cuchulain Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 except light, which is a part of reality, yes? apparently an independent part of reality, according to the theory of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) except light, which is a part of reality, yes? apparently an independent part of reality, according to the theory of relativity.Light maybe the only part of reality. Maybe time is also a part of reality. Light and time are the only two things that cannot move backward. I forget the principle behind it but everything else can move backward and forward except for the two mentioned.One can roll a ball forward and backward on a table, but the time during which this happens only moves forward as well as the light that illuminates the ball and table if there is such illumination at the moment. Edited May 3, 2015 by Brother Kaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 then not everything in reality is created by our perceptions, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 then not everything in reality is created by our perceptions, yes?Everything in my reality is. If I don't smell the skunk, there is no odor for me. If I don't hear the thunder, there was no BOOM in the sky for me. If I did not read your post, there would be nothing for me to answer.I saw a picture of a T shirt on facebook with two holes in it that went completely thru the shirt. The question was asked: "How many holes does this T shirt have?" The answer the poster was looking for was 8. The correct answer would be that it is impossible to know without looking at the back of the shirt for any holes that did not go completely thru the shirt. Perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Everything in my reality is. If I don't smell the skunk, there is no odor for me. If I don't hear the thunder, there was no BOOM in the sky for me. If I did not read your post, there would be nothing for me to answer.I saw a picture of a T shirt on facebook with two holes in it that went completely thru the shirt. The question was asked: "How many holes does this T shirt have?" The answer the poster was looking for was 8. The correct answer would be that it is impossible to know without looking at the back of the shirt for any holes that did not go completely thru the shirt. Perception.The tree that falls in the forest does make a sound. Edited May 4, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 The first century apostolic writings of Paul and Matthew were inspired,And that claim is also made of latter writings.I don't believe the testimony of latter day people who add, subtract, or dilute what was inspired and preserved is comparable.Why not? Paul did all those things. What makes his visions more credible than Joseph Smith's? More to the point, you spoke against ignoring what is written and quoted Revelations. So how does the quote from Revelations apply to one but not the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 The tree that falls in the forest does make a sound.It can make all the noise it wants to but if I don't hear it, it is not a part of MY reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan56 Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 what if the new material is genuinely inspired, though? And how could a reasonable person tell the difference?And that claim is also made of latter writings.Why not? Paul did all those things. What makes his visions more credible than Joseph Smith's? More to the point, you spoke against ignoring what is written and quoted Revelations. So how does the quote from Revelations apply to one but not the other?Compare the teaching of Joseph Smith, it contradicts the new testament big time (2 Peter 1:20). And Ellen White wrongly prophesied that the world would end several times in the mid 1800's, which is sure-fire evidence of a false prophetess (Jeremiah 28:9). Divine writings were the result of God given inspiration via apostolic authority and prophetic insight at specific times, for a specific purpose, and to certain people. God has never assigned a prophet who contradicted what's written. For myself, and according to the bible, the test of a so-called modern day prophet is in what they write, if its incompatible or contradictory to the canonized word, its simply not a God inspired work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panpareil Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Or at least that later editors were not able to clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I can understand that Dan, and I wasn't implying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or correct even. I was appreciate the answer given on the end, but...the new testament is not very compatible and in some cases is contradictory to the old testament, at least in my opinion. I understand you view it as not contradictory, but conceding that point, you realize the God of the old testament isn't very much like the God of the New? How then does this mesh?Brother Kaman, that is the bottom line I have been trying to get to. Reality is independent of the observer, your PERCEIVED reality may be created by your perceptions, but that does not negate the fact that reality will kick you in the butt whether you perceive it or not. Food poisoning for example, is not perceived in any way, shape or form by the consumer, neither does the seller know about it often times, and in some cases neither does the producer. The fact that none of the people involved with the food knows about the food poisoning, does not negate its effects. Perception is irrelevant to the bacteria, which still affect the person eating them, regardless of the fact that nobody knows the bacteria are present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) I can understand that Dan, and I wasn't implying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or correct even. I was appreciate the answer given on the end, but...the new testament is not very compatible and in some cases is contradictory to the old testament, at least in my opinion. I understand you view it as not contradictory, but conceding that point, you realize the God of the old testament isn't very much like the God of the New? How then does this mesh?Brother Kaman, that is the bottom line I have been trying to get to. Reality is independent of the observer, your PERCEIVED reality may be created by your perceptions, but that does not negate the fact that reality will kick you in the butt whether you perceive it or not. Food poisoning for example, is not perceived in any way, shape or form by the consumer, neither does the seller know about it often times, and in some cases neither does the producer. The fact that none of the people involved with the food knows about the food poisoning, does not negate its effects. Perception is irrelevant to the bacteria, which still affect the person eating them, regardless of the fact that nobody knows the bacteria are present.The fact that if I consume food that carries botulism, salmonella or any other harmful bacteria and get sick or die from it shows that it is indeed a part of my reality, don't you think? One cannot perceive food poisoning for themselves without ingesting poisoned food. Until I am poisoned, food poison is not a part of my reality. If you became victim of food poisoning and I became aware that you were suffering such, then your food poisoning would become a part of my reality or at least my knowledge of your poisoning would be a part of my reality. Edited May 4, 2015 by Brother Kaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) if you create reality by perceiving reality, then the botulism wouldn't exist until you perceived it, no? Therefore, if nobody perceived it, it wouldn't exist. You could eat it, anticipating that the food is wholesome, and never perceive the botulism, yes? Or are you suggesting that after you eat the food, you would get sick and that is when you perceive it? Because if it is a product of your perception, it doesn't exist until you perceive it, meaning you couldn't get sick from it because it doesn't exist yet. And if it doesn't exist until you perceive it, then you have to perceive it BEFORE you get sick, in order for it to have an affect on you, yes? As you said, if you eat the food and get sick from it, it is already a part of your reality, BEFORE you perceive it, otherwise nobody could suffer the effects, unless they believed the food to be tainted before they ate it, in which case it would be their own fault. Edited May 4, 2015 by cuchulain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 if you create reality by perceiving reality, then the botulism wouldn't exist until you perceived it, no? Therefore, if nobody perceived it, it wouldn't exist. You could eat it, anticipating that the food is wholesome, and never perceive the botulism, yes? Or are you suggesting that after you eat the food, you would get sick and that is when you perceive it? Because if it is a product of your perception, it doesn't exist until you perceive it, meaning you couldn't get sick from it because it doesn't exist yet. And if it doesn't exist until you perceive it, then you have to perceive it BEFORE you get sick, in order for it to have an affect on you, yes? As you said, if you eat the food and get sick from it, it is already a part of your reality, BEFORE you perceive it, otherwise nobody could suffer the effects, unless they believed the food to be tainted before they ate it, in which case it would be their own fault.No. I have gotten sick from food that I thought was good. The taint in tainted food is not an opinion or an expectation. Not even a belief. It is objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 if you create reality by perceiving reality, then the botulism wouldn't exist until you perceived it, no? Therefore, if nobody perceived it, it wouldn't exist. You could eat it, anticipating that the food is wholesome, and never perceive the botulism, yes? Or are you suggesting that after you eat the food, you would get sick and that is when you perceive it? Because if it is a product of your perception, it doesn't exist until you perceive it, meaning you couldn't get sick from it because it doesn't exist yet. And if it doesn't exist until you perceive it, then you have to perceive it BEFORE you get sick, in order for it to have an affect on you, yes? As you said, if you eat the food and get sick from it, it is already a part of your reality, BEFORE you perceive it, otherwise nobody could suffer the effects, unless they believed the food to be tainted before they ate it, in which case it would be their own fault.I am going to try this one more time and then I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. I am capable of reading information and seeing and listening to the television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. My knowing that food poisoning exists is well within my reality. The food poison itself only becomes a part of my reality when I become poisoned. How can a broken arm be part of my reality if I do not break my arm? Your broken arm can be a part of my reality if I am aware that you have broken your arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 I am going to try this one more time and then I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. I am capable of reading information and seeing and listening to the television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. My knowing that food poisoning exists is well within my reality. The food poison itself only becomes a part of my reality when I become poisoned. How can a broken arm be part of my reality if I do not break my arm? Your broken arm can be a part of my reality if I am aware that you have broken your arm.There are firsts, though, aren't there? First guy to get AIDS, first to get SARS? And kids who break an arm before they know its happened to other people? Toddlers who get sick with absolutely no idea what is happening to them, or why? You know, surprises? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) For myself, and according to the bible, the test of a so-called modern day prophet is in what they write, if its incompatible or contradictory to the canonized word, its simply not a God inspired work.I am going to hit the point again. Revelations was a stand alone book. It says not to add to it. It was added to in order to build the canon. You chastised others for ignoring the words. How is this not contradictory?The way I read it, the Sermon on the Mount says a false prophet is judged by their fruits, under the understanding that a good tree cannot give bad fruit. It is further explained that failing to follow the sayings in the Sermon equates to working lawlessness, which makes a person unknown to Jesus. This adds up to instruction to compare a prophet to the words in the Sermon to spot a false prophet. Comparison of Paul's doctrine with the Sermon shows them to be almost completely contradictory, by my account. Edited May 5, 2015 by mererdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) There are firsts, though, aren't there? First guy to get AIDS, first to get SARS? And kids who break an arm before they know its happened to other people? Toddlers who get sick with absolutely no idea what is happening to them, or why? You know, surprises?Then these things become a part of that person's reality without any previous knowledge. I don't need to have prior knowledge of something to exist in my reality in order for that something to actually become part of my reality. This forum was not a part of my reality until someone told me it existed. Then the knowledge of the forums existence became a part of my reality. Ultimately, I visited this forum and then the forum became a part of my reality separate from the mere knowledge that it exists. Edited May 5, 2015 by Brother Kaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Then these things become a part of that person's reality without any previous knowledge. I don't need to have prior knowledge of something to exist in my reality in order for that something to actually become part of my reality. This forum was not a part of my reality until someone told me it existed. Then the knowledge of the forums existence became a part of my reality. Ultimately, I visited this forum and then the forum became a part of my reality separate from the mere knowledge that it exists.That just doesn't sound like our perception creating our reality. It sounds like our perceptions providing us with imperfect information about a reality that exists independently of our ability (or lack thereof) to perceive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan56 Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 I am going to hit the point again. Revelations was a stand alone book. It says not to add to it. It was added to in order to build the canon. You chastised others for ignoring the words. How is this not contradictory?The way I read it, the Sermon on the Mount says a false prophet is judged by their fruits, under the understanding that a good tree cannot give bad fruit. It is further explained that failing to follow the sayings in the Sermon equates to working lawlessness, which makes a person unknown to Jesus. This adds up to instruction to compare a prophet to the words in the Sermon to spot a false prophet. Comparison of Paul's doctrine with the Sermon shows them to be almost completely contradictory, by my account.Nothing was added to Revelation, it was the last book of the canon, and those verses were the last instructions (Revelation 22:18-19). This was the testimony of Christ revealed through John (Revelation 1; 1). The entire new testament was written by apostles and completed before the end of the first century,.. Imo, nothing is contradictory, including Paul's letters, none of which contradict the Sermon on the Mount.. Its not my intent to chastise others who believe books that were added later, I just don't think they are inspired works because they do contradict what's written, and when controversial material is added, it inevitably results in the formation of new religions (denominations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) That just doesn't sound like our perception creating our reality. It sounds like our perceptions providing us with imperfect information about a reality that exists independently of our ability (or lack thereof) to perceive it.If that is your reality, I am good with it. There are blind people in the world and I believe here on the forum as well. Being blind is not a part of my reality. I can see fairly well with bifocals. There are many who share a reality of poverty. That is not my reality. I live a fair middle income life. I am not going to give any more of the billions of other examples. Edited May 6, 2015 by Brother Kaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts