God made the Tsunami coz he's a dick

[reptyle]

i find it hard to believe that amongst this commmunity it seems that not even one person is willing to accept that maybe this is "Gods" will. not in a testing or punishing sense but in the sense of merely turning the karmic wheel of existence, human being in all our shame still expect to have the insight to understand the future repurcusion of such a world event. many of you are aware that the mayan calender (and many other calenders for that matter) have predicted a shift or change for the year 2012 (approx). is this shift supposed to be instant? or is it more likely to follow every other process that nature shows us, that of progress, over time. the events that are occuring in our world at the moment, both natural and man made are catalysts for change, they bring about thoughts and emotions in people which a mundane life of apparent perfection and no pain will never show us.

they say that people hate what they dont understand and it may seem offensive but i will have to say the same goes for religion. a lot of religious propaganda is very misleading and often leads to bias agaisnt all sorts of different groups but the perennial philosophy is always the same,and this is the basis of all religions. the ultimate truth does exist, the hard thing is to separate the truth from the illusion we create, and the illusion other try to create for us. the tsunami is a blessing that we may never fully understand.

i think i got carried away with that hope it makes sense.

[cookie-monster]

I guess it depends on your definition of God. I am very conflicted here. I would call myself an athiest but concede that the theory of god is a lot more rational than evolution.

On one hand you have the concept that each creatures 50k+ metabolic pathways work towards both maintaining a self repairing machine and also driving its evolution, without any help from forces or entities that are beyond our understanding. Not only that but all these creatures then work together to form an ecosystem purely on a system of supply and demand that has no official register.

On the other hand you have the belief that all of this wonderment is actually under greater control than we can rationalise and prove.

I certainly believe that their are laws of thermodynamics yet to be discovered that will make life fit sciences equations. I believe the planet is an entity in itself and that it will flick us off when it sees fit. I am certain that there is a greater intelligence than ours. I am also certain that it is very typically human to believe that we have a direct line of communication with this superior intelligence and can control it through our actions.

To all the die hard evolutionists I say how do you rationalise a virus. All other organisms are symbiotic to some extent within the system but virus simply take. They can exist as an animal, vegetable or even mineral. They land on a host lock to a receptor inject viral DNA and take over a foreign system. All other creatures read their DNA in triplets in one direction. The alien virus also reads triplets but can overlap them as well as read them backwards. Thereby allowing just a hundred or so base pairs to take over a creatures metabolism. This ability to wrap DNA into a zipped file is not utilised by any other organisms. In their crystaline forms they could survive space. Why then hasn't a bacteria evolved these stategies? Their key to survival is to dominate their surroundings through fast multiplication. Some marine bacteria can reproduce every 8 minutes. The critical time step for them is DNA synthesis. The shorter the Dna sequence the faster they can do it. I see a huge evolutionary advantage in a bacteria who could process its DNA like a virus yet nowhere do you see a bacteria that has begun to incorporate any provision for this. Obviously what we don't know way outways what we do. I think this is intollerable to our oversized brain and therefore we create an identity for the things we dont comprehend and call it god.

[reptyle]

i agree god is a name that humans have created for something we dont understand. however that is merely in the context of our current culture and knowledghe. the word god has had its definition changed numerous times. this is apparent if you look into the different meaning for the word God across culture. the God christians know is different from the krsna hindus know and that is again different from the muslims Allah. they all do share many "traits" incommon. omnipotence, timelessness, compassion, wisdom etc. these traits give u an image of somethin with form, somethin which we would relate to in our human form, however this image must be flawed because a human, given our limited scope of vision of reality, can never have a direct perception of Brahma whilst we are ruled by the delusions of a material world. it is for this very reason that we say that god punishes us or tests us or does anything to us. we are part of a flow. god is the flow, the pattern of the universe is continuously changing and contains an infinite number of possibilities, humans as a microcosm of the entire of existence then have a chance to affect their surrounding through thought. we are not separate from our environment, we are part of it, we are it, just becouse we have the idea that we stop at the edge of our skin doesnt mean that this is true. as humans we have chosen to confuse ourselves with physical pleasure and forgeten about everlasting bliss, which can only be found through destroying the ignorance which we are all prisoners of. once this happens our pure minds, buddha minds wil be free to act Gods will.

another ramble is it relevant?

[waterdragon]

Torsten:

Originally posted by waterdragon:

biggest concern right now would be bushfire potential.

yeah, been watching the firemap. Are you well prepared?

have an irrigation manifold set up around the house perimeter, pumps on standby. could really use an old retired fire tanker though.

back to something a little more topic specific - i think what really stands out about the tsunamis is obviously the number of dead and damage to infrastructure. with the number of peeps that now call earth home future tragedies can only get greater, check the aids crisis for example. many things smack of a lack of sustainability, we seem to be burning the candle at both ends as a society, we live in a world of immense stupidity, evil and greed - really there needs to be less of us, i don't think the earth would miss most of us. in the past a similar wave could have washed ashore and decimated dozens, in the past bushfires could burn from desert scrub all the way to the coast and without the human factor it would have been nature just going about its business.

[Rev]

 

quote:

---

not in a testing or punishing sense but in the sense of merely turning the karmic wheel of existence, human being in all our shame still expect to have the insight to understand the future repurcusion of such a world event

---

If this was even a possibility, that it was some kind of karmic retribution, then it wouldnt have hit where it did.

It wouldnt have killed the poor and downtrodden or the indigenous peoples minding their own business

It would have hit somehwre afflunet and materialistic where all the spoils of the earths destruction migrate to

if anything this was anti-karma

[nabraxas]

come on Rev, you know you can't attribute human reasoning or motives to an omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient GOD.

the question "did god cause the earthquake" can never be answered--it cannot be proved one way or the other, it is therefore totally meaningless. trying to define the term "god" is also totally meaningless as again nothing anyone says about god can be proved or disproved.

sure, carry on this "debate", but be aware that what Cunty said has as much validity as the Rev. Tim Costellos musings---ie--none at all at all.

[reptyle]

as i said as humans how can we expect to understand the future consequences of such an event.

is it not possible that through such an event an awareness of the suffering that exist in those places will begin to arise. have u ever seen australia get behind a fundraiser like that before? $19 million donated in 1 hour. it may not seem the fairest thing but that doesnt mean it isnt a good thing. there is no such thing as anti karma. it is all simply cause and effect, bad cause > bad effect. however deciding whether something is good or bad is the hard part. and this i think is where your own perception of the situation comes into account if you view it as bad, you will only see the bad effects, if you view it as good or a blessing you will be able to see how it will lead to good. god may not have put his finger in the ocean and comanded it to rumble but maybe he set it in motion back in begininless time. the quake was always going to happen, if it wasnt going to happen we wouldnt exist.

i disagree with the uselessness of talking about "god" i think that through the exploration of the logic of happenings we can expand our perception of god infinetely. we may never be able to fully grasp the idea, but i know im happy with every little bit of truth i learn. thats not to say anything ive written is true in anyway though. until we have a pure view of ultimate reality unobscured by our grasping and delusion we can never live in a true state of bliss, happyness and sadness are both types of grasping, bliss is the state of god.

[nabraxas]

reptyle--i appreciate the sentiment behind your words, & i'm not trying to put you or your god down, but...

deciding whether something is good or bad is the hard part ---so if you decide something "is" "bad", does that mean it "is" "bad" for every single person on the planet?--define "bad".

"is" it "bad" for the rest ov time?

the quake was always going to happen, if it wasnt going to happen we wouldnt exist. ---oh yeah? prove that. i'll bet you in another quantum universe it never happened & the people there still live happily ever after--- it would be easier to "prove" there are parallel universes ov infinite possibilities, than to prove god caused this Tsunami.

the logic of happenings logic is so flawed when it comes to anything outside pure math, i have no idea what you mean, are you trying to say there's a causal & evident logic in "happenings" that can be directly related to a GOD--good luck w/that

until we have a pure view of ultimate reality oh dear. i thought we'd got past this.

there can be no "ultimate reality" because we make the universe we live in through a gamble w/our perceptions.

to quote Dr. Nick Herbert caricaturing the Copenhagen Interpretation ov Quantum theory

"Reality? We don't got to show you no steeeeenking reality"

[woof woof woof]

Whatever it is, or whatever you want to call it, it exists! And I prefer having peace with it, by listening what it has to say. The fundamental lines (boundries) are what we understand of it.

change is the only constant.

everything is energy.

what goes up must come down.

what you give is what you get.

so harmonize with nature - unconditional love and understaning.

Nature takes from us like we have taken from it. eerything is looking for balance. everything is looking for a solution.

death can be a gift.

[reptyle]

and this i think is where your own perception of the situation comes into account if you view it as bad, you will only see the bad effects, if you view it as good or a blessing you will be able to see how it will lead to good.

i agree with what you have said. our perception of an event dictates what reality exists, for us. i do belive however that there is an actual happening of each situation, which includes within it our perception of that situation. we are part of the ultimate reality which we perceive (in more than just physical ways).

the universe is completely logical, the logic it follows is far more complex than we are able to understand but i guarantee you it is logical. what in your life has happened that wasnt logical? or in fact in other peoples lives? or the universe?

im not trying to say that it can be related to a personified god (or was i?) however it seems evident to me that there is some function in the pattern which guides the flow of life and existence in certain directions and produces effects based on a cause which has been set up.

so does the collection of all possible perceptions and collection of all possible "realities" constitute an ultimate reality? i think so.

ultimate reality must be grasped beyond the restrictions of the human mind. it is more of a realisation which creates the direct perception than opening your eyes and looking at it. imo.

[Rev]

...

[ 18. January 2005, 21:12: Message edited by: reville ]

[nabraxas]

the logic it follows is far more complex than we are able to understand but i guarantee you it is logical--err...if the "logic" "is" unable to be understood, how can you guarantee it?

the thing w/logic, is that it just doesn't work w/language.

"nothing is better than god. half a loaf ov bread is better than nothing, therefore logically --half a loaf ov bread is better than god"

[reptyle]

your right i can in no way guarantee it, it was stupid to say so.

i suppose logic really only works individually if the result you expect is the result you get, what if you dont expect? doesnt that mean that everything is then logical if we dont restrict the outcome to only those outcomes that seem rational?

i come from the viewpoint that everything is infact logical, if i cant figure out why something hapened in accord with logic it merely means i am unable to view the true event, or i have misinterpreted what ive seen.

your right though that language makes logic almost usless to talk about but to conceptualize logical events i think is only as flawed as the minds ability to see.

[nabraxas]

reptyle---logic, reason, rationality are all attemps to understand a "deep reality" &

quote:

---

figure out why something hapened

---

.

in the scientific age we have extended our philisophical inquires w/measuring instuments ov fantastic proportions---& we have realised that "we can never know the "true" length of a rod but only the various lengths measured by various instruments in various inertial systems by observers who may share the same inertial system with the rod or may measure it from the perspective of another inertial system.

--we do not percieve "reality" but recieve signals from the enviroment which we organise into guesses so fast we do not even observe ourselves guessing."

quote RAW

the only thing that can be said about reality--w/any relative certainty are our measurements ov it, & it must be born in mind that our measuring sytems themselves are constructs that display certain aspects ov reality but never the whole picture.

--one ov the problems ov using logic--a math system, to gague the truth in language (the menu is not the meal).

anything said about reality that cannot be measured or proved has left the realm ov logic & entered theology--in terms ov information content it is meaningless.

[ 20. January 2005, 04:13: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[The Dude]

reptyle, if everything is logical explain the war on drugs. Haha got you there! im j/k i think i get what you're saying.

[reptyle]

what you say about the reality we believe we live in not be able to be measured is true and any speculation about the true nature of reality is merely that, speculation. however, i dont see how our inability to talk about or understand the logic of that reality makes it any less logical?

could the acceptance of the idea that nothing is truely measureable be one step on the path to understanding the true nature of reality and hence being able to more directly percieve the true nature? there comes a point where the realizations you make dissolve each other and you are able to percive without conceptualization occuring, some would call it enlightenment.

[nabraxas]

could the acceptance of the idea that nothing is truely measureable be one step on the path to understanding the true nature of reality

---it might be better phrased as

the acceptance of the idea that every system ov measurement has relative degrees ov uncertainty, maybe one step to understanding the true complexity ov the reality we perceive

i'm not even going to begin to debate what "enlightenment" may or may not be---find an enlightened being & get them to tell us

however, if you really want to get a better idea ov the fallacy ov perception you should read the whole page that the next quote by Bertrand Russell comes from---his language can be difficult but his importance in this cannot be understated.

"We first identify physical processes with our percepts, and then, since our percepts are not other people's thoughts, we argue that the physical processes in their brains are something quite different from their thoughts. In fact, everything that we can directly observe of the physical world happens inside our heads, and consists of "mental" events in at least one sense of the word "mental". It also consists of events which form part of the physical world. The development of this point of view will lead us to the conclusion that the distinction between mind and matter is illusory. The stuff of the world may be called physical or mental or both or neither, as we please; in fact, the words serve no purpose. There is only one definition of the words that is unobjectionable: "physical" is what is dealt with by physics, and "mental" is what is dealt with by psychology. When, accordingly, I speak of "physical" space, I mean the space that occurs in physics.

It is extrordinarily difficult to divest ourselves of the belief that the physical world is the world we perceive by sight and touch; even if, in our philosophic moments, we are aware that this is an error, we nevertheless fall into it again as soon as we are off our guard. The notion that what we see is "out there" in physical space is one which cannot survive while we are grasping the difference between what physics supposes to be really happening, and what our senses show us as happening; but it is sure to return and plague us when we begin to forget the argument. Only long reflection can make a radically new point of view familiar and easy."

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/pub/slehar/quotes...es/russell.html

[mescalito]

Imagine for a moment that we are the 'weavers' of the quilt that is 'GODS' masterpiece.Each of us has an individual skill,time and placement underneath this work of art and it looks pretty rough and shitty from where we stand-knots,blisters,rough cut ends and things don't look to be blending well.

I'd like to imagine that we are all doing our part well without losing site of the real objective...to sit beside GOD when we're finished our respective jobs and enjoy the beauty of the work from where it is meant to be seen.

Above

[Dubius]

In science, Tsunami’s simple really - earth, water, fire with wind, conspired; earth, warmed and quaking, soothed with wind, envelope and motivate latent sea.

Yet we are driven to comprehend why such an event has happened, a far more complicated, and less tangible object.

Humanity is engaged by the mechanics of such an event. We know from experience that our world is part of physical reality and, that we have mostly learned to use our understanding of physical rules to our advantage; we know that the tsunami event is caused by an earthquake buckling the seafloor, thus forcing the sea above it bulge and roll forward, its movement blocked only by land barriers.

Those of us that seek to understand the Tsunami via formulaic religion annoy me; they insult sentience; by their process of mind, our social structure and values should prevent natural definition; that phenomenal divine, which shapes and molds earthen clay, be disregarded in favor of cobbled, human rule; appeasement, thoughtlessness and, inaction.

They would have us appease a dead divinity, that which is less engaged in moment than we. Change is a challenge to survive and, is what makes life exist - worthy of its own presence; that, against the backdrop of oblivion, fear and, darkness, we say we are!

The test of the tsunami is life prevailed.

[reptyle]

good response. you hit the nail on the head.