Nai mite.

Owm tookeen ah-beht Americans who otherwise have no accent while speaka da English.

Of course people who have accents or different dialects will pronounce/say things differently than Americans, but it's when you speak differently than all the people you grew up around... that's what makes you a unique little snowflake.

I have a friend who speaks Brazilian Portuguese and says she can't understand Portugal Portuguese at all. Could it be that this girl is pseudo-speaking a Brazilian dialect? (Just a guess)

In America it's ASL, or American Sign Language. Even from different parts of the states, or within each community they can have lots of variation. (Was with a ASL interpreter for years and oldest daughter was hearing impaired.)

So it's quite possible he's signing a different dialect, so to speak. But the issue is even the South African's were complaining . . .

But yeah, there will be a lot of cross over in signs that have actual meanings, but for the most part, he was signing gibberish.

(Fun trivia, the monkey's from Penguins of Madagascar actually sign real ASL.)

There's a huge difference between urban and rural dialect, particularity in the mid-west that isn't reflected in this video. Some of these examples emphasize stereotypes that are actually in the minority. Fun none the less though.

You sir clearly do not fully understand the nature of entropy (and nor does about 95% of the human race so you can be forgiven there).

You have however stumbled into making a genuinely worthwhile point here (though I must state I think for completely the wrong reasons).

The idea that the universe inevitably moves towards a complete "heat death" is I think incorrect, it fails to account for the effect of ever increasing complexity within the closed systems the universe produces (i.e. evolution which applies as much cosmically as it does to organic life on earth).

If the universe remained with no more complexity than it currently has then yes everything would eventually "burn out" and spread the energy of the universe so thinly that everything would cease to work (if only on a space-time level).

But the nature of the universe does not remain static, it creates ever more complex and actuated systems dialectically. Energies>Particles>Compounds>Nebulae>Stars>Planets>Organisms>Unconsciousness>Consciousness>???>God! (not intended to be an exhaustive list it's purely for illustration)

Evolution does trump entropy IMHO but this is largely because the actual laws of entropy are crazy complicated to understand and most people (including to some extent myself) don;t fully understand the subtleties of how it really works.

If nothing else; to say that the whole universe eventually enters a state of complete entropy assumes that every complex closed system that does or ever will exist will eventually break down. This is far from a forgone conclusion, we alone as evolving conscious creatures are capable of developing means to circumvent or even prevent this. Let alone what other wonders we have yet to observe or the universe has yet to manifest!

In conclusion: The Universe evolves until it reaches God (or dies trying ). God does not then create the universe but rather commits suicide (what else is God to do? Eternity is a very long time for someone that already knows and has done everything...). Process repeats ad infinitum.


Makes a lot more sense that way around don't you think? (and no ancient books of dubious origin need ever be consulted to derive it either)

Saying God created the universe only leaves you with more questions which by their very nature cannot be answered. We would have to be God itself to ever answer them, so we are left with a judgement call. No logical certainty, only faith.

This way around we can by pure rationalism and empiricism arrive at an explanation of how the universe might evolve God via ever increasing complexity of consciousness and actualisation (true post-humans alone would be like demi-gods, it's not a huge leap to keep taking this idea further)

Further to that Ontological mathematics (that is to say "really real mathematics") can assess a framework to understand how the universe itself came to be (we can arguably go pre-big bang with this but that's always going to be a controversial idea here).

^ Now I might be wrong about some or even all of that but it is at least a reductive argument. Using God as an explanation for anything without first explaining God is always going to be a circular argument. If your going to use circular logic you can prove basically anything you feel like!

"God is dead!"

@A10anis
ill answer that question.
neither.

your premise implies a moral "goodness" to one side while the other is "more" evil.
so you leave a choice of choosing the lesser of two evils.
yet both are evil.

how is it that when "they" perform violent acts of aggression it is "terrorism" but when "we" do the very same thing it is for the moral good.that somehow "our" violence is more righteous and justified.
see:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

this is a classic hegelian dialectic=problem-reaction-solution

the choice of "lesser of two evils" totally ignores the first part.
the problem.
and the simple fact is:WE are the problem.
WE created the problem.
THEY react to the problem.
and then WE offer the solution.
in the form of violence.

i am not,by my commentary,dismissing the very actual and horrific truths of violence perpetrated by terrorists.

my point is simply:if you are going to look at a situation honestly you have to look at the board with open eyes.

let me put it in metaphorical terms:
which would you rather be eaten by?
a great white shark?
or a hammerhead?
neither...because BOTH are sharks.

i do totally agree with you in regards to pakistan.
they have been playing both sides for quite some time now,and lets not forget..they have nuclear weapons.

That's a rather speculative argument your making. We don't know exactly what was and wasn't said between the bikers and the driver. The bikers alleged this dude was giving quite a bit of back and forth and we don't know exactly what threat is made to provoke him driving over the bikes and escalating the whole thing. I never said that this was caused by lane splitting I was using it as an example from my own experience to make a point about some car drivers attitude and behaviour towards us.

The impression I get (and this is just a hunch like anyone else's including YOURS) is that this dude was talking shit and the bikers initially stopped him to make it clear he was in no position to be making threats (which lets face it would have been a foolish move for anyone). It's entirely possible that this whole thing could have been diffused at that point (and maybe not we don't get to see or hear the altercation).
Maybe this dude was just scared and calling the police, maybe he was directly antagonizing them as he did so as the bikers claim.

At no point have I done anything but condemn the bikers actions, I was merely trying to elucidate a different perspective and find a more informative angle than just "these bikers be dicks". They are people too (albeit ones of dubious moral character)


Are you familiar with the concept of holding two irreconcilable truths simultaneously to gain a deeper insight?

That's what I was doing here, I'm sorry I failed to make that more clear to you (language alone can be a clumsy way to communicate)

There's a veritable mountain of historic, behavioural and situational factors at work here, one of them is the basic resentment and animosity you subconsciously accumulate against a certain kind of car driver by simply being a biker. Other include mob dynamics, lifelong neuroses and inhibition control etc. etc.

When we say things like "fag gangs with knives" and make no attempt to understand their behaviour we get nowhere. In fact its worse than that, we go backwards as the simplistic black and white level untermensch/ubermensch relationship serves simply to fuel the same kind of situation in the future. That distinction exists but only works if derived dialectically rather than dualistically. (to paraphrase you need to be a bigger less emotionally compromised man/woman than these people or it will continue to happen. It's not a matter of who's right and wrong so much as "what failed and why?".)

I keep trying to not disagree with you because to a large extent I don't, I just don't believe in fixed perspectives. Your not wrong, but it does not invalidate the majority of what I'm trying to say/do. This is how higher synthesees or argument and understanding are derived. Someone had to chime in for the other side otherwise no-ones ideas have a chance to expand, on this occasion the duty fell to me and Chingy (not for the 1st time).

Dialectic logic > Aristotelian Logic

Generally, I would agree with you, but not in this context and not to this degree. Every region in American has their own little dialect and is commonly accepted.

The point of the game is to figure out what the phrase is. The parts of the phrase he supposedly mis-pronounced were already revealed so it's not an issue of him trying to "guess" his way through the game.

same with the southern woman. The G she dropped in swimming was already revealed on the board, so to harp on that particular part of the word was bullshit. gee she said "swimmin'" what other word could she have possibly meant?

had the contestants been trying to mumble their way through some part of the phrase that hadn't been revealed, I would be on WoF's side, but that clearly is not the case.

It was a dick move on their part, probably motivated by not wanting to award prize money. end of story.

What's next? They going to screw over someone with a heavy Boston accent? I guess they screen out anyone with a foreign accent if they are that anal about pronunciation. Guess Joe Pesci won't ever be a celebrity contestant.

To be fair pronunciation does matter, otherwise people could see a gap of letters, not know what the words is and slosh some syllables over the missing parts claiming dialect or some such shit. What he said sounded like pure garbage to me.

Word.

Though I'd go a step further; it's not unchecked capitalism it's unchecked elitism manifesting via capitalism. Money itself isn't really worth anything, it's just a token one can exchange strategically for power over others.

The real problem is the unchecked "will to power" which drives Hegel's Master-slave dialectic (yes I'm retroactively mating Nietzsche to Hegel deal with it ).

Simply put, we are "thrown" into our experience of the world with no real context and so we are compelled to make our own. This means all human interactions on some level are an exercise in self validation.
Most conversations could be reduced to:
"Please validate my existence"
"Yes, you exist. Please validate my existence"
"Existence validated, please re validate my existence"
etc.

Unfortunately this isn't how it usually goes because we have an innate need to maximise our "will" but a disproportionate capacity to do so. What really happens is this:

"Please validate my existence as superior to yours"
"Yes, your "will" is superior. Please validate my existence"
"Yes, you are my inferior"

or

"Please validate my existence as superior to yours"
"No you are inferior and must validate my existence as superior to yours!"

^ This one eventually results in one backing down and submitting to being the others "slave" (in terms of "will") after a fight (physical or metal) until one emerges as "master". Though naturally a top down hierarchy will develop where many are masters of some and slaves to others (with a big group of clueless and bewildered slaves at the bottom of the whole thing)

The end result is human relationships and societies naturally fall into a master and slave relationship. One person or group demonstrates superior "will to power" and subjugates the majority. However this is where the dialectic comes in to play as this relationship is not a static one (much like the human condition itself).

The Masters already have what they wanted/needed, validation from their "slaves", but the slaves do not. Thus it is the slaves that evolve and develop newer, superior and more powerful forms of "will" until inevitably a new "master" or group of "masters" is produced. At this point a new dialectic cycle begins with new "masters" and new "slaves" under a new paradigm.

The current masters exert their power and maintain the existing paradigm by covet means. So it is precisely this which we must supersede as their "slaves" in order to create a new more evolved human social paradigm.
The idea that anyone is entitled to disproportionate wealth or hereditary privilege must be destroyed utterly or we will never transcend the paradigm that makes them "Masters".

(Though that is not to say merit should not be rewarded, I don't have a problem with the hardest working and most valuable members of society enjoying just rewards. Just not at the expense of the majority getting a shitty deal.)

I assume it's exactly the fact that such a "special" relationship with politicians and regulators exists that's the problem and moreover that these are exactly the sort of thing market controls are needed to prevent (even if the existing ones have largely been co-opted to serve the Plutocrats).

If you want to define "free-market"as completely free and unregulated then yes this is not a free market, however what regulation we do have is by this stage so ineffectual and corrupt that basically all the problems with a true "free-market" have already very much manifested.
That said I think I'm actually agreeing with you here, we might even say we have the worst of both worlds where the colossally rich have the market "freedom" do do what they like but can also co-opt socialist regulation to both defend themselves and aggressively suppress and exploit potential threats from the lower end of the economy.

The argument I guess is because SevenFingers is using the term "free-market" in a much more pejorative sense here than yourself. To him I'm guessing it simply means largely unopposed Plutocracy i.e. the misused existing regulation etc. is a product of an unregulated market running amok and corrupting every institution it can get its hands on.

If this is indeed the case then you only have a problem with incompatible semantics (meaning is use).
The real argument you guy's should be having is whether moving towards a Randian "true free-market" would make this situation any better or worse. Personally I can't see how this would make things anything other than worse for the vast majority of us.
In my head a true free market would basically be akin to just giving up and putting Weyland Yutani in charge, because sooner or later that's what you'd get. Atlas Shrugged made me sick to my stomach!

I propose the solution lies in replacing our existing systems of government and regulation with something both stronger and more importantly 100% transparent. In the age of the internet we could make political corruption virtually impossible and the old capitalist vs collectivist paradigm is becoming old, tired & increasingly irrelevant.

Time for a higher synthesis and a new dialectic cycle.
The thesis was anarcho-capitalism,
The antithesis was Totalitarian socialism
The synthesis is Meritocratic socio-capitalism!

(M) for the Movement
(M) for Meritocracy
(M) for Mindlessly repeated slogans!

I always considered german to be the language of anger.
I have to protest the outfit of the german speaker, though. That is clearly bavarian. Bavarian dialect doesn't sound angry, it sounds incomprehensible.

Leaving different dialects aside for a moment, English sounds a lot like Dutch, Danish and, surprise, German. To me, it's all Frisian anyway.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

I garner hostility here because most of the sifters here grew up in Christian households and they've rebelled against their parents and God and they don't want to hear anything about Him. This is their sanctuary where they enjoy mocking God and Christians without any dissenting voices. I'm here because I care but I wouldn't be here unless God told me to be here. I've tried to leave a few times and He keeps sending me back. Although not so much lately.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

...Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two ways, and only two ways, to know truth. Either you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being reveals it to you. Since humans are not omnipotent it is impossible to know truth unless it is revealed to us by an omnipotent being, ie God. If you think there is another way to know truth, name it. Otherwise what is there to debate? If you don't think it's possible to know truth then you don't know anything. If you don't know anything then you have nothing to talk about.

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

Could God reveal Himself to you in a way that you could be absolutely certain of it? It doesn't matter what we can prove to one another; God could sufficiently prove Himself to me (He has) or to you and it would transcend every piece of rationale you've offered.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt?

I know it for certain because God has made me certain. I've seen things only an omnipotent God could do, such as arranging and timing circumstances which would require Him to be in complete and precise control of everything and everyone. Satan certainly can generate profound spiritual experiences (and blindness), which is why he is able to deceive the whole world.

I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)

God doesn't need us, woo. He had perfect love within His Trinity relationships before He created anything. He doesn't demand that we worship Him because He is egotistical, He commands us to worship Him to put us in right relationship with Him as the supreme good and sustainer of all things. He is the only appropiate object for our adoration, which also puts us in right relationship with other people. Human beings are built to worship; that is why the world is littered with the carcasses of false idols. I don't just mean pagan deities, I mean power, money, fame and all of the other things human beings lust and pine away for. The thing man most likes to worship is himself. Humanists worship the intellect, and the accomplishments of human civilization. These too are idols. Everyone has something they worship, when God is the only appropiate object of our worship. The love that we have to give to all of those things comes from Him, and that is why we return it to Him, which in turn leads to greater love for all people and things. Every other kind of worship is selfish and ultimately spiritual dead(and destructive). Thus this command to worship Him alone (we were created to be in relationship with Him) is for our growth, our protection, and so that we can be who He created us to be.

Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.

How do you know that?

The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!

The explanation you provide only pushes the "absurdity" back one step; you're still left with the same problem as you say I have. Yet, it is not a problem to believe in something eternal. To believe something came from nothing wouldbe the absurdity. Do you believe the Universe is eternal?

We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

If God is perfect, which He is, then He isn't limited. His joy never ends; it is the limitation of the human intellect that prevents you from understanding an infinite being, so you have devised a scenario based on those limitations where you impose a limitation on Gods experience so that He is forced to "commit suicide" in order to have new and enjoyable experiences. An infinite being experiences infinite joy. A perfect being will always be perfect. God doesn't evolve; a perfect being has no need to evolve or ever become "basic". He is eternally perfect, and we are not.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Yes, the God Abraham is the God Jesus is referring to. The error is that you think you understand God better than Jesus did. Jesus is the perfect representation of God; His exact image. If you've seen Jesus you have seen the Father. They are one and the same in terms of their character and every other attribute. You don't see that because you don't understand the scriptures. Jesus did, which is why He said things like this:

John 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

The atheist version of studying the bible is to look for something that seems to contradict the claims of Christians so that they can throw it in the garbage and be done with it. You would see the same God that Jesus represents in the Old Testament if you understood the history that it presents.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Go ask the criminals on death row how they feel about the judge and prosecutor who sent them there. Does that mean they don't deserve to be there?

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

God didn't ask Abraham to do anything that He wasn't willing to do Himself, but unlike Abraham God did sacrifice His son. This is what I mean when I say that you you're not understanding what you're reading. The sacrifice of Issac is a picture of Jesus Christ. You don't see these things because you don't know what to look for.

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

Here is the difference..the God you describe wants to "help" you out of a situation that it created because of its own limitations and need for self-gratification. It is not only responsible for evil, but it does nothing about it. The God you describe is limited, selfish and immoral.

The way you describe my God is a strawman argument in itself. It is not an accurate representation of the biblical account. The God of the Universe created a perfect Universe and endowed His creatures with free will. The creatures He created freely chose to do evil and this is what brought sin and death into the world. This is the reason for the imperfection, and God, at great personal cost to Himself, restored and reconciled His creation through Jesus Christ.

You won't be able to understand the bible without Gods help:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's why I suggested you read the gospel of John, if you really do want to understand God accurately, and pray for assistance.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0),

It's a false dichotomy. What you're describing when you refer to God is the gnostic demiurge, which bears no resemblence to the God of the bible. There are no opposing forces to be spoken of because there is no actual duality. God is only light and the only thing He is attached to is His children, because He freely loves them. He is the only power in the Universe. Satan has a paper kingdom; it is just shadows on the wall. In any case, you can't escape the corruption caused by your sin nature. If you shatter a mirror, no matter how well you glue it back together it will never reflect purely again. It doesn't need to be repaired, it needs to be replaced. This is why Jesus said you need to be born again:

John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

When you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, He will send the Holy Spirit to live inside of you and make you a new person. You are spiritually dead in sins and transgressions, but the Holy Spirit will regenerate your spirit and cleanse you from all of your sin.

while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.

Satan desired one thing, which was to be God. He became prideful because of his great beauty and intellect and based on his ignorance of Gods true nature, he tried to form a rebellion against God to replace Him and was kicked out of Heaven. This is essentially the process you are describing for those who believe they are God. All Satan is trying to do is duplicate his errors in you and as many other people as he can so that he can destroy them before his time comes. He can't strike back at God directly so he goes after his creatures. Satan is an imitator; he is a potter just as God is a potter. He is doing everything possible to shape and mold you into his image and character, and he has entire universes of deception waiting for you, filled with as much "secret knowledge and wisdom" as you desire. He has a door for every kind of person, every kind of philosophy; his is the broad road that leads to destruction. Jesus said enter through the narrow gate:

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.

You surely prefer the idol you have created in your own mind, because that is the god who allows you to do whatever you want. That's all this is really about. Do you know what Jesus said the reason is that men won't come to God?:

John 3:19-21

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

You don't get to decide who God is, and just because you don't think you should be accountable for what you've done in this life doesn't mean you won't be.

For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

God loves you and I love you, and that's why I am telling you all of this. The highest state is the lowest state:

Mat 23:11 The greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

Take your time. God bless.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

First if your reliance on Aristotelian Logic to attack my Dialectic argument. When I said you were using the language with which I described to counter instead of addressing the underlying concept it was to this I was alluding (not clearly enough it seems).
Philosophers (good ones anyway) have largely up on traditional Aristotelian logic as a means to extrapolate objective truth because it functions only upon linguistic syntax. The very fact that such a fundamental assertion as "nothing is true" is mutually contradictory as a prime example of this. The language we use to describe and frame the problem simultaneously limits our ability to comprehend it. As I suspect you well know deeper conceptual matters are often too deep to be fully expressed by mere syntax based language.
Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt? I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)


Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.
The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!
We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

R>=0 (R= distance between two points)



The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0), while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.
Or if you want to put your scientific head on for a moment they represent the Left and Right hand brain (all truths are relative, one can approach this from a purely psychological/neuroscience position and argue the same case just with less colourful imagery ).

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.


For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)