I read lots of threads and posts on the board which mention the word 'God'. However, I'd like to know what people mean when they use this word. I often get the impression that the word is used too freely and carelessly and that therefore, it is simply a word used to paint over something intangible.
Is the word God in the mouth of a Christian the same thing as the word God in the mouth of a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist?
Discuss...
the truth is; nobody gets it. because we use only 10% of our brains; we can't comprehend it. this life on earth is only part of our journey. death is the coccoon where we leave one form and go to another. God is the spark of divinity within all of us. like a piece of a puzzle; we are a part of something much bigger. different religions call God by different names. they have different ideas about how to become part of that bigger existance; but God is the same. hindus pray to different gods; catholics pray to different saints. different names for the same purpose. that purpose is to become part of what comes next.
the truth is; nobody gets it. because we use only 10% of our brains; we can't comprehend it. this life on earth is only part of our journey. death is the coccoon where we leave one form and go to another. God is the spark of divinity within all of us. like a piece of a puzzle; we are a part of something much bigger. different religions call God by different names. they have different ideas about how to become part of that bigger existance; but God is the same. hindus pray to different gods; catholics pray to different saints. different names for the same purpose. that purpose is to become part of what comes next.
I agree with all of the above, although I'm not sure what you mean with the part about us not getting, or comprehending it. I personally feel that there is nothing to 'get', or 'comprehend' in the same way that we 'get' and 'comprehend' a book, or a philosophy, for example. The type of understanding that takes place during a mystical experience is of a different sort altogether, i imagine.
I imagine that Australian aborigines, and the Yanomami tribe of the Amazon 'get' it, but in a way impossible to explain, other than by, amongst other things, paintings and music.
I agree with all of the above, although I'm not sure what you mean with the part about us not getting, or comprehending it. I personally feel that there is nothing to 'get', or 'comprehend' in the same way that we 'get' and 'comprehend' a book, or a philosophy, for example. The type of understanding that takes place during a mystical experience is of a different sort altogether, i imagine.
I imagine that Australian aborigines, and the Yanomami tribe of the Amazon 'get' it, but in a way impossible to explain, other than by, amongst other things, paintings and music.
i wish i had the answers; mate. or at least the words or an analogy. we don't get it because we can't. that's why we debate and argue over it. that's why people fight and die over it. it's like; a white blood cell cannot comprehend the body it is a part of. that body is a part of that cell as well as that cell is part of the body. it's early here but i'll think this over and try to come up with an explaination later.
We aren't limited to 10% of our brain, we use it all.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We aren't limited to 10% of our brain, we use it all.
who told you that? science says humans use only 10% of their brains. some people can access parts of their brains for asteral projection or other tasks others can't perform. how would you explain people like einstien? or a shaman who can knock you down without touching you? or someone who can move objects with their mind? i'll look for the link later but the general consensus among science is 10%.
who told you that? science says humans use only 10% of their brains. some people can access parts of their brains for asteral projection or other tasks others can't perform. how would you explain people like einstien? or a shaman who can knock you down without touching you? or someone who can move objects with their mind? i'll look for the link later but the general consensus among science is 10%.
A neuroscientist Christof Koch.
It makes sense, people are intelligent from exercising their brains. They aren't born with genius. The other things you mentioned don't actually exist.
You are only aware of 10% of the functions of your brain. Your brain is calculated 10^14 operations per second. You are only aware of about 2000. If you do the math, that's only 2% of your brain.
In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain. Let's look at the possible origins of this myth and the evidence that we use all of our brain. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Neuroscience for kids, lol. Sorry, no offense
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
its an unseen spirit of one
when we get home
in the meantime
the bright sunshine
lights my heart on fire
someone else said
that god is spelled nature
so hows it gonna be
when we lose our individuality
and become one
thats my opinion i dont think im a profit dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
set your laughter free
dreamer in my dream
we got the guns
i love you,but im..............callin out.........callin out
It makes sense, people are intelligent from exercising their brains. They aren't born with genius. The other things you mentioned don't actually exist.
You are only aware of 10% of the functions of your brain. Your brain is calculated 10^14 operations per second. You are only aware of about 2000. If you do the math, that's only 2% of your brain.
In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain. Let's look at the possible origins of this myth and the evidence that we use all of our brain. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Neuroscience for kids, lol. Sorry, no offense
The student in question was academically bright, had a reported
IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by
CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no
brain at all.
Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5
centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of
cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column.
The student was suffering from hydrocephalus, the condition in
which the cerebrospinal fluid, instead of circulating around the
brain and entering the bloodstream, becomes dammed up inside the
brain.
Normally, the condition is fatal in the first months of
childhood. Even where an individual survives he or she is usually
seriously handicapped. Somehow, though, the Sheffield student had
lived a perfectly normal life and went on to gain an honours
degree in mathematics.
This case is by no means as rare as it seems. In 1970, a New
Yorker died at the age of 35. He had left school with no
academic achievements, but had worked at manual jobs such as
building janitor, and was a popular figure in his neighbourhood.
Tenants of the building where he worked described him as passing
the days performing his routine chores, such as tending the
boiler, and reading the tabloid newspapers. When an autopsy was
performed to determine the cause of his premature death he, too,
was found to have practically no brain at all.
Professor Lorber has identified several hundred people who have
very small cerebral hemispheres but who appear to be normal
intelligent individuals. Some of them he describes as having 'no
detectable brain', yet they have scored up to 120 on IQ tests.
No-one knows how people with 'no detectable brain' are able to
function at all, let alone to graduate in mathematics, but there
are a couple theories. One idea is that there is such a high
level of redundancy of function in the normal brain that what
little remains is able to learn to deputise for the missing
hemispheres. Another, similar, suggestion is the old idea that
we only use a small percentage of our brains anyway -- perhaps as
little a 10 per cent.
i found as many sites claiming 10% as 100%; yet these people function without a brain.
It makes sense, people are intelligent from exercising their brains. They aren't born with genius. The other things you mentioned don't actually exist.
You are only aware of 10% of the functions of your brain. Your brain is calculated 10^14 operations per second. You are only aware of about 2000. If you do the math, that's only 2% of your brain.
In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain. Let's look at the possible origins of this myth and the evidence that we use all of our brain. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Neuroscience for kids, lol. Sorry, no offense
there may be blood and neurons in the entire brain but usage is limited. dr chung from st josephs hospital has found that removal of parts of the brain cured seizure in epileptics yet had no real adverse effect.
maybe the proper wording is different. maybe a person uses only 10% of his brains capabilities. there are many confirmed instances where law enforcement used someone that could hold a picture of the victim and tell where the body was. is this person smarter than you? do they have a bigger brain; or are they using capabilities you don't yet understand or you cannot access?
i found as many sites claiming 10% as 100%; yet these people function without a brain.
What sites are you looking at?
Notice I posted a university website.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
there may be blood and neurons in the entire brain but usage is limited. dr chung from st josephs hospital has found that removal of parts of the brain cured seizure in epileptics yet had no real adverse effect.
maybe the proper wording is different. maybe a person uses only 10% of his brains capabilities. there are many confirmed instances where law enforcement used someone that could hold a picture of the victim and tell where the body was. is this person smarter than you? do they have a bigger brain; or are they using capabilities you don't yet understand or you cannot access?
Ok what parts is he removing and is he removing them from adult or child brains? It will make a difference.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok what parts is he removing and is he removing them from adult or child brains? It will make a difference.
it depends what part of the brain is causing the seizures. st joseph hospital is in phoenix if you want to look into it more. i was 30 when part of my right front lobe was removed.
it depends what part of the brain is causing the seizures. st joseph hospital is in phoenix if you want to look into it more. i was 30 when part of my right front lobe was removed.
Yea ok, but removing a part of the right frontal lobe isn't going to make you act like an ape. The frontal lobe is a large portion of the brain. There are many functions of the the frontal lobe including long term planning. Also, sometimes neurons that aren't exercised become dormant and unusable. People get labotomies all the time and have very few side-effects. However, if you remove the visual cortex, Broca's area, Wernicke's area, the amygdala or any of those very important areas then your functionality is severly impacted and you can't recover from it.
Brain Damage impacts a person's functionality. Some things can compensate, sometimes they can't, it's much more likely that a child brain will adapt. However, if you remove a section of the frontal lobe that serves executive functions, you probably wouldn't notice much of a change, but your planning abilities might be slightly impaired.
Brain scans show us that people use most if not all of their brain. look up some MEG pictures Magnetoencephalography.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea ok, but removing a part of the right frontal lobe isn't going to make you act like an ape. The frontal lobe is a large portion of the brain. There are many functions of the the frontal lobe including long term planning. Also, sometimes neurons that aren't exercised become dormant and unusable. People get labotomies all the time and have very few side-effects. However, if you remove the visual cortex, Broca's area, Wernicke's area, the amygdala or any of those very important areas then your functionality is severly impacted and you can't recover from it.
Brain Damage impacts a person's functionality. Some things can compensate, sometimes they can't, it's much more likely that a child brain will adapt. However, if you remove a section of the frontal lobe that serves executive functions, you probably wouldn't notice much of a change, but your planning abilities might be slightly impaired.
Brain scans show us that people use most if not all of their brain. look up some MEG pictures Magnetoencephalography.
i think we're talking about 2 different things here. i'm talking about capabilities. not whether blood flows to the entire brain. or even electrical activity. the brain actually produces 25 watts of power. if an uneducated ditch digger is using 100% of his brain; then what is a coe of a major; publicly traded company using?
i think we're talking about 2 different things here. i'm talking about capabilities. not whether blood flows to the entire brain. or even electrical activity. the brain actually produces 25 watts of power. if an uneducated ditch digger is using 100% of his brain; then what is a coe of a major; publicly traded company using?
They are using the same. The brain is not a static device, connections are made and destroyed. New neurons are grown even in the adult brain, look up adult neurogensis. The way the neurons connects together provides a different logic. So two people with identical size brains, with identical functionality can be completely different, because of synaptic plasticity.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
God is the main character of this science-fiction book called the bible. The book which a lot of people use to give a sense to the things that fears us (like death, life after death ?), and the ideas in this book are often a reason to start or explain a war.
For me God should be tolerance, humanism, socialism, Love
Then you're practicing some very selective retention of the Bible (that is, if you've read it from start to finish before).
If I remember my world history 101 correctly, the roman emperors were worshipped as gods. And considering that the majority of people living under roman rule were probably living under oppressive conditions, this probably left a lot of people feeling unhappy about the concept of a deity.
So, this guy named Jesus comes along and brings about the idea that there is a power greater than the roman emperor. He expands on the concept of humility, which in turn allows people to feel more comfortable about their appauling living conditions.
And so that's what god is: It's the idea that no matter who is in control of our lives, something greater is ultimately in control -and that greater thing is something that loves us. It makes us feel more comfortable about our degrading and humiliating existence.
We all have to take it from the man when we're at work. We have to treat him/her as if he/she is above us. This is pretty humiliating stuff. It assumes that we are "lesser" than other people. With god in control, we are all suddenly "equal". God is the boss's boss. And it's great to know that the boss's boss loves us.
And that's where the charitable aspect of the church comes into play. When the concept of a god induces our minds into believing that we are all equal, we are forced to contend with the problems of our fellow man. That is, we can no longer look upon each other through a scale of importance.
But, it's a false charity. I say this because it is a vision of equality that is derived only from the belief that there is something "greater" than ourselves. True charity is derived from the belief that we are all equal regardless of what is "greater".
And it is that false charity that gives way to the inevitable indignation of religion. The mind cannot completely rationalize seeing other people as "equals" simply because there must be something greater out there. It does not make logical sense. On the other hand, people are so brainwashed by materialism and status that they can't possibly see the glory of humanity without the idea of a "lord" that is watching over us.
So, the result is the mind believing that only other "believers" are truly equal. And that's why christians secretly and sometimes openly views non-christians as "morally" inferior. Their minds tell them that since people are equal under the eyes of a "greater being" such as god, then only the "believers" are deserving of this status of equality. That is, they haven't fully understood the concept of seeing all people as equal regardless of their beliefs.
Personally, I think Jesus knew that it's just plain stupid to think that we should be nice to each other simply because we are all "equal" under a "greater being". It's stupid because it's like saying, "I'm nice to you because you are still a lesser being than whatever is out there."
But, I think Jesus realized that people are really not prepared to just all of the sudden start viewing one another as brother and sister. So, he came up with the idea of a monotheistic god who just simply rules all. He knew that this would at least induce a state of humility, which in turn would allow for at least some form of harmony amongst mankind.
He was probably hoping that some years down the road people would just realize that we are all equal regardless of whether or not there is a god.
If I remember my world history 101 correctly, the roman emperors were worshipped as gods. And considering that the majority of people living under roman rule were probably living under oppressive conditions, this probably left a lot of people feeling unhappy about the concept of a deity.
So, this guy named Jesus comes along and brings about the idea that there is a power greater than the roman emperor. He expands on the concept of humility, which in turn allows people to feel more comfortable about their appauling living conditions.
And so that's what god is: It's the idea that no matter who is in control of our lives, something greater is ultimately in control -and that greater thing is something that loves us. It makes us feel more comfortable about our degrading and humiliating existence.
We all have to take it from the man when we're at work. We have to treat him/her as if he/she is above us. This is pretty humiliating stuff. It assumes that we are "lesser" than other people. With god in control, we are all suddenly "equal". God is the boss's boss. And it's great to know that the boss's boss loves us.
And that's where the charitable aspect of the church comes into play. When the concept of a god induces our minds into believing that we are all equal, we are forced to contend with the problems of our fellow man. That is, we can no longer look upon each other through a scale of importance.
But, it's a false charity. I say this because it is a vision of equality that is derived only from the belief that there is something "greater" than ourselves. True charity is derived from the belief that we are all equal regardless of what is "greater".
And it is that false charity that gives way to the inevitable indignation of religion. The mind cannot completely rationalize seeing other people as "equals" simply because there must be something greater out there. It does not make logical sense. On the other hand, people are so brainwashed by materialism and status that they can't possibly see the glory of humanity without the idea of a "lord" that is watching over us.
So, the result is the mind believing that only other "believers" are truly equal. And that's why christians secretly and sometimes openly views non-christians as "morally" inferior. Their minds tell them that since people are equal under the eyes of a "greater being" such as god, then only the "believers" are deserving of this status of equality. That is, they haven't fully understood the concept of seeing all people as equal regardless of their beliefs.
Personally, I think Jesus knew that it's just plain stupid to think that we should be nice to each other simply because we are all "equal" under a "greater being". It's stupid because it's like saying, "I'm nice to you because you are still a lesser being than whatever is out there."
But, I think Jesus realized that people are really not prepared to just all of the sudden start viewing one another as brother and sister. So, he came up with the idea of a monotheistic god who just simply rules all. He knew that this would at least induce a state of humility, which in turn would allow for at least some form of harmony amongst mankind.
He was probably hoping that some years down the road people would just realize that we are all equal regardless of whether or not there is a god.
hmmmm interesting theory but according to the bible (which is our source of most of the information about this man named jesus) he claimed to be that monothiestic god. back to the drawing board?
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
hmmmm interesting theory but according to the bible (which is our source of most of the information about this man named jesus) he claimed to be that monothiestic god. back to the drawing board?
You completely misunderstood my post and probably surpriseleft's post.
bingo.....but son of God and God are one and the same (to most people under the christian umbrella anyway, I know there are exceptions). Jesus was claiming to be able to forgive sins and under Jewish law only Yahweh had the power and the right to forgive sins. So if Jesus said this knowing he was not God he committed blasphemy and under jewish law could be given a death sentence legally.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
When I hear the word 'God' I inevitably think of a eldery white man with a beard sitting up in the clouds, whether its Jehovah, Zeus or Thor.
So I find it to be just a very silly word, even if you try to attach more philosophical connotations to it. Example: Spinoza's God - "God is Nature" - but why not just call it Nature?
"I like to think of Jesus as having eight foot wings singing lead vocals to Skynard, and a band of Angels, and I'm on the front row wasted drunk"
"I like to think of Jesus as wearing one of those tuxedo t-shirts. Cause it's kinda formal, but at the same time it says, 'I'm here to party', and I like to party....."
I know it's not GOD, but I just had to throw that out there....
Cheers,
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
If I remember my world history 101 correctly, the roman emperors were worshipped as gods. And considering that the majority of people living under roman rule were probably living under oppressive conditions, this probably left a lot of people feeling unhappy about the concept of a deity.
So, this guy named Jesus comes along and brings about the idea that there is a power greater than the roman emperor.
Your teacher had a different story than mine, of course...they all do.
Romans were living under Pagan beliefs, Jesus didn't just "come along", Constatine knew that 1/2 of his kingdom were pagans, and 1/2 were Christian, with Christianity being the "new" and upcoming religion. He worried that a religious divide could cause major problems with Peace, therefore he re-wrote the bible, included pagan ideas, and thus everyone was happy.......
Cheers,
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
Your teacher had a different story than mine, of course...they all do.
Romans were living under Pagan beliefs, Jesus didn't just "come along", Constatine knew that 1/2 of his kingdom were pagans, and 1/2 were Christian, with Christianity being the "new" and upcoming religion. He worried that a religious divide could cause major problems with Peace, therefore he re-wrote the bible, included pagan ideas, and thus everyone was happy.......
You're a little off. Lets not forget Constantines revelation in the sky, which signalled his turn to christianity.
Comments
the truth is; nobody gets it. because we use only 10% of our brains; we can't comprehend it. this life on earth is only part of our journey. death is the coccoon where we leave one form and go to another. God is the spark of divinity within all of us. like a piece of a puzzle; we are a part of something much bigger. different religions call God by different names. they have different ideas about how to become part of that bigger existance; but God is the same. hindus pray to different gods; catholics pray to different saints. different names for the same purpose. that purpose is to become part of what comes next.
I'm completely innocent. It's all Gods fault!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I agree with all of the above, although I'm not sure what you mean with the part about us not getting, or comprehending it. I personally feel that there is nothing to 'get', or 'comprehend' in the same way that we 'get' and 'comprehend' a book, or a philosophy, for example. The type of understanding that takes place during a mystical experience is of a different sort altogether, i imagine.
I imagine that Australian aborigines, and the Yanomami tribe of the Amazon 'get' it, but in a way impossible to explain, other than by, amongst other things, paintings and music.
i wish i had the answers; mate. or at least the words or an analogy. we don't get it because we can't. that's why we debate and argue over it. that's why people fight and die over it. it's like; a white blood cell cannot comprehend the body it is a part of. that body is a part of that cell as well as that cell is part of the body. it's early here but i'll think this over and try to come up with an explaination later.
who told you that? science says humans use only 10% of their brains. some people can access parts of their brains for asteral projection or other tasks others can't perform. how would you explain people like einstien? or a shaman who can knock you down without touching you? or someone who can move objects with their mind? i'll look for the link later but the general consensus among science is 10%.
A neuroscientist Christof Koch.
It makes sense, people are intelligent from exercising their brains. They aren't born with genius. The other things you mentioned don't actually exist.
You are only aware of 10% of the functions of your brain. Your brain is calculated 10^14 operations per second. You are only aware of about 2000. If you do the math, that's only 2% of your brain.
In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain. Let's look at the possible origins of this myth and the evidence that we use all of our brain.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Neuroscience for kids, lol. Sorry, no offense
when we get home
in the meantime
the bright sunshine
lights my heart on fire
someone else said
that god is spelled nature
so hows it gonna be
when we lose our individuality
and become one
thats my opinion i dont think im a profit dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dreamer in my dream
we got the guns
i love you,but im..............callin out.........callin out
The student in question was academically bright, had a reported
IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by
CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no
brain at all.
Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5
centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of
cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column.
The student was suffering from hydrocephalus, the condition in
which the cerebrospinal fluid, instead of circulating around the
brain and entering the bloodstream, becomes dammed up inside the
brain.
Normally, the condition is fatal in the first months of
childhood. Even where an individual survives he or she is usually
seriously handicapped. Somehow, though, the Sheffield student had
lived a perfectly normal life and went on to gain an honours
degree in mathematics.
This case is by no means as rare as it seems. In 1970, a New
Yorker died at the age of 35. He had left school with no
academic achievements, but had worked at manual jobs such as
building janitor, and was a popular figure in his neighbourhood.
Tenants of the building where he worked described him as passing
the days performing his routine chores, such as tending the
boiler, and reading the tabloid newspapers. When an autopsy was
performed to determine the cause of his premature death he, too,
was found to have practically no brain at all.
Professor Lorber has identified several hundred people who have
very small cerebral hemispheres but who appear to be normal
intelligent individuals. Some of them he describes as having 'no
detectable brain', yet they have scored up to 120 on IQ tests.
No-one knows how people with 'no detectable brain' are able to
function at all, let alone to graduate in mathematics, but there
are a couple theories. One idea is that there is such a high
level of redundancy of function in the normal brain that what
little remains is able to learn to deputise for the missing
hemispheres. Another, similar, suggestion is the old idea that
we only use a small percentage of our brains anyway -- perhaps as
little a 10 per cent.
i found as many sites claiming 10% as 100%; yet these people function without a brain.
there may be blood and neurons in the entire brain but usage is limited. dr chung from st josephs hospital has found that removal of parts of the brain cured seizure in epileptics yet had no real adverse effect.
maybe the proper wording is different. maybe a person uses only 10% of his brains capabilities. there are many confirmed instances where law enforcement used someone that could hold a picture of the victim and tell where the body was. is this person smarter than you? do they have a bigger brain; or are they using capabilities you don't yet understand or you cannot access?
What sites are you looking at?
Notice I posted a university website.
Ok what parts is he removing and is he removing them from adult or child brains? It will make a difference.
it depends what part of the brain is causing the seizures. st joseph hospital is in phoenix if you want to look into it more. i was 30 when part of my right front lobe was removed.
Yea ok, but removing a part of the right frontal lobe isn't going to make you act like an ape. The frontal lobe is a large portion of the brain. There are many functions of the the frontal lobe including long term planning. Also, sometimes neurons that aren't exercised become dormant and unusable. People get labotomies all the time and have very few side-effects. However, if you remove the visual cortex, Broca's area, Wernicke's area, the amygdala or any of those very important areas then your functionality is severly impacted and you can't recover from it.
Brain Damage impacts a person's functionality. Some things can compensate, sometimes they can't, it's much more likely that a child brain will adapt. However, if you remove a section of the frontal lobe that serves executive functions, you probably wouldn't notice much of a change, but your planning abilities might be slightly impaired.
Brain scans show us that people use most if not all of their brain. look up some MEG pictures Magnetoencephalography.
i think we're talking about 2 different things here. i'm talking about capabilities. not whether blood flows to the entire brain. or even electrical activity. the brain actually produces 25 watts of power. if an uneducated ditch digger is using 100% of his brain; then what is a coe of a major; publicly traded company using?
They are using the same. The brain is not a static device, connections are made and destroyed. New neurons are grown even in the adult brain, look up adult neurogensis. The way the neurons connects together provides a different logic. So two people with identical size brains, with identical functionality can be completely different, because of synaptic plasticity.
So, this guy named Jesus comes along and brings about the idea that there is a power greater than the roman emperor. He expands on the concept of humility, which in turn allows people to feel more comfortable about their appauling living conditions.
And so that's what god is: It's the idea that no matter who is in control of our lives, something greater is ultimately in control -and that greater thing is something that loves us. It makes us feel more comfortable about our degrading and humiliating existence.
We all have to take it from the man when we're at work. We have to treat him/her as if he/she is above us. This is pretty humiliating stuff. It assumes that we are "lesser" than other people. With god in control, we are all suddenly "equal". God is the boss's boss. And it's great to know that the boss's boss loves us.
And that's where the charitable aspect of the church comes into play. When the concept of a god induces our minds into believing that we are all equal, we are forced to contend with the problems of our fellow man. That is, we can no longer look upon each other through a scale of importance.
But, it's a false charity. I say this because it is a vision of equality that is derived only from the belief that there is something "greater" than ourselves. True charity is derived from the belief that we are all equal regardless of what is "greater".
And it is that false charity that gives way to the inevitable indignation of religion. The mind cannot completely rationalize seeing other people as "equals" simply because there must be something greater out there. It does not make logical sense. On the other hand, people are so brainwashed by materialism and status that they can't possibly see the glory of humanity without the idea of a "lord" that is watching over us.
So, the result is the mind believing that only other "believers" are truly equal. And that's why christians secretly and sometimes openly views non-christians as "morally" inferior. Their minds tell them that since people are equal under the eyes of a "greater being" such as god, then only the "believers" are deserving of this status of equality. That is, they haven't fully understood the concept of seeing all people as equal regardless of their beliefs.
Personally, I think Jesus knew that it's just plain stupid to think that we should be nice to each other simply because we are all "equal" under a "greater being". It's stupid because it's like saying, "I'm nice to you because you are still a lesser being than whatever is out there."
But, I think Jesus realized that people are really not prepared to just all of the sudden start viewing one another as brother and sister. So, he came up with the idea of a monotheistic god who just simply rules all. He knew that this would at least induce a state of humility, which in turn would allow for at least some form of harmony amongst mankind.
He was probably hoping that some years down the road people would just realize that we are all equal regardless of whether or not there is a god.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
hmmmm interesting theory but according to the bible (which is our source of most of the information about this man named jesus) he claimed to be that monothiestic god. back to the drawing board?
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
son of god
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
the dude ain't god....and the bible is not history, its propoganda. please don't confuse the two
You completely misunderstood my post and probably surpriseleft's post.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
bingo.....but son of God and God are one and the same (to most people under the christian umbrella anyway, I know there are exceptions). Jesus was claiming to be able to forgive sins and under Jewish law only Yahweh had the power and the right to forgive sins. So if Jesus said this knowing he was not God he committed blasphemy and under jewish law could be given a death sentence legally.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
So I find it to be just a very silly word, even if you try to attach more philosophical connotations to it. Example: Spinoza's God - "God is Nature" - but why not just call it Nature?
"I like to think of Jesus as wearing one of those tuxedo t-shirts. Cause it's kinda formal, but at the same time it says, 'I'm here to party', and I like to party....."
I know it's not GOD, but I just had to throw that out there....
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
whats your feeling on the old testament?
Your teacher had a different story than mine, of course...they all do.
Romans were living under Pagan beliefs, Jesus didn't just "come along", Constatine knew that 1/2 of his kingdom were pagans, and 1/2 were Christian, with Christianity being the "new" and upcoming religion. He worried that a religious divide could cause major problems with Peace, therefore he re-wrote the bible, included pagan ideas, and thus everyone was happy.......
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
You're a little off. Lets not forget Constantines revelation in the sky, which signalled his turn to christianity.
And i dont know how he "re-wrote" the bible...