The secret to transcend karma, and Violet Light being seen around the world

reply to post by arpgme

I finally find the verse. 1 Corenthians 13:5 it says "it (love) holds no records of wrong doings".

Then somewhere in John it says "God IS Love and he who walks in love walks with god and god in him..."

Two very interesting verses to me...

So apparently, the Bible must be either rewritten or discarded entirely. It is illogical to adhere to the philosophies of a holy book that cannot agree with itself.

In consideration of the conflict presented here, we have two claims that oppose one another according to modern Christian belief. Between two conflicting ideas, it is reasonable to assume that the more rational concept is closer to the actual truth. With this said, it seems that the logical optionis the nonexistence of hell.

Which proves that the Bible is either a lie or sore mistaken. Either way, Christians are fools.

reply to post by siriusstarlight


Because you don't like its opinions? I don't like gravity. It made me skin my knee yesterday. So I'm going to call gravity a Satanic lie and embark on an outrageous compaign to prove that gravity is a force generated by sacrificed souls belonging to the victims of various mysterious tragedies taking place all over the world, with the purpose of keeping us from flying to heaven.

Or I could just accept that sometimes, things don't work to our advantage or don't make perfect sense...YET. With that said - Grow. Up. Please. Put on your big boy pants. And keep your ignorance inside your head until you've earned the credentials to poison our well of knowledge here in this site.

Or you can just stop coming here. Either one works for me.

reply to post by adjensen


There is a difference between stating we are only using 10% of our brain or stating we are only using 10% of it efficiently.

What if we are using 100% of our brain but only to 10% of it's ability???
Kind of the same thing but worded differently.

There is noway of telling just what our brain is capable of until we push the limits of science.

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is a difference between stating we are only using 10% of our brain or stating we are only using 10% of it efficiently.

What if we are using 100% of our brain but only to 10% of it's ability???
Kind of the same thing but worded differently.

There is noway of telling just what our brain is capable of until we push the limits of science.

It boggles the mind that you can appeal to science while simultaneously dismissing it. Neurologists, who are those scientists who study the brain, universally (so far as I've been able to find,) say that the 10% thing is a myth, no matter how it is phrased.

Setting aside AfterInfinity's anti-intellectual "if we're using 100% of our brains, we suck" prognosis, I fail to see what the benefit of promoting this fallacy of 10% might be, apart from wishful thinking on some peoples' parts that there could be a magic pill developed some day that will "turn on" the part of their brain they think is blocking them from understanding physics or maths or something. There's no such thing -- if you want to learn physics, go get a book and start studying. It isn't easy, but anyone can do it, if they really want to.

reply to post by adjensen


You are still focusing on the 10% usage which is not my arguement at all.

My arguement is....
In the future we could find drugs, frequencies, diet et. Some of these items could make it possible to use our brains more efficiently and achieve greater abilities.

Here is an example for ya...
We discover oil...we make gas... we make kerosene...we refine it even further by making jet fuel and so on.
Your arguement says that jet fuel would never be possible....
Mine leaves room for discovery and expansion.

I personally believe there will be discoveries in the future that will increase our brain's ability... End of story.

reply to post by knowledgedesired


I suspect that what you're looking for will be more in the direction of trans-humanism, moulding technology directly with a brain, than any organic method of improvement. If that's the case, then yes, I would agree with you.

reply to post by adjensen


It is nice to have a civilized disagreement especially when part of the disagreement is only semantics.

I am actually leaning towards nanotech since we all know the government is 20-40 years ahead behind the scenes.