Gyroscopic Investing

Mountaineer wrote:

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:l8,
You might enjoy this book if you have not already read:
Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul by William Bray.

..... Mountaineer

looks interesting, have you read it?

i have added it to my amazon list

Yes, two and a half years ago. I thought it was one of the more interesting reads I had come across for a while. Different, and bizzare but thought provoking and entertaining. Just the title alone is out there; imagine trying to see the connections among the topics. On a little different but somewhat related topic, some of my Evangelical pursuasion friends thought the DaVinci Code by Dan Brown was not good because it portrayed a very unorthodox view of Christianity - I on the other hand just thought it was an entertaining novel; I have the Bible as my religious authority and recognize the other stuff for what it is. All my view of course!

... Mountaineer

I also read this book several years ago. The author has a heart condition and may very well have had more NDEs than anybody in history if his accounts are to be believed. The most interesting thing about them is that sometimes he went to heaven and sometimes to hell and if I remember right he sometimes had a choice but chose hell because he thought it was a much more interesting place. I think he said that he discovered some people still living were actually in hell.

And it is about his love for a dog and his healing ministry to other dogs.

And there is a lot of advanced physics in between all of this stuff.

Ridiculous sayings of Jesus, part 1. Also known as Christians, please don't try these things at home.

1.) But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Great advice for a masochist with a spanking fetish but do any of the Christians here care to let us know how that actually works out in practice in every day life?

2.) And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

Yeah, you want to sue me and take my retirement accounts? I'll give you my house too. Christians do that all the time,
don't they?

3.) If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

You want 28% of my income for taxes - I'm a Christian so how about I give you 56% and we call it even?

4.) You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery but I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.
It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand
causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole
body to go into hell.

Have you ever seen any Christians walking around with their right eye gouged out or their right hand cut off? Neither have I
but according to a study most Christian men view pornography online. So what gives? Why aren't they obeying their Lord and
Master like the early church father Origen who actually took Jesus' teaching literally and cut off Mr. Johnson (I read that
he later regretted it and didn't recommend it for others however).

It might be a bit conceited, but I'll go ahead and say it; I would have made a stellar human sacrifice.

#MakingItRain

Kriegsspiel wrote:It might be a bit conceited, but I'll go ahead and say it; I would have made a stellar human sacrifice.

#MakingItRain

Is that before or after you gouged out your right eye?

... M

interactive processing wrote:you should read this post i made about the nature of functional objectivity.. https://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/v ... 29#p152633 i am open to the possibility that my sig may be wrong but "it seems to me, at this point in time, based on the potentially limited information, and the specific tools i have to view it with" that we are living in a universe where truth is subjective, and in order to be functionally objective it must acknowledge my both participation and limitations as an observer...

Truth isn't subjective when you get out of the way to avoid getting run over by a bus! That kind of dictums is what I always hear from skeptics about physical reality being subjective, but they're missing a fundamental point because they're conflating higher order "settled" matter with lower order "unsettled" energy. Even Einstein proved that space time is subjective -- it's just too slow to be perceived by normal observation.

Mountaineer wrote:I may be way off base, but I am thinking you are trying to prove a negative by maintaining there is no objective truth without being able to prove there is not. But then, I am not a logic guru.

There can be no "objective truth" unless you define what it is first. So, "objective truth" about exactly what? It's just a red herring otherwise. Most of us perceive it to mean the current apex in a functional truth pyramid built upon non-rejected null hypothesises that best explain the nature of reality that we find ourselves in.

curlew wrote:The most interesting thing about them is that sometimes he went to heaven and sometimes to hell and if I remember right he sometimes had a choice but chose hell because he thought it was a much more interesting place. I think he said that he discovered some people still living were actually in hell.

Tell us more about his hells in the book. I haven't seen a very good treatment of the topic in the lamestream consciousness. It's usually over-sanitized into Disneyfantasy or some kind of hyperbolic Hellraiser-style horror. Very black or white.

I agree, hell would be a lot more interesting place but I'll leave that to those with a fetish to save other's souls.

MG,
Have you read the book?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... id=ss_mail

Mountaineer wrote:MG,
Have you read the book?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... id=ss_mail

No, but that was an interesting interview. It's too bad that identity politics and social signaling is still so wrapped up with white religion, but what would all the Poor White Appalachian Trash do without it? So, it would be best if Trump loses so we can finally nail the coffin of the 1950's White Patriarchy closed.

Mountaineer wrote:

Kriegsspiel wrote:It might be a bit conceited, but I'll go ahead and say it; I would have made a stellar human sacrifice.

#MakingItRain

Is that before or after you gouged out your right eye?

... M

Jesus' saying about cutting off your hand and plucking out your eye might very well be the very best proof I know of for the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Did he anticipate the coming of internet pornography or what?

Truly, he was the Son of God.

Ridiculous sayings of Jesus, Part 2

Just one this time because it's so powerful it deserves its own post.

The Purpose of Jesus' Parables

And He told them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside,
everything is expressed in parables, so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing
but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’”

Okay Jesus, I think I get it.

I read in Paul's letter that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the
truth but I realize he wrote that before the gospels were compiled and was able to study what you really
said.

And if this were a Zen koan, I'm guessing the response would be, "Wow, man, that's really deep."

On another subject, screw what Paul, the evangelical's darling, said. Who are you purporting to follow, anyway?

Maddy wrote:And if this were a Zen koan, I'm guessing the response would be, "Wow, man, that's really deep."

On another subject, screw what Paul, the evangelical's darling, said. Who are you purporting to follow, anyway?

I don't know anything about Zen koan but I tried reading the Tao Te Ching because it was recommended by Richard Carrier whose writings I like. I lasted for about two pages before it started to sound like the advice of Forrest Gump's mother (life is like a box of chocolates, stupid is as stupid does whatever that means).

Can somebody please explain what is the point of the Son of God coming down from heaven to speak to us in gibberish, especially if it's for the purpose of saving us from an eternity destiny in hell?

And if he wanted to do us some good in this life why not speak to us of germs and bacteria instead of demons? Certainly he understood those things and what a great contribution it would to humanity to enlighten us with this knowledge, would it not?

curlew wrote:

Maddy wrote:And if this were a Zen koan, I'm guessing the response would be, "Wow, man, that's really deep."

On another subject, screw what Paul, the evangelical's darling, said. Who are you purporting to follow, anyway?

I don't know anything about Zen koan but I tried reading the Tao Te Ching because it was recommended by Richard Carrier whose writings I like. I lasted for about two pages before it started to sound like the advice of Forrest Gump's mother (life is like a box of chocolates, stupid is as stupid does whatever that means).

Can somebody please explain what is the point of the Son of God coming down from heaven to speak to us in gibberish, especially if it's for the purpose of saving us from an eternity destiny in hell?

And if he wanted to do us some good in this life why not speak to us of germs and bacteria instead of demons? Certainly he understood those things and what a great contribution it would to humanity to enlighten us with this knowledge, would it not?

This deserves a well-thought-out answer, the time for which I don't have right now. But to me, the point is that the most profound truths can only be grasped through inner struggle and contemplation. Nobody can just hand you the answers. I believe that is the purpose of a Zen koan; the disciple is given a riddle and is required to work for the answer. In the process he usually learns that it is not the answer that is important, but rather the revelations that accompany the process of getting to it.

Regarding your question about why gibberish would be used if its purpose was to save us from an eternal destiny in Hell, consider the possibility that the evangelicals have it all wrong.

P.S. Frankly, I got more out of the reruns of Kung Fu than I ever did the Tao Te Ching. Like any system of thought, that work is a personal confession, and it only makes sense in the context of the particular questions that were bearing down on the author at the time it was written. It's like asking, "How do you reconcile the philosophies of Heraclitus, Aquinas, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Heidegger?" It's a ridiculous question because each of these philosophers was responding to an entirely different set of concerns. Point being that each individual is going to grapple with different questions, and the minute you try to reduce the mysteries of life to a single formula that can be digested by everyone like some kind of self-help book, they disappear like a moment in the life of Shrodenger's cat.

Maddy wrote:Regarding your question about why gibberish would be used if its purpose was to save us from an eternal destiny in Hell, consider the possibility that the evangelicals have it all wrong.

As an ex-evangelical myself I think it is much more than just a possibility that the evangelicals have it all wrong. The probability that they have anything right about eternal destiny is so small to me that it isn't even worth considering.

My current belief in an afterlife is basically what I've heard that a lot of Romans wrote on their tombstones "Non fui, fui, non sum, mea non refert." - rough translation "I was not, I was, I am not, I don't care."

But like I heard Christopher Hitchens say in a debate near the end of his life when struggling with cancer I like surprises and if there is more so be it. I suppose there could be a sadistic deity waiting to tell me the worse is yet to come for all eternity but I don't think that is very likely. And even if it was true I can't see that there is anything I could still do to appease him while there is still hope. If he's omniscient he would certainly know I was only faking belief out of fear.

Someone puhleaze tell me wtf the difference is between evangelical and mainline? 'kthanx.

MachineGhost wrote:Someone puhleaze tell me wtf the difference is between evangelical and mainline? 'kthanx.

It's possible I'm not using the term correctly, but in my view evangelicism is pretty much synonymous with mainline Protestantism these days. It certainly occupies the majority of that space. It's pretty much what's left when you subtract out the Catholics, Episcopalians, Amish/Mennonites, Messianics, Unitarians, and Christian mystics. (I may have missed a few.)

Generally speaking, evangelicals place strong emphasis on the conversion experience, adhere to the doctrine of salvation by grace/substitutional atonement, reject the primacy of good works in favor of faith, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and focus on the spreading of their message and the conversion of others. In large part, the belief system of evangelicals derives from their interpretation of the epistles of Paul. This tends to be true even when a highly strained interpretation is required to reconcile Paul's words with those of Jesus Himself.

Culturally, evangelicals place great emphasis on family and childrearing, although the foundation for this focus would appear to be entirely extra-biblical. Men and women occupy distinct roles in both the church and family. Men are typically counseled in leadership and women in submissiveness. Churches generally have a heirarchical structure in which the idea of accountability and submission to authority figures prominently. As a practical matter, evangelical churches are often split by bickering over who gets to be in charge. Evangelicals often idealize bigness--megachurches, megaministries, missionary ventures to the far outer reaches, etc.

People don’t need to feel as though they need to choose between belief in God and holding to scientific truths. There is a better alternative: studying the ever-increasing scientific evidence with an open mind to the very real possibility of God’s existence.

https://cccdiscover.com/5-reasons-why-s ... ompatible/

...M

Traditionally, the "Seven Sisters" of mainline Protestantism in America are:
Episcopal Church
United Methodist Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Disciples of Christ
United Church of Christ
American Baptist Churches

They're typically socially and theologically liberal. Many (most/all?) of them have socially and theologically conservative counterparts, eg: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Presbyterian Church in America, "Anglican" churches (as opposed to Episcopal), etc.

The word "evangelical" has so many different meanings as to be almost meaningless, but it's likely that many of the members of the conservative churches (along with most of the non-denominationals) would be called "evangelicals" and members of the mainline churches wouldn't.

My understanding is that participation in the mainline churches has really fallen off a cliff lately.

Mountaineer wrote:People don’t need to feel as though they need to choose between belief in God and holding to scientific truths. There is a better alternative: studying the ever-increasing scientific evidence with an open mind to the very real possibility of God’s existence.

What happens when the fact of a "God" turns out not to be the one described by your faith? Your faith is the superimposition over the fact. What will you do then, sir?

Mountaineer wrote:People don’t need to feel as though they need to choose between belief in God and holding to scientific truths. There is a better alternative: studying the ever-increasing scientific evidence with an open mind to the very real possibility of God’s existence.

https://cccdiscover.com/5-reasons-why-s ... ompatible/

...M

Those 5 reasons speak of the existence of a creator. OK, maybe, hard to outright dispute that. Jumping to that creator being the Christian God is a massive leap.

Scientifically, it should seem pretty obvious to anyone that is actively open minded that we exist in a DNA-controlled sandbox that allows evolution theory to expressively flourish. We share 98.5% identical 1:1 counterpart genes with chimps, 97.5% identical 1:1 counterpart genes with rats and mice (hence they are great for lab experiments to the tune of being used for more than 80% of such), 75% identical 1:1 counterpart genes that cause human disease with fruit flies (which are great for quickly studying the impact or ameliorating thereof) and get this, 50% identical 1:1 counterpart genes with a... banana! And by golly, we still have the gene for tails fully present and active -- its just switched off.

Summary: Any "God" that exists will be found via DNA, maths and the Socratic Method, not any religious fiction mysticism.

MachineGhost wrote:Scientifically, it should seem pretty obvious to anyone that is actively open minded that we exist in a DNA-controlled sandbox that allows evolution theory to expressively flourish. We share 98.5% identical 1:1 counterpart genes with chimps, 97.5% identical 1:1 counterpart genes with rats and mice (hence they are great for lab experiments to the tune of being used for more than 80% of such), 75% identical 1:1 counterpart genes that cause human disease with fruit flies (which are great for quickly studying the impact or ameliorating thereof) and get this, 50% identical 1:1 counterpart genes with a... banana! And by golly, we still have the gene for tails fully present and active -- its just switched off.

Summary: Any "God" that exists will be found via DNA, maths and the Socratic Method, not any religious fiction mysticism.

Not to be too picky, but I'm still waiting for your proof of your worldview e.g. why you are right, vs. your denial of mine. Been waiting quite a while now.

... M