinded.

You do not know me or the miracles ive seen and do
not even have a clue.


posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 07:12 PM
A bland man cannot contemplate his own reflection.


posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 07:27 PM
Truth, I think you need to do some more reading of the Bible if you're going to hold those positions. I can think of several counter-examples... to wit:

Incest isn't forbidden. You can't lust after your neighbor's wife, ox, or property, but NOwhere does it say you can't lust after your own son or daughter. In fact, several Biblical heroes commit incest and Jehovah doesn't strike them dead. Or blind. Or even trouble their conscience.

Yet we know that in our society today, incest DOES cause depression and suicide. So... you're saying that incest is okay since the Bible indicates it was acceptable and the deity didn't smite anyone over it?

Second: as far as I know, slavery causes misery and tears and can lead to suicide. Yet the Bible condones slavery (Jehovah sends the Jews off to enslave a number of tribes, and Jesus admonishes slaves to be good. There's even a whole section on how to sell your daughter (Exodus 7). The daughter has no say in whether she's sold or not and if she displeases her master the Bible says she can be sold to foreigners.)

...and if a guy has sex with the slave girl (bondmaid) she will be whipped (Leviticus.) (feminists note: he gets off scott free by bringing a ram to be sacrificed.)

And all that is truth. Look it up in your Bibles.

You, Truth, have obviously never read the Bible. Surely you're not going to try to say that everyone will be happy if we have sex with our kith and kin, and sell our daughters and acquire slaves in the same way advised by the Bible?

These Biblical laws cause misery and suffering. That's why there's legislation in MOST countries that outlaws these Biblical practices.

If these practices were bringing joy and happiness, I don't think anyone would have stepped in to have them banned.

UP- Yes, those verses and more are in the Bible. Might I suggest you get a good French translation (the 16th century English can be hard to follow) and then you can more easily compare it to the English version.

posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 08:55 PM
whoa whoa wait a minute.

byrd, before judging gods word (((("""Improperly"""))))
please read the passages and understand them.

This is exactly what haappens when passaages get taken out of what they really mean.

jesus "never" approved slavery as literal form.

Ephesians 6:5

"" Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling
in sincerity of heart, as to christ, not only when being watched, as currying favor,
but as slaves of christ, doing the will of god from the ((heart)), willingly
serving the ""lord"" and NOT human beings, knowing ttat each will be
requited from the lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. masters,
act in the same way towards them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and
you have a master in heaven and that with him there is
no (partiality) ""

Now byrd, this was from paul and not jesus.

But non the less you have not read it closely and haave mis interpreted it.

What he means is that all should live according to the will of god and that
ALL walks of society should work together for the perfection of man......

Meaning, paarents working with their children, government working with their people, leaders with
their people..

All should work together knowing tthat all haave ONE lord in heaaven which shows NO partiality.

daniel O.

Like i said you do not have a clue how i have been led to the "christian" church
nor what miracles i have seen.


Thou shalll not ccommit adultury..

Simple to understand what that means.


posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 09:06 PM

I have presented the works of EPR Phenomenon (Einstein Rosen
Poldousky Bridge) as well as documented evidence of how the phenomenon (in fact) can be understood (Bells Theorem).

As well I have clearly identified other phenomenon (in this thread) which have measurable indicators (Mayan sound technology and soul substance). The book by Sir Roger Penrose (Shadows of the Mind) presents legitimate research into the matter of Microtubules which in fact have the capacity to align photons (incidentally). This of course not being the only point

As far as the esoteric, might I point out that despite no argument can be found in recent history. To either support or deny the experiment legitimately (submitted in 1907 by Duncan Macdougall referred to as Soul Substance). It has in ancient history been proven to be correct on (my knowledge and experience) three occasions (three different ancient cultures) Two of which I am related to (genetically) and the other, well that's a little personal. Personally do not understand your implication that I adhere to "multiple directions". And have offered in response to your query (of me) two phenomenon's of which I am uniquely aware. I would request that you provide specific augments which refute what I have presented. And as well cite what statements I have made which you feel are not consistent?

In regard to the matter of wave function I do consider this a valid interpretation (in relation to understanding electron spin). Quite frankly though this does not constitute multiple meaning and am prepared to offer insights as to why. As well would suggest you review a thread in Science and Technology called "Light Speed, no Brakes," please note the issues presented in relation to "Negative Energy" (there is a like at the current site which will allow you access to the entire content of the conversation and the prior site)

The attached link, does (to me) accurately define issues in relation to Copenhagen Interpretation. It is prepared for the lay person making it easier for all concerned to understand.

Will be more than happy to respond to its content at length.

What are your thoughts?

Copenhagen Interpretation

PS: The correct sp for the handle is Toltec

[Edited on 11-9-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 11:44 PM
Truth, I have never denied that sin destroys lives...I've only questioned the official Church's *definitions* & *number* of sins that they claim exist. Again, I refer to the Ten Commandments. You have done the same thing you've always done...Misinterpret what it is that I've actually written.

Originally posted by Truth
4. Sin of the flesh.

Exactly...Which Commandment says that "flesh" is a sin? If flesh was a sin, in & of itself, then God condemned even Adam & Eve to sin *before* they were seduced with the Fruit of Knowledge. Also, what *exactly* is the sin being *defined* by using the term, "flesh" in this context? The only thing that seems to come close to describing "flesh" as a sin would be to "covet thy neighbor's wife", as stated. How many *other* definitions does the Church pin onto the term "sin of the flesh"?

Originally posted by Truth
This sin causes massive babies to be born without amn/women parenting causing a society that has no ""parental"" teachingss on which is wright and wrong.

And what of the sin of parents not providing proper upbringing to a dozen kids because they can't provide proper attention to them all?...Even if the parents are "proper Catholics" & have obeyed the word to "go forth & multiply"? Parents like this also deny many kids (their own!) the chance to be raised right too. Don't tell me that this doesn't happen because I've seen it happen in families that I've grown up with in own own neighborhood.

Originally posted by Truth
12. Sin causes........
cancer, diseases, violence, hate, evil, despare, unmorality,
ignorance, arrogance, wars, ""lies"", .......
and most of all, the destruction of the world.

Oh? What link do you have to show for the connection to sin & such things as disease, dispair & ignorance? According to your own Bible, it was a sin for Adam & Eve to gain knowledge in the first place...So you *should* be saying that ignorance is a *blessing*, not a sin; Dispair can overcome even the truly paithful...If they suffer from the atrocities delivered by evil people. So in this case, how does dispair from the the actions of evil become a sin in itself?; As for disease, it seems to me that your Bible describes that God Himself delivers this "sin" even upon the innocent...Merely because a *parent* was evil. Does the God described by *your* Bible actually enjoy punishing those who never had a *chance* to commit evil? The God described by *your* religion doesn't sound much like a God that's willing to forgive & be merciful...

Why do you think that I can't have faith in the God you & your religion describe? Because they literally *blame* Him for what He's done, even to those innocents who've had no chance to earn his wrath. It is, after all, the way your religion describes Him. This is why I have faith in God, but not the religion that describes Him.

All in all, I think that ~@uror@~ hit the nail on the head...Religion has become corrupted because of the *people* that hold authority within it, the same as governments & corporations that have become corrupt. In the case of the Catholic religion, all I've ever been saying about it is that it's been *changed* by the people that hold authority within its organization...It's the methods that they've used for organization & *results* of those changes that I've never had faith in...My faith is reserved for God, it is *not* reserved for men who claim to *speak* for God when they contradict what He's already said.

I forgot who first said this quote, but the *effects* of leaders (religious or otherwise) who don't practice what it says is true: The best leaders are those who serve more than they are served. Look at the religious heirarchies of today (yours & others) & then try to tell me that they truly serve more than they demand service. This is how religion (as well as governments & corporations) has become nothing more than a vast conspiracy to control the "masses".

posted on Sep, 11 2002 @ 12:46 AM
But, Truth, I thought you said that the Bible was holy and gave a model for life and if you just followed all its commandments and laws you would be happy.

So now, are you going through and cutting out things you don't like from the Bible?

You don't like the way Paul approved of slavery so now you want to ignore that?


You've just finished telling us that the Bible holds all the information for a perfect and happy life. I pointed out that it condones adultery, slavery (and it even condones child sacrifice (Jephthah kills his daughter and burns her body (book of Kings) because Jehovah granted him a victory. Jehovah doesn't smite him for child sacrifice, but seems pleased with the offering.))

Frankly, old trout, I don't see that murdering my dear daughter to say "thanks" to Jehovah or selling her as a slave will make me or anyone else happier. In fact, there are a lot of Biblical verses pertaining to slavery that were used to justify slavery in America.

Me, I'm not buying that as the way to happiness. I agree with the secular laws that say such treatment is an abomination and a sin -- even if Jehovah doesn't seem to mind it.

posted on Sep, 11 2002 @ 07:52 AM
man this is getting no where.

1. Will

2. You

3. Ever

4. See

byrd. you take ""every"" passage out of context.

Every "'single"" one of them.

But i will make this short and sweet for you. because
i ((((((Love))))))) your literal soul as much as i love my closest family members
and i indeed ""cry"" over you people.

God teaches, i mean "jehovah" teaches in his bible.

1. Love they neighbors as thy self.

2. Love even thy enimies.

3. vengence is mine ""I"" will repay.

4. Treat all the same as you your self ant to be treated.

5. Show NO partiality as god does not.

How can violence exist if all ""christians"" filled the world obeying this????

You (will) deny this but you """"Know""" it is the truth.

You caan deny it on screen but not in heart.

thats all ill leave you with.


I will put this as short and easy as i can.

God created the commandments of sin


because these sins will result in destruction of the world.

all sins are god showing us what will destroy us.

Lusst of the flesh. think what you will but you cant see this???

Not only does this cause "abortion" but kids with no parental guidence which
have a "greater" chance of becoming bad people more than with with having kids in marriage.

You cannot deny this.

Thou shall not kill.

I do not even need to explain this to you, you are surely of age to
realize what that means.

You cant believe in the perfect teachings of jesus, you cant
believe in the miracles i tell you about.

what in the world will you believe in??

All i can do is pray.


posted on Sep, 11 2002 @ 08:15 AM
Ah, Truth. Still dancing around issues because you can't answer what we challenged.

Your new list is somewhat different than the first list, you know. The first list was the ten commandments, which seem to have some flaws in them. The next list skips the rest of the Bible and goes into a mix of things partly said by Jesus and partly found in the Old Testament.

Niether of those lists would forbid things that we find harmful to people: slavery, rape, child sacrifice, pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, drug-dealing, corporate monopolies, brainwashing and so on and so forth.

If you're going to defend Jehovah, please open your Bible and pick ONE set of laws that he commands people to follow. You might also explain why you pick some of his laws and ignore the ones in Leviticus (such as the wave offerings and the heave offerings and the dietary laws.)

posted on Sep, 11 2002 @ 08:58 AM
what ever you say.

Im not dancing around issues.

what you say against god is absolutely foolish to me. I
know it is false.

but you say im dancing around issues.

I spend my time on here because i care for you and what
happens to me??

pure rejection as i can expect, jesus was rejected as well.

maybee future events will convince you more after they happen.


But look, that list rubute aall you just given me.

1. slavery

love thy neighbor as thy self and treat all with un partiality.

2. rape

love thy neigbor as tthy self and treat other as you want to be treated. thou
shall not commit adultury.

3. child sacrafice

first of all this was a test by god.

ntl, Thou shall not kill, love thy neibor as thy self.

4. pedophilia

Thou shaall not commit adultury, love thy neigbor as thy self, treat others
asthy self wants tto be treated.

5. drug dealing

Love thy neigbor as thy self, thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill,
care about those as you care about yourself.

very simple teachings byrd.

Please pick up a bible and read, all these teachings are in there.

And please do "not" take websites of falsehoods word for it, pick up the
bible and read the passages """((("""FULLY""")))"""

and you will understand.

i am ready to just give this internet up and stick to praying for you people.

these disputes are like you guys thinking i am brainwashed
or a fundamentalist.

But you just keep forgetting about how ive got to this point througgh literal miracles
that you will not understand.

i grew up 18 strait years withou knowing any of this.

miracles byrd.


posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 08:49 AM
Truth, WHICH set of rules/laws are you using? Old Testament? New Testament? All of them? Picking and choosing what you like?

Do you believe the entire Bible is the exact truth and nothing else and it must be followed as written to lead a good life?

Which Bible do you believe is the most accurate translation? (I'm making the assumption that you don't read Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, or Greek fluently and therefore don't read original manuscripts)

If not, which parts of the Bible do you think are in error and why aren't you following the laws set down in the Bible?

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 10:59 AM
A priest was driving along and saw a nun on the side of the road

He stopped and offered her a lift which she accepted. She got in and crossed
her legs, forcing the habit to open and reveal a lovely leg. The Priest had a look
and nearly had an accident.

After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg.

The nun looked at him and immediately said "Father; remember psalm 129"?

The priest was flustered and apologized profusely. He forced himself to remove his hand. However, he was unable to remove his eyes from her legs.

Further on while changing gear, he let his hand slide up her leg again.

The nun once again said "Father, remember psalm 129". Once again the priest apologized. "Sorry sister but the flesh is weak".

Arriving at the convent, the nun got out, gave him a meaningful glance and went her way. On his arrival at his Church, the priest rushed up to retrieve the Bible and looked up psalm 129.

It said "Go forth and seek, for further up you will find Glory".


posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 12:09 PM
Truth, so killing his girl was a test? Damn,
sucks to be Christian.

Then, how does love thy neighbor or no adultry follow along
with drug dealing or pedophile or beastality.
Reminds me of whale found head to toe when trying
to disprove evolution, had nothing to do with it.
If anything, love thy neighbor is saying go get it
on. Doesn't have to be adultry if you aren't married
you dolt.

Then, you trying to correct MD? HAHAHA! he
has forgotten more than you ever learned.

Truth, you put up texts that only help you. Never
seen anything bad come from you. No context can change
the meanng of smath the babies on rocks and hold slaves.
For infantcide, slavery, always bad no matter where or how
it is.

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 08:26 PM

have incuded data relevant to Microtubles prepared by Dr. Stuart Hamerhoff, who colaberated with Roger Penrose in the book I mentioned.

What are your thoughts to all presented todate?

microtubules, coherence, consciousness
Stuart Hameroff 's recent letter to
re: coherence
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995
From: Stuart Hameroff

In addition to the moedel/noncomputability issues, there are other puzzling features of consciousness for which quantum theory offers possible explanations: binding/unitary sense, transition from
pre-conscious processing to consciousness, simultaneity and flow of
time, non-determinism, and Chalmers' (1994; 1996) "hard problem" of
what exactly consciousness IS - the subjective nature of experience.

Stan Klein claims that for quantum theory to be relevant to consciousness "what is needed for the brain are superpositions of a neuron firing |F> AND a neuron not firing |NF>". And indeed, the notion
of all-or-none, membrane mediated neural firing being the ONLY
significant level of information signaling and processing in the brain
IS the accepted conventional wisdom in cognitive science, neuroscience
and philosophy. Each neuron, however, is so incredibly complex that
this notion should be recognized as a gross oversimplification, if not
delusion. Future developments in technology will bear this out.

So the relevance of quantum theory to consciousness may be at a more
fundamental level: but where? Perhaps at the level of ordered water
throughout the cell, layered at surfaces of membranes, organelles, and
in particular the cytoskeleton (Jibu et al, 1994; and references
therein). Or perhaps at the level of proteins, the most versatile and
intelligent of biomolecules. Michael Conrad (1992; 1994) for example,
describes quantum coherence among dipoles and hydrogen bonds throughout
each protein coupled to its conformation (and thereby function).
Frohlich's (1968; 1970; 1975) model predicts that assemblies of
proteins may be bioenergetically pumped into quantum coherence (akin to
a Bose-Einstein condensate, as Scott Hagan has explained; cf. Marshall,

The point is that if quantum theory is relevant to consciousness, it
is superposition at a level of biostructures much smaller than neurons
that are important. Superpositions at the level of proteins and
surrounding water, in which the protein conformational shape and
associated function are coupled to quantum events, are the most likely
to be relevant. For example in the case of a protein capable of
switching between two different conformational states A and B, there
may also be a superposed quantum state of both A AND B. After a time T,
the protein will "reduce" to either A or B. If such proteins are
configured in a lattice so that coherence occurs among the superposed
states, "quantum computing" (e.g. Benioff,1982; Deutsch and Josza,1992;
Feynman, 1986) may occur whose outputs regulate neural firing. Issues
of isolation and bioenergetics required for biomolecular quantum
coherence are tricky, but feasible. (Frohlich coherence is the subject
of a weeklong conference in Prague, September 11-15, 1995.)

Microtubules, geometric lattices of proteins, seem particularly suited
for such a role. They have the following characteristics: 1) high
prevalence, 2) functional importance (for example regulating neural
connectivity and synaptic function), 3) periodic, crystal-like lattice
dipole structure with long-range order, 4) ability to be transiently
isolated from external interaction/observation, 5) functionally coupled
to quantum-level events, 6) hollow, cylindrical (possible waveguide),
and 7) suitable for information processing. Membranes, membrane
proteins, synapses, DNA and other types of structures have some, but
not all, of these characteristics. Cytoskeletal microtubules are the
most likely (but not necessarily the only) biomolecular quantum devices
in neurons.

Roger Penrose and I have completed two recent papers (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996a; 1996b) which describe "orchestrated objective reduction
(Orch OR)" of quantum coherence in microtubules as a formal model of
consciousness. A brief summary follows:

We envisage that conformational states of microtubule subunits (tubulins) are coupled to internal quantum events (dipoles, delocalizable electrons in hydrophobic pockets, hydrogen bonds), and cooperatively interact (compute) with other tubulins. We further assume
that macroscopic coherent superposition of quantum-coupled tubulin onformational states occurs throughout significant brain volumes (for example by a Frohlich type Bose-Einstein condensate, and/or quantum optical coherence as described by Jibu , Yasue, Hagan et al,1994; etc)
and provides the global binding essential to consciousness.

We equate the emergence and quantum computing phase of microtubule
quantum coherence with pre-conscious processing which grows (for up to
500 milliseconds - Libet et al, 1979) until the mass-energy difference
among the separated states of tubulins reaches a threshold related to
quantum gravity. At that point, self-collapse, or "objective
reduction" ("OR" - Penrose, 1994) occurs. We thus relate consciousness
to the (self) collapse process itself (in agreement, for example, with
Stapp, 1993). Cascades of self-collapses give rise to the "stream" of
consciousness, and provide a "flow" of time.

According to the arguments for OR put forth in Penrose (1994), superposed states each have their own space-time geometries (see Shadows of the Mind, p. 338). When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the
system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe
state [avoiding the need for multiple universes as discussed by, for
example, Everett (1957) and Wheeler (1957)]. In this way, a transient
superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists
until an abrupt quantum to classical reduction occurs. If as various
philosophers claim (cf. Chalmers, 1994; 1996) the nature of conscious
experience is somehow embedded in the nature of reality, self-selections in fundamental space-time geometry may address the "hard problem" of consciousness.

Unlike the random, "subjective reduction" (SR, or R) of standard quantum theory caused by observation or environmental entanglement, the OR we propose in microtubules is a self-collapse and it results in particular patterns of microtubule-tubulin conformational ("eigen-") states that regulate neuronal activities including synaptic functions.
Possibilities and probabilities for post-reduction tubulin states are influenced by factors including attachments of microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) acting as "nodes" which tune and "orchestrate" the quantum oscillations. We thus term the particular self-tuning OR process in microtubules "orchestrated objective reduction" ("Orch OR"), and calculate an estimate for the number of tubulins (and neurons) whose coherence for relevant time periods (e.g. 500 milliseconds) will
elicit Orch OR. We calculate an estimate of 10^9 tubulins, equivalent to a range of from hundreds to ten thousand neurons, as the number required for a 500 msec conscious event. A "more intense" conscious event, for example one which emerges in only 50 msec, would require
10^10 tubulins. Any Orch OR would "bind" varying time scale processes,
so that a particular conscious event can include various contents emerging over differing time scales (for example responding to an immediate situation, and recalling an overdue bill).

In providing a connection among 1) pre-conscious to conscious transition, 2) fundamental space-time notions (thus potentially addressing the "hard problem"), 3) non-computability, 4) non-
determinism, and 5) binding of various (time scale and spatial) reductions into an instantaneous event ("conscious now"), we believe Orch OR in brain microtubules is the most specific and plausible model
for consciousness yet proposed.

Stuart Hameroff

in collaboration with Roger Penrose


Benioff, P. (1982) Quantum mechanical Hamiltonian models of Turing
Machines. J. Stat. Phys. 29:515- 546.

Chalmers, D. (1996) Facing up to the problem of consiousness. In:
Toward a Science of Consciousness - Contributions from the 1994 Tucson
Conference, S.R. Hameroff, A. Kaszniak and A.C. Scott (eds.), MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.

Chalmers, D. (1996) Toward a Theory of Consciousness. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

Conrad, M. (1992) Quantum molecular computing: the self-assembly
model. Int. J. Quant. Chem.: Quantum Biology Symp. 19: 125-143.

Conrad, M. (1994) Amplification of superpositional effects through
electronic-conformational interactions. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 4:

Deutsch, D. (1985) Quantum theory, the Church- Turing principle and the
universal quantum computer. Proc. Royal Soc. (London) A400:97-117.

Deutsch, D., and Josza, R. (1992) Rapid solution of problems by quantum
computation. Proc. Royal Soc. (London) A439:553-556.

Everett, H., (1957) Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. In
Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek (eds.)
Princeton University Press, 1983; originally in Rev. Mod. Physics,

Feynman, R.P. (1986) Quantum mechanical computers. Foundations of
Physics 16(6):507-531.

Frohlich, H. (1968) Long-range coherence and energy storage in
biological systems. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2:641-9.

Frohlich, H. (1970) Long range coherence and the actions of enzymes.
Nature 228:1093.

Frohlich, H. (1975) The extraordinary dielectric properties of
biological materials and the action of enzymes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

Hameroff, S.R. (1994) Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis
for emergent consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies

Hameroff, S.R., and Penrose, R. (1996) Orchestrated reduction of
quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness. In:
Toward a Science of Consciousness - Contributions from the 1994 Tucson
Conference, S.R. Hameroff, A. Kaszniak and A.C. Scott (eds.), MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hameroff, S. R., and Penrose, R. (1996) Conscious events as
orchestrated space-time selections (submitted)

Jibu, M., Hagan, S., Hameroff, S.R., Pribram, K.H., and Yasue, K.
(1994) Quantum optical coherence in cytoskeletal microtubules:
implications for brain function. BioSystems 32:195-209.

Libet, B., Wright, E.W. Jr., Feinstein, B., and Pearl, D.K. (1979)
Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious sensory experience.
Brain 102:193-224.

Marshall, I.N. (1989) Consciousness and Bose- Einstein condensates. New
Ideas in Psychology 7:73 83.

Penrose, R. (1989) The Emperor's New Mind, Oxford Press, Oxford.

Penrose, R. (1994) Shadows of the Mind, Oxford Press, London.

Wheeler, J.A. (1957) Assessment of Everett's `relative state"
formulation of quantum theory. Revs. Mod. Phys., 29:463-465.

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 09:27 PM
seti, until you can talk to me like a man, your
post do not even exist to me.

I still love your soul as a brother and want you to realize this but you aare very hard headed.

byrd...... "do i take all of the bible literally"

yes i do, but thats not the issue.

Let me explain this for you. The "'bible"" has formed how i act and love.

i love all your souls to death and will say so.

This bible has formed me into the man i am, gods word.

I recognize that the old testament was how god worked before the institution of forgiveness
and true repentence.

god works differently in the OT. he gave just sinners there just do.

Don't get me wrong nor god.

God punishes those who are of evil and he sends punishment to nations who
deserve it.

knwobody can escape god wrath.

I live in a city called baltimore.

this city is very very sinfull in the eyes of god. He will bring
just wrath on cities of all nations like this and i will also pay for being in this city.

i will also if in this city suffer the wrath cast upon it.

thats how he works.

byrd, I take the OT exactly as whaat it is.

The OT.

God did do some justly wrath on people for sinss against him, but
i will not judge nor qeustion him at all.

he know more than me or you and why he does what he does.

also the OT about those stories.

they were NOT teachings but stories of gods wrath.

If yoy look for teaching than you look in the NT or exodus.

I live and go by the true teachings of jesus which are

Love thy neigbor, and love thy enimies and pray for those
who persicute you.

Also god clearly says in the NT.....

"" vengence is mine i will repay ""

that means do not take justice in your own hands because our judgements
are not always correct and we have NO right to take
a human life.


posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 06:20 AM
What you mean until I can talk to you like a man. You are psychotic. You yourself said you take the Bible lierally. My gosh, people like that should be shot for sooner or later they gonna kill someone. A gay guy goes up to truth, starts hitting on him, but being gay is a sin so bam! One less bullet, one less gay.
(ex. from a club in toledo, one bubba hit on another, but other guy had his cross thing and all started preaching about how the gay was evil, and shot him)

Anyways, so you also take the "Happy shall he be, taketh thy little ones and daseth against the rocks" literally. Poor babies. No, dont use out of context, for no matter what the context, god still saying commit infantcide.

Of course, incest is ok in the Bible to.
Your sister or cousin better watch out for you.

So is slavery. How many you own? I mean, if it ok and you follow Bible for it is correct no matter what, where your slaves? Or, if you find a women who will wait to get married before sex, then have a daughter, you gonna sell her off if she doesn't obey you?

I mean, Bible says it ok, so why not? A little extra cash, no nagging unrespecting little girl around to keep you from slaughtering the Christian religon. And I mean that as in when your mouth opens, three more people convert from Christianity to something else. Sooner or later you will be only one left. Because no one wants to hear bs coming from a guy who hears voices in his head.

posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 06:38 PM
seti enough!!!

you have some serious problems against christians.

Didnt you just get what i said???

Listen man.

I live by these teachings.

Thou shall NOT kill.

before i would kill anybody i would let them kill me.

Love thy neigbors as thy self.

You just can't get it. here is no reasoning with someone this

I know whatss right aand wrong.

heretic fanatics do not.

You are one of the most ignorant hard headed hatefull remarking
people i have ever witnessed on the internet.

Do you talk to your parents with this much hate??

Why must you act like this??


posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 07:16 PM
But, you didn't say you take the ten commandments seriously, but the Bible. Bible says it ok to kill babies. Bible says it ok to commit incest and slavery, and you said you followed every word of the Bible, so why aren't you?

What is a heretic? Just because they aren't Christian doesn't mean they a heretic, just means they have free will to be what they want. And I'm ignorant, this from the guy who used clam shells always open when they die, but some found closed to disprove evolurion. This from the guy who said reason people have genetic diseases and handicapps when born is because a ancestor sinned.

This from the guy who said that god talks to him. That right there qualify's a straight jacket. This from the guy who says dinosaurs giant lizards. This from the guy who says Earth is 6,000 years old. This from the guy who says reason Noah didn't save the Dinosaurs is because they were to big to get on the Ark. Which means Noah screwed up for he was suppose to carry two of every animal, not just the ones who'd fit.

Truth, I'm not ignorant, I just don't like religon, any of them. But, that doesn't mean they all bad, just means I don't care for them.

Want me to go on? or is everyone laughing to hard to continue?

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in