If all of nature belongs to the same spirit then other parts of nature can be intelligent.
OK, most people consider only certain texts holy, if any, and true, others not.
Human beings are the only intelligence because all intelligence belongs to the same spirit, which includes Nature also…therefore we can communicate with Nature.
[/quote]
If all of nature belongs to the same spirit then other parts of nature can be intelligent. (quote)
All of Nature is intelligent, the human being the highest spirit is also intelligent, but is intelligent because the Nature supports the intelligence. We can therefore communicate with differing intelligence because it supports our own. This is why Shaman knew of the animal experience through their own consciousness, because we can communicate.
Therefore without Nature we begin to lose our own conscious support system of evolution, which I think is demonstrated in the loss of human morality and behavior that seemed to have developed in the late 1800s into a new form of speaking/communicating language with manners. Scientific exploration and alteration of our Nature demonstrates that humanity had previously evolved and de-evolved and the same situation is being faced in our common day situation, we are de-evolving our Nature.
In general I agree with this, but in this thread the topic is scripture and why people consider certain texts the Word of God and not others. How they determine this to their own satisfaction.
Scripture obviously was an argued process that involved alteration of the Holy status in literature as records.
If Scripture involved astronomical advice, and this advice had been altered due to human interferences with the creative bodies (as per Scriptual discussion) then the Word of God related to an updated version of Scriptual advice that involved a newly applied English value of writing.
This is due to Scriptual advice being taught in communities as religious instructions. Religious instruction involved morality, but it also secretly involved astronomical/predictive writings…as per Nostradamus demonstrated. Philosophers therefore continued to correlate astronomical data even though Rome had outlawed the pursuit of its recordings as a Seer application (involving magic or soothsaying). These Philosophers continued the tradition of spiritual holiness, as keeping documentation for the purpose of notification of predictive events.
Rome outlawed all New Revelations or new updates as they proposed that by outlawing any form of alchemy/radiation practices (involved the creation of wave lengths) as a human law involving jail as a life term (or death) this would allow for no future predictible spiritual attacks upon Earth.
Therefore by Roman tradition the Word of God remained predictible and they presumed that its religious use and application would no longer allow for any scientific situation to occur, causing new spiritual attacks.
The Philosophers who wrote the English version of the Roman Scriptures also correlated the values for the Dictionary, whereby they related numerical factors to the English letters to enable future Philosophers who dared to defy the Roman Scriptures could in fact demonstrate to add on to the predicted Scriptures through the use of the Holy Word Values. Therefore they denied Rome who imposed this Law and then themselves broke it, by using astronomy and scientific research themselves for alteration of the Acts of Creation via the Word of God, only because they sought to support the gain of power (greed) in the social system.
This is why Scripture has always changed in sake of the Holy Philosophical Tradition of speaking the Truth for the purpose of saving humanity as a holy act.
I Think you should stick to erotic poetry.
Yes, on the order of Anaïs Nin … we could call it pornophilosophy …
Hello Moreno,
Some interesting questions you’ve raised here, but I think that you put it in a perspective that avoids the issue of fundamentalism as a phenomenon prior to religion. That is, fundamentalism is not an effect of the religion but it is what people bring into their religion, or into any other facet of their life.
To me, fundamentalism is a strategy. But let me use a non-religious reference. When dealing with government, or conflict between laws, the constitution is invoked as having the authority to settle the issue, whatever that is, whatever the era it is. Doesn’t matter that the framers of the constitution lived in a different time and mentality-- doesn’t matter. But why? Because treating it as an absolute authority it gives the parties involved a chance of winning an argument without the use of force-- in theory. Now using a biblical example, that means that Jesus is attacked first of all by biblical passages that are authoritative to everyone involved, including Jesus. They bring up selected passages, much as fundamentalist today are fond of, in order to trip Jesus into an inconsistency that would discredit him, again, without having to bring physical violence upon him.
Fundamentalism, like Idealism, like Rationalism, work in a perspective that does not acknowledge change as Real. The Real is rational, they say, unchanging, like the letters in a book. Now what these letters, and the words they form is open to some interpretation, they would agree, but their point is that there is an irreducible meaning that is the essence and without which you lose the object in question. What is good is not something open to interpretation, to taste, to relative subjects, but is absolute and eternal. It is not a hypothetical imperative, but a categorical imperative. And again, one can ask “how do you know?”, but whether the referent is a book, nature of one-self, no answer is epistemologically satisfying because in the great scheme of things, we live by faith and even our most vaunted knowledge is still riddled with subjectivity. In fact, that human condition is what makes fundamentalism attractive.
We are condemned to be free…fundamentalism and other forms of Authoritarianism provide a key to escape the nausea.
But you could say, couldn’t you, that it is indirectly because of the effect that those words have on someone. They may not say that but it may be that. If someone believes in God and that the Bible is the direct inspiration of God, they will automatically believe that the words are God’s powerful and moving effect on them. It’s a natural progression.
When I was a “believer”, I sometimes read the bible. It is a human response to be affected by and in awe of certain passages which we perhaps may unconsciously need to draw into ourselves or which reflect part of our inner spiritual core. If we believe in a god, that is god speaking to us.