Resignation of Benedict XVI and the new Pope Francis

The developments of forums and the site. Humor and conviviality between the members of the forum - Tout est anything - Presentation of new registered members Relaxation, free time, leisure, sports, vacations, passions ... What do you do with your free time? Forum exchanges on our passions, activities, leisure ... creative or recreational! Publish your ads. Classifieds, cyber-actions and petitions, interesting sites, calendar, events, fairs, exhibitions, local initiatives, association activities .... No purely commercial advertising please.
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 7




by elephant » 20/03/13, 23:16

Well done, Ahmed!

Come on, who else is trying?

The yards waiting for François (well ... if we let him do it)

http://lesmoutonsenrages.fr/2013/03/20/ ... more-41439
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 21/03/13, 07:42

Elephant hello
Well done, Ahmed!
Come on, who else is trying?

hamed hello
For Spinoza, God is everywhere in creation: "Deus sive natura *".
As this philosopher corresponds little to the current sensibility and that, moreover, the sky does not make any more recipe since it is populated of satellites and various waste, perhaps one could advance that it lives the heart of each believer ?

* "God or nature": it establishes an equivalence.

That's the whole problem that Spinoza raises! But can one be the creator of an object and be in it? In a way it is spiritually accurate when it is said that God lives in the believer's heart. It is this perception that has become materialistic when the gospel is taken literally when Christ says, " whoever saw me saw God "Or" god and I are a (Out of context!), Which gave the dogma of the incarnate Jesus God.

Netshaman hello
Of course, there are humans whose souls are desperately devoid of all emotion, in whom they are condemned to repeat indefinitely the cycle of reincarnations ad vitam eternam, because they will be unable to evolve.

The philosophy of reincarnation (like any philosophy) has the defect of presenting the cycle of life as an obligation that should automatically lead to an ideal being and waste to the trash, which in some way joins hell evoked by some as an eternal punishment and leads to a "god", or its equivalent, punisher and therefore causes his detestation (everyone sees the father according to his experience and his hopes and despair)
But all humans have emotions that we call good or bad according to our cultures (which is hardly an absolute reference)
Atheism (at least one of its good points) wipes out all these unknown, unknowable or nonexistent futures and substitutes for fear of a future that punishes eternally, a present that is hardly worth much for most humans. (the side: "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush")
0 x
culbuto
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 112
Registration: 22/02/13, 11:50
x 1




by culbuto » 21/03/13, 10:36

I start: I feel much closer to the thought of the Indians. They gave plants, animals and people the same importance. To the point of apologizing when they killed an animal to eat it.
The current thought is the man on one side, intelligent, etc., who can all be allowed. On the other hand plants and animals, which we use according to our good will.
In reality, plants are the starting point. They alone are able to turn solar energy into possible food for animals and us. Plants can do without us, the opposite is not true. But some plants have acquaintances with animals to pollinate or transport seeds where they can give other plants. In these multiple systems of life involving many animal and plant species, man is only one link. By excluding itself from these chains, it causes the loss of animal and plant species, eventually self-destruct.
The priority would therefore be to rethink the place of man in the world. Realize that our survival depends on the survival of other species, animals and plants, before we have reached a point of no return. Otherwise it is "green sun" which awaits our descendants .........
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 21/03/13, 20:38

Janic, you say:
But can one be the creator of an object and be in it?

We must not refer to the flat representation of a Voltairian God, the watchmaker of the universe, therefore to a subject and a distinct object: on the contrary, God would give himself to see in his creation and He is this one.

Culbuto: JC Guillebaud has endeavored, in brilliant works, to show the filiation of Christianity from Greek philosophy to the Enlightenment and how modern thought is indebted to this rationalization which makes science and faith coexist.
Synergy very worrying, in my opinion!

Under the steamroller of monotheism, animism has been rolled up (although it still exists).
However, as you underline it with great relevance, it is a great chance for humanity which was lost because inside the operational rationality which rages everywhere today, there is a major "bug".

Riddle: what is this "bug"? 8)
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 21/03/13, 21:29

monotheism is a bug

civilizations that had a multitude of gods were much more peaceful! he did not oppose the gods of others

the Romans prospered especially before being a Christian

the bug of monotheism is to go to war against the mecreants

today it is rather the Muslims who provoke war ... but at other times the Catholics have made serious too
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 22/03/13, 08:35

Hamed hello
We must not refer to the flat representation of a Voltairian God, watchmaker of the universe, therefore to a subject and a distinct object
Comparison is not right, of course! Why this picture? Because the human can not represent what escapes its intellectual and cultural dimension from which these simple or even simplistic images used, but which it is difficult to escape. God, in or out, is one of those simplifications which are intellectually equivalent, but which can be opposed in the experience of individuals; hence this other image:
on the contrary, God would give himself to see in his creation and He is this one.
Rather contradictory for a non-religious intellectual representation. Now if it is possible intellectually and spiritually to see in the created object the "paw" of its author, to see in this work that its author is the work itself: hello to make the average person understand the concept.

Chatelot hello
monotheism is a bug
in a way yes, but it is not monotheism that is a bug, but the religions that recommend it and the difference is important.
civilizations that had a multitude of gods were much more peaceful! he did not oppose the gods of others
Error, historically, deep! The gods were, in almost every polytheistic culture, specialized ministers of a central government: the god of the waters, the god of the seasons, the god of the crops, etc ... as in current politics. Each individual according to his needs invoked the minister / god concerned and changed his divinity according to his new needs.
However, again, as is the case now, some departments oppose each other because certain functions are common to them (for example, ecology and other ministries) and everyone sends the ball back to them. Again, this is important only because each "believer" made offerings to his god of the moment (which went to the religious of the god concerned) and business and belief have always made common cause.
Monotheism presents itself as a kind of dictatorship in which all the claims go to the big boss who alone makes the decisions and the ministers are only fit to make them applicable.
Then is it better or worse? History, the great, shows us that it is the same thing when the interests of a system are dependent on it and therefore the thirst for power of some on the souls and bodies that are linked to it.
the Romans prospered especially before being Christian.
Romans like all civilizations (whatever their beliefs and their gods) have known their time of glory and decadence and that regardless of their religions (which does not mean that they have not played their role) like any social element)
the bug of monotheism is to go to war against the mecreants
Picture of Epinal!
today it is rather the Muslims who provoke war ... but at other times the Catholics have made serious too
Another confusion between the silent majority and the minority that makes people talk about it. The current terrorism as that of the inquisition have been the fact that a congruent part of these religions. It is this mixture of genres that creates conflicts between individuals by using "Turkish heads" (after the Jews, the Freemasons, the Muslims are in the crosshairs) to exorcise fears in contexts difficult.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 22/03/13, 11:40

Ahmed wrote:[
Under the steamroller of monotheism, animism has been rolled up (although it still exists).
However, as you underline it with great relevance, it is a great chance for humanity which was lost because inside the operational rationality which rages everywhere today, there is a major "bug".

Riddle: what is this "bug"? 8)


This "bug" is it not that of the religion of the commodity or the cult of growth?
Under this apparent rationality hides in fact a religious utopia which possesses as god money and as universe ... the economic market.

We must not refer to the flat representation of a Voltairian God, the watchmaker of the universe, therefore to a subject and a distinct object: on the contrary, God would give himself to see in his creation and He is this one.


Yes it's right.
Nevertheless, the major problem is that we make ourselves a god in our image, hence the need to locate it, to date it, and to give it a purpose.
Outside it is only a projection of OUR mind.
God is a term that refers to a very caricatural image of a male entity (machismo oblige) located "elsewhere" and endowed with feelings, intelligence and will.

If that were the case the best thing to do would be to find these crooks and destroy it! (will understand who will understand)

It would be wiser to speak of a more avant-garde concept to replace the word God.
H. Laborit talk about Higher level of organization, other scientists speak rather of Ultimate unitary field.

Ramana Maharshi one of the greatest wise men spoke of the eternal and infinite Self, unthinkable and incalculable, of a nature impossible to explain.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 22/03/13, 15:50

Sen no sen hello
Nevertheless, the major problem is that we make ourselves a god in our image, hence the need to locate it, to date it, and to give it a purpose.
Outside it is only a projection of OUR mind.
God is a term that refers to a very caricatural image of a male entity(machismo oblige) located "elsewhere" and endowed with feelings, intelligence and will.

Vision built on a "religious" rather than spiritual perception. God as such is neither masculine nor feminine, his anthropomorphization has reason to exist only to be understood by the wise as the ignorant.
If this were the case the best thing to do would be to find this crooks and destroy it! (will understand who will understand)

A basic anti-religious vision as distorting as that which is constructed by religions and at the same time anthropomorphic. On the one hand it would be necessary to demonstrate that he is "a" crook, on the other hand to justify this need for destruction on what criteria?
It would be wiser to speak of a more avant-garde concept to replace the word God.
H.Being talking about the Higher Organization Level, other scientists are talking about Ultimate Unit Field.

This is what I said earlier, people stumble over the word used rather than the concept, because of the history and abuses committed by religions and religious greedy for power. But the distorting reflection of a mirror does not account for the original. So higher level of organization (what's that?) Or ultimate unit field or god or any other designation, it just changes the packaging not the container.

Ramana Maharshi, one of the greatest sages, spoke of SOI, eternal and infinite, unthinkable and incalculable, of a nature impossible to explain.

It is therefore very close to the monotheistic philosophy.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 22/03/13, 16:38

Janic wrote:
If this were the case the best thing to do would be to find this crooks and destroy it! (will understand who will understand)

A basic anti-religious vision as distorting as that which is constructed by religions and at the same time anthropomorphic. On the one hand it would be necessary to demonstrate that he is "a" crook, on the other hand to justify this need for destruction on what criteria?


You did not understand the hidden meaning of my sentence ... sorry again! : Mrgreen:



So higher level of organization (what's that?) Or ultimate unit field or god or any other designation, it just changes the packaging not the container.


Alain Rey said:"We believe that we master the words, but it is the words that master us".

Terms are important and play a fundamental role in our society!
Seeing "god" in the form of a located "being", or on the contrary, as an off-center system leads to a radically different view of things!
This has the effect of leading to a conception of the world that leads to civilizations at the opposite.

In the first case, god is seen as an entity to be served, with a "Pavlovian" notion of punishment / reward, the chosen and the damned.

In the second god case, god is a concept covering the whole of reality and brings the individual to find his own salvation.

Like it or not, monotheism leads to a dualistic vision: God, nature, man.
The commercial society is clearly inspired by this conception:
Man must dominate nature to conform to the market and to serve the god of money.
That's pretty much the summary of the current dogma ...
This relegates nature to the state of product destined to serve us: nature serves the man ... who serves God.

It's a shame because monotheism is a misinterpretation, we must not believe that there is only one god (because it is not only a simple mathematical value !!!), but god is ONE, sacred nuance!


It is therefore very close to the monotheistic philosophy.

Yes and no!
Monotheism is a definition of what God would be, out for Maharshi there is only one reality, the Self, not definable.
"Everything is SELF".
This reality encompasses all the others, so it is compatible with all conceptions, be it animists, monotheists, pantheists, atheists etc ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 22/03/13, 18:13

sen no sen wrote:You did not understand the hidden meaning of my sentence ... sorry again!

So I have to have difficult understanding, give a clearer explanation!
Quote:
So higher level of organization (what's that?) Or ultimate unit field or god or any other designation, it just changes the packaging not the container.

Alain Rey said: "We believe that we have mastered words, but it is the words that master us".
Terms are important and play a fundamental role in our society!
Seeing "god" in the form of a located "being", or on the contrary, as an off-center system leads to a radically different view of things!

Totally agree, that's why we must not be trapped by words.
When I talk about packaging, it is to remind that what matters is not what is written on it and that can be incomprehensible to some (now the packaging is written in several languages ​​with different words and yet all point to the same thing: the container!) But here too it is not what is written that counts, but the content; if the packaging says it's chocolate and it's coffee, it's the coffee that matters and not what is written or, to use the formula, " I am the one who is " coffee is it and not what is supposed to designate it on the packaging. Religions, including atheism, are packaging with different designations according to the languages ​​(codes) used, but it is the "I am" that matters.
This has the effect of leading to a conception of the world that leads to civilizations at the opposite.

Indeed, when form and substance are confused by want of ignorance or real ignorance.
In the first case, god is seen as an entity to be served, with a "Pavlovian" notion of punishment / reward, chosen and damned.

Yet another "anti-religious" confusion drawn from the pagan-Christian religions that are Catholicism / Protestantism in our culture. God does not have to be served (why for that matter?) And punishment / reward, elect and damned are concepts foreign to the revelation that are the "sacred" books.
In the second case, god is a concept covering the whole of reality and brings the individual to find his own salvation.

It is the salvation of the works that has caused controversy and flowing ink and blood. The reality is different; the individual finds in his experience the retribution of it which does not really find salvation by itself. No more than an individual will succeed a professional career by his own strength. It depends on personal action as well as other non-controllable elements that will lead to success or failure. The salvation is not really by itself or in itself since otherwise it would be necessary to know all the necessary parameters which is not within human reach.
Like it or not, monotheism leads to a dualistic vision: God, nature, man.
This relegates nature to the state of product destined to serve us: nature serves the man ... who serves God.

Except that it is a false conception (the human being is destined to preserve nature - in the Biblical model but perhaps differently elsewhere - respecting its rules on which its survival will depend) the human is not, either, intended to serve God (as an idol), but his neighbor through rules conducive to this action. After humans take it into account or not (it's the famous "relative freedom of choice")
It's a shame because monotheism is a misinterpretation, we must not believe that there is only one god (because it is not only a simple mathematical value!)!

To be able to consider that it is an error of interpretation still it is necessary to have an absolute reference which is truth and there nobody left the hostel!
but god is ONE, sacred nuance
according to which culture, there too!
Quote:
It is therefore very close to the monotheistic philosophy.

Yes and no!
Monotheism is a definition of what God would be, except for The Maharshi there is only one reality, the Self, not definable.
"Everything is SELF".

No! monotheism is also incapable of defining what god is (it would be a vanity). For this it would be necessary for the human to have reached the dimension of the absolute, which obviously is impossible for him. It is therefore reduced to a concept covering, it is true, different dimensions according to the religions that you quote below.
This reality encompasses all the others, so it is compatible with all conceptions, be it animists, monotheists, pantheists, atheists etc ...

If you ignore the SOI (which should be defined exactly, but according to what am: eternal and infinite, unthinkable and incalculable, of a nature impossible to explainimpossible) the rest is applicable to the monotheistic notion of god. So god, the self, fuzzy concepts in themselves.
0 x

Go back to "The bistro: site life, leisure and relaxation, humor and conviviality and Classifieds"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 243 guests