Insight

It is because when we are of the mind that we must watch ourselves to not accept evil, sin, and criminality into our lives.  There is a great difference between being aware of sin and accepting it into our consciousness.  Many people fall off the path because they adapt to the world around them.  They give sin power by treating it as unmoveable rock, something to build their world around rather than without.  Rather than being that which should not be, the sin and evil because that which is.

We need to live in the world that truly is.  The world is not just people and actions.  The world is not simply cities and highways.  If someone were to point to a rock and remark, ‘what a lovely tree.’  Would that make it true?  Why then should we let people point to sin and grant it a similar status?  Believe in the world that should be as clear as any thing else standing before you.  Live in that world.  Like an artist, the conception comes before the painting. 

[Eternity,3]

While of the body-we share the world with the people around us.  No one has total power over another, no matter how much they may wish to believe so.  People can influence us and we can guide one another.  We guide others even without any overt action.  A good man can turn those he walks with into better men.  Good deeds go far beyond the immediate gain.  We have an impact on each other and can save our brothers and sisters soul. 

This is not possible when of the mind.  In the ever after the world we shape is ours alone.  There will be no preachers informing us of transgressions.  There will be no lawyers arguing the nuances of law and order.  What we believe, what we truly believe will come true.  Salvation therefore is of the earth, not of the heavens.  In the ever after if one needs saving, they must learn to save themselves.  What could take one year on earth influenced by others to overcome personal sin-can take eons in the after life for one sinner to realize the wrong without anothers guidance.  It is not merely acknowledging the wrong of an action, it is believing in the wrongness of it.  A criminal can admit what he does is wrong, but until he believes,that wrongness will be a part of his core identity.

[Eternity,2]

Imagine an afterlife where everything you believed in came real.  You believe in love-it is there.  You believe in a home-it is there.  You believe in peace and justice, and it to is there.  Now pretend to be a thief.  You believe your actions to be permissible and justified-that to is there.  Pretend to be a murderer, who has spent a life time building a belief system which permits the action contrary to most laws and faiths.  Murder to would be there.  Heaven and hell are merely labels.  When given all the power to create the world that we wish, it is not God who damns us-it is ourselves.

[Eternity,1]

If we can see God as a force as much as a thinking rational being, than we cannot blame him for the evils upon the world.  Plants seed and make more plants, but they are not aware of it.  They are no more responsible for choking out the sun life for a smaller weed than wild animals are sinners for behavior we would consider to be inappropriate.  Evil and good are labels we use consciously.  Legally we even hesitate to condemn an insane man for a crime when we decide he was truly unaware of his actions-or of their wrongness.  It is not reasonable to  blame God for the troubles and pains of this earth if we understand the Almighty to be both conscious and unconscious equally. 

Does God require consciousness?  It a rock conscious?  Is a tree?  A new born child without any experiences or learning?  If God is indeed all things, wouldn’t he be both conscious and unconscious?  Can one be said to be superior to the next in the grand scheme of things?  The forces of the universe guide our lives.  If they were to cease we would as well.  Gravity, the roaring sun, the elements that we feed upon as readily as we would animal and plant flesh.  It may seem simple to be egoists gazing upon the great city scapes of human civilization, seeing what is clear to our eyes.  What however of the foundation we all rest upon?  Is God any less the earth than he is of man?  Any less of the stars than of mans soul?  Would God be any less if he were as much element, unconscious yet powerful-as he is a thinking human being?

[The All,1]

These are my opinions/understanding.

The Christian Trinity represents three paths to the Almighty.  Each is unique in how one must address it-but all are equal approaches to God.  It is like travelling from one part of the world to the next.  You could take an airplane, you could walk, or you can drive a car.  Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.  Depending on the reason for your journey no one path is superior to the other.  The important fact is that they all lead to the same destination.  Such is the trinity.

One path to God is born into us by the world we live in.  Our families, our local government-the rules and laws that guide our actions.  What we seek of God is rooted in who we are.  Who we are is rooted in the world around us.  This is represented by the father, that which has come before and built the world we physically live in.  When approaching the Almighty we cannot discount the trials that are born from the physical world.  Saints go out and do good deeds in the name of the Lord, by changing the world around us.  This is unlike preachers and prophets who attempt to change the spiritual world.

The Holy Ghost comprises prayer, ritual and meditation.  Though the path to the lord can be walked with good deeds throughout the world, sometimes it is the inner truths and struggles we must face.  Indeed our greatest enemy is most often ourselves.  Through the Holy Ghost we seek to commune with the almighty without the limitations placed upon us by our physical world.

The Son, Christ-is the most difficult face of the trinity.  Christ is not social institutions and norms.  Christ is not ritual and prayer.  Christ is found within the people.  We bring each other closer to God and wisdom.  A teacher brings a child closer to understanding the seasons.  A preacher brings a scholar closer to finding faith.  It is the acknowledgement that other people have an impact on how we relate with the almighty.

Each path to the Trinity is distinct, yet each is valid.  Recognizing the Trinity is merely recognizing that there are different paths to the Divine and making a correct choice in how we should approach the Almighty.  The reason for our questions dictates the path we will walk.

[Trinity,1]

*This is just my personal impression and in no way should reflect negatively on another persons belief.  I merely expect the same in return.*

I’m beginning to think that I have to start my own religion.  I’ve tried to find other ones that fall along my way of thinking but it hasn’t worked.  I tried a Bahai group the other evening, which was somewhat enlightening-but it wasn’t quite what I had in mind.  I thought it would be more about appreciating the various lessons of different religions, rather than remaking one.  Plus, I don’t want to accept a reincarnation of christ or the second coming of christ.  It felt like mormanism, to me-the rebirth of christ will occur throughout each of us.  I wouldn’t make a good preacher, I sin and have sinned.  I don’t fully know myself.  Yet I have my own seemingly unique outlook on religion and the world around me.  It is hard not to find a group of faith that I feel I can belong too, so I will attempt to write my own beliefs down and hopefully that will have the same effect.

A few years ago I contemplated a language without nouns.  I felt that the main difficulty with creating a intuitive interface with a machine was the lack of a mutual language.  To that end, I felt that a middle-language would have to be created without nouns. 

The idea came in part from the book "Lila" (By the author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"); the main character attempts to organize everything in the world into categories-in which the categories kept increasing in complexity and in number.

The difficulty faced by character in Lila is similar to that of attempting to use quantum mechanics to predict weather patterns.  Let us say we wanted to plug all the data of weather patterns for as long as there have been adequate records, allow the computer to interconnect the data into a series of cause and effect-and when finished make a weather prediction as how current conditions compare with conditions in the past.  The difficulty is that the data will grow exponentially as more and more connections are found and will never be completed enough to make a good prediction.  The more data that comes in, the more data that comes out.  It never finalizes into a single solution that will output an answer.

Perhaps a better example can be borrowed from Asimovs Foundation and Empire series.  All of history is plugged into the tools of psychohistory, every connection between cause and effect is plotted-finally you can make predictions on what new trends in history will occur.  Again the same problem, when the data is fed into the program-the program generates more data from that data set rather than less.  It will evaluate say all the times a hit to the local economy follows an earthquake and label this even A.  It will then evaluate all the times a hit to the economy is followed by political turmoil; this event is labeled B.  The system will keep going creating more data.  Every time event A is followed by event B will now be labeled event C.  The data grows as the computer finds more and more connections- the goal is to minimize data to get a few answers not produce more data.  It is similar to a child having a question answered; in turn the child has two more questions to ask.  Each answer provokes more questions.

I think there are similarities between the above problems and a real language that a computer can actually understand.  Nouns themselves are the variables, the interconnections between them grow exponentially.  If you say chair alone, the potential for what ‘chair’ means/implies is near infinite.  Without nouns however, the word ‘chair’ would be replaced with exactly what it means being situational and temporally specific. 

I had a lot more on the subject written in lost journals.  I even attempted to break down the fewest possible grammar techniques I would need.  It’s an interesting puzzle however to just contemplate a language without nouns.  A noun would be the equivalent of a memory location/variable for a program.  Rather than plugging in all the data for each possible word and then trying to train a computer to recognize all possible interconnections-a midpoint language would have to have all the data necessary self contained in the commands/languages themselves.

Hope to write more later on the subject.

This deal with the women finding a finger in her chilli totally throws me for several loops.  The main being, who cares about the women or the damage Wendy’s has suffered-I want to know where the hell the finger came from.  I mean is someone going to look down one day while trying to type in the ‘a’ button and ask where their finger ran off too?

They know the finger couldn’t have been cooked in the chilli, since via even the local cops CSI departments can tell if a finger was cooked at 150 degrees for three hours.  I’m assuming the finger also didn’t come off of an old corpse, since the rate of decay most likely could be measured as well-and I’m sure they would have announced if the women had been going digging through graveyards.

I don’t care if she’s convicted of grand larceny, or if Wendy’s makes a come back-I just want to know where the damned finger came from.

I’m getting tired of partisonship.  It shouldn’t be a Republican or Democrat matter.  Personally, I don’t think he should be the U.N. Ambassador because he has been recorded repeatedly belittling the U.N.  I’ll be first in line to state that the U.N. is not the most effective (understatement) agency, yet I wouldn’t want to me Ambassador to it.  People should be elected by how well they will do their jobs, not what their beliefs are.  I don’t see how anyone can do a job well if they don’t believe in the job at hand.  We elect judges based on personal views, now we’re electing ambassadors by the same measure.  We want an ambassador who is prejudiced against the U.N. for some unknown reason.  Questioning the U.N. is fine, I don’t want a yes-man to be our representative.  However I do want someone who "believes" in the U.N., maybe not necessarily as it is today-but as it will one day be.