Yadda wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

That being the hole in the heart of common Christian faith that excludes the possibility of achieving the most complete of all faiths - Belief without hope of reward.

To paraphrase John 20:29 : "Is it because you hope for reward - to escape death - that you believe? How blessed are those who believe without hope of success nor fear of failure."

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 7:32am:


True, but that’s not what Yadda’s saying. He’s saying there’s testimony that a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived after death, so why shouldn’t we?

Jesus isn’t the only one. There are a number of stories about people escaping death, coming back from the dead, giving signs from the grave, etc.

Aunty Lorna once got in touch through a spirit medium. She said to get my hair cut, find a nice girl, and be nice to Mum.

I didn’t need to ask someone who has died, travelled through to the other side, met Jesus - met God. I could have got the same advice from any of the admin ladies at work.

Karnal wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 8:10am:

What he said was that it was his 'firm belief' that etc, etc, etc...

What I'm saying is the greatest of faith lies in belief without reward.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 9:43pm:


Maybe - I'm not sure why faith is so important for some. If you do something, you get certain results. I would never ask someone to do something they didn't understand merely because I believed there would be a payoff in some vague place after you die.

If that's what faith is, it's a crock.

As the Christian prophet Jesus of Nazareth said, the Kingdom of Heaven is within.

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 9:25am:

I believe, at the "3:00AM of our soul", we all want to have faith... In something (maybe anything).

It seems the film 'Kumare' demonstrates that this very human desire can be evoked in many who, through this fundamental need to have faith, find 'the kingdom within' (in whatever form the 'kingdom' manifests within the individual).

It can be healthy, or sometimes dangerous... Imperatives arising from perceptions of the 'Kingdom', it appears, can transcend norms of good and evil and the believer finds he is capable of burning the village in order to save it (or, in other words, through best intentions, will destroy that which he sets out to save - 'Let me save you from drowning' said the monkey to the fish as he placed it carefully up the tree).

Maybe the need for faith is the need to believe one can transcend one's limitations, in the spirit of 'Possunt, quia posse videntur' - 'They can because they think they can'.

Maybe faith is one of the human faculties that makes greatness possible. Maybe it is the sine qua non of greatness.

Amadd wrote on Jan 26^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

I meant it as a metaphor to define those sudden moments of existential angst (clarity) - In the way Paul Simon intended with the lyrics of "Call Me Al".

The real "God" is "life" - the life that stirs within us. Life is mysterious, and with two separate brains, it's really not that hard to have internal conversations that we attribute to be external.

The phenomenon of life (and sentience) is a pretty special thing. You could say that it's divine.

Is it just so many neurochemicals? - or so many organised firings of neurons and synapses?

I believe it's that and more. The effects of the physical phenomenon are so much more special. I gave the example of a digital recording of an operatic aria. The sequence of 1's and 0's is the basis, but to describe it thus, is missing the point. The medium is not the message in this case.

The physical system of the human body is the medium. It's transient, in that it's continually changing.

Do we think because of the firings of neurons and synapses, or do neurons and synapses fire as a result of thinking?

Do we love as a result of changing levels of  testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin? or does our neurochemistry change as a result of love, or reinforcing thought patterns?

I believe that the mind is the "field" of the brain. It's an effect, but it's not deterministic, in that our mind can affect our brain and vice versa. The mind and the brain are also interdependent. If the brain dies, the mind does not survive - another story in the book of life must begin somewhere else. 

(- and before you state the obvious, I don't have to preface everything with "I believe that"...  any more than Yadda does.) 

muso wrote on Jan 27^th, 2013 at 12:03am:


It's an interesting thought to think of what preceded the thunk thought  ie: What made that thought occur?

Is it to do with the environment? Is it to do with the genes? Is it to do with experience?

Maybe all of them, maybe some of them, maybe other factors as well?

I found a piece on the current Dawkins show to be extremely interesting where he had his DNA mapped and was told that he was more at risk of developing cancer via smoking because of his tendency to smoke the cigarette down to the butt, that's if he actually smoked, and he doesn't.

Even Dawkins was a bit wide-eyed with this diagnosis which essentially states that our behaviour is somewhat  predetermed.