Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Cinemaseekers.com Message Board - Cinemaseekers Forum THE TRUTH ABOUT CINEMA

CINEMASEEKERS FORUM

This forum is meant to be an extension of the themes and concerns of our website. Please keep the focus on spirituality, philosophy and cinema. Thank you!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this forum are the sole responsibility of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the owners of this website (except in postings by the owners themselves under "cinemaseekers" or "questers".)

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2 

 
questers Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 74
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
about science


quote:

It is possible to prove the existence of the neutrino, but it is impossible to prove the existence of God.

Narek



Actually, it is precisely through the discovery of the existence of the neutrino that one can prove the existence of God. How? By simply following this natural manifestation of energy all the way up, through the different layers of cosmic substances, right up to the very Source of all Energy. The following fascinating article shows how:

"The Secret of Gravity" [sign in to see URL]

5/6/2006, 12:29 am Link to this post Send Email to questers   Send PM to questers
 
Narek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 14
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


The theory of Herbert Vollmann suggests that the streaming-in of the radiation power from the cosmos is the cause of gravitation. Unfortunately, the author does not fully understand the law of gravity: 'If we wish to fathom the nature of gravity, we must look for a new way, which however cannot be followed "from below upwards".' I am very sorry, but any physicicst will find this sentence amusing. Action=reaction, i.e, if an object is attracted downwrads to the earth with a force F, then the earth is attracted UPWARDS to the object with a force -F. The upward attraction exists whether Mr Vollmann wants it or not.

The proposed theory is not just pseudoscientific. The idea of a repulsive power from the cosmos does not appeal to me aesthetically...
5/6/2006, 12:01 pm Link to this post Send Email to Narek   Send PM to Narek
 
questers Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 74
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


It is we, who are truly sorry for your reaction. Fortunately, you cannot and do not speak on behalf of all the physicists. We know of at least one physicist, who would beg to differ: Dr. Friedbert Karger, plasmaphysicist at The Max Planck Institute.


Last edited by questers, 5/7/2006, 3:11 am
5/7/2006, 2:33 am Link to this post Send Email to questers   Send PM to questers
 
Narek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 14
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


Let's not get personal, ok? I really respect your work and I didn't mean to hurt your feelings!

I have only stated Newton's law of gravitation: a well-known law verified experimentally. It is not based on my or anyone else's (including Newton's or Dr Karger's) authority. I would be very interested to read Dr Karger's argument!

I have also read the article by Stephen Lampe. The author has taken a few sentences out of their context and presented them as biblical accounts of reincarnation. Following the same logic, one could interpret the sentence 'Ye must be born again' as an irrefutable proof of the same theory. The section 'The Transfiguration' is totally confusing. Why and how did John the Baptist get reincarnated back into Elijah? Did the 'Laws of Nature' show us their sense of humour? What the disciples saw surely was not an illusion. If Elijah was an illusion, then the Transfiguration of Christ was an illusion too...

****************************************
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

 3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

   "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

 7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
      "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

 8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

 9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

 13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

 16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Matthew 20:1-16.

*****************************************

If the late workers got what they or their karma deserved, it wasn't generosity. It was something deserved. One cannot play with or change the meaning of the word generosity.

It would be very interesting to see Abd-ru-shin or someone else trying to conform this parable with the laws of karma and reincarnation. If they did, I don't think anyone would take their interpretation seriously.

Last edited by Narek, 5/8/2006, 3:13 pm
5/8/2006, 10:09 am Link to this post Send Email to Narek   Send PM to Narek
 
questers Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 74
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


Our personal feelings are never hurt by any of the comments posted on this board - by you or anyone else - because we work for a higher purpose. Our personal feelings do not enter into this matter. Personally, we are perfectly content to let you hold on to all of your opinions and interpretations.
 
In his essay "The Secret of Gravity", Mr. Vollmann addresses not the law of gravity as such, but the nature of gravity, which has never yet been understood. No one disputes that the law of gravity always manifests in the same way; the discussion among the open-minded scientists revolves around the issue of the nature, of the cause of gravity. Many of them have come to feel that gravity is "a push and not a pull", as they phrase it. In other words, it's not a pull from the earth downwards, but a push from the in-coming cosmic rays towards the earth. The effect of the law, as it manifests, is the same either way - but to understand the effect is not the same as to understand the cause.
 
We will try to get you Dr. Karger's personal email, so that you can address your technical questions directly to him (we'll send it to you in a private message, if we obtain it). In the meantime, here is a more general quote from him:
 
"For more than 30 years I have investigated plasmaphysical and paraphysical phenomena and have come into contact with questions concerning the very existence of man. The Natural Laws described by Abd-ru-shin (Oskar Ernst Bernhardt) in "In the Light of Truth" have been confirmed in all my research and are the basis of explanation for any question regarding Creation. Bernhardt's book has become, for me, the working manual or physics textbook for the material world." (Friedbert Karger)

As for Stephen Lampe's article ("Bible Accounts that Suggest Reincarnation"), he quotes nothing out of context, because he provides full context for all of his biblical quotes. Here again, the confusion is entirely on your part, not Mr. Lampe's: John the Baptist never reincarnated back into Elijah (such absurdity is not possible, nor is it suggested by Mr. Lampe); the disciples' vision of the Transfiguration of Christ was no illusion (but neither was it His physical body that they saw!).

To bring this exchange to a meaningful conclusion, here is Abd-ru-shin's response to all of humanity:

FINAL DECLARATION

"I am absolutely indifferent to what people say about my Message and my answers to questions. Indifferent as to whether they like them or not. I am just as little moved by the warmest acknowledgements as by wellmeaning letters of advice or even embittered attacks, whether they be of a decent or a contemptible nature. I know that for many human spirits the hour is no longer far distant when, from anguish of soul, they will forcibly break through the limitation of their inability to comprehend. Only by this means will they then learn to understand and to comprehend my words, which they must do if they do not want to perish in their present entanglement.


I go my way, untouched by friendship or hatred. Therefore I do not understand all the excitement of individuals and of whole groups; for whoever does not want my Word has only to leave It alone! After all, I do not force It on anyone, nor have I any intention of making a 'business' of It. Let each one see for himself what he can make of It." (Abd-ru-shin)




5/8/2006, 11:49 pm Link to this post Send Email to questers   Send PM to questers
 
Djibril Sadiq Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Registered: 05-2006
Posts: 3
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


quote:

Narek wrote:

I have only stated Newton's law of gravitation: a well-known law verified experimentally.



Well, let's not forget, though a scientist Newton had a deep belief in a higher power/God though in a very mystical sense. And read the bible daily as well. To quote "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
5/10/2006, 8:38 am Link to this post Send Email to Djibril Sadiq   Send PM to Djibril Sadiq
 
Narek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 14
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


I agree: the nature of gravity is unknown. BUT. I could make up dozens of theories which could explain the nature of gravity because nobody would be able to check those theories. The difference between science and mysticism is that science is based on experiment whereas mysticism is based on someone's authority. When you try to argue with mystics they always try to impress you with authorities. The reason is simple: lack of rational arguments. The questions I raised in my previous posts remain unanswered. Please read them carefully.

I am not trying to convert or to demonise anyone. Believe me, my ambitions are much more modest. There are many things I do not understand. I admit that and I am not ashamed of that. Science teaches us to listen, to be patient, self-critical and persistent. I do not pretend to be a Nietzsche, Mohammad or Abd-ru-shin. Let's avoid the prophetic tone. Otherwise we can have no meaningful discussion.

My main statement is that the concept of reincarnation and the concept of God are mutually exclusive. The ancient people were clever enough to understand that. The fear of earthly suffering and the resulting struggle to overcome pain and suffering lie at the heart of Buddhism. This type of fear is opposite to the fear of God. The first type of fear destroys the fear of God (and vice versa). This is why there is no God in Buddhism. Reincarnation is needed to explain suffering in the absence of God. It becomes unnecessary and meaningless in the presence of God. How could Abd-ru-shin not see the dichotomy?

Last edited by Narek, 5/10/2006, 5:19 pm
5/10/2006, 10:54 am Link to this post Send Email to Narek   Send PM to Narek
 
questers Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 74
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


A statement that "the concept of reincarnation and the concept of God are mutually exclusive" falls under a classic definition of a theory and should be left at that.

For the record, "In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message" contains no mysticism whatever. Only rational explanations of cosmic phenomena are presented to those, who are willing to grasp them with their brain as well as with their spirit. The Laws of Nature (not mystical theories) form the basis for all explanations. That's why a plasmaphysicist, like Dr. Karger, can use them as a "physics textbook for the material world." Yet everything is conveyed in a simple language, so that even a farmer can follow the logical progression of the most complicated cosmological events.

"In all Creation there is no justification whatever for mysticism! There is no room for it, because everything should lie clearly and without gaps before the human spirit, right back to its origin." (Abd-ru-shin, "IN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH: THE GRAIL MESSAGE", chapter "Errors")

"There need not and must not be any mystery within Creation for man! For God wills that His Laws working in Creation should be quite familiar to man, so that he can adjust himself accordingly, and with their help can complete and fulfil his course through the world more easily and without ignorantly going astray!" (Abd-ru-shin, "IN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH: THE GRAIL MESSAGE", chapter "Father, Forgive Them, For They Know Not What They Do!")

Since relying on authorities can never result in genuine conviction, The Grail Message urges the readers to examine inwardly what it offers, instead of focusing on the personality of the author. No attempts at conversion are ever made, because each human being is endowed with a free will and is himself responsible for all of his decisions. Therefore, whoever finds nothing in The Grail Message, can simply continue on his path.

5/11/2006, 12:22 am Link to this post Send Email to questers   Send PM to questers
 
NPCoombs Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 32
Karma: 3 (+3/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


quote:

questers
For the record, "In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message" contains no mysticism whatever. Only rational explanations of cosmic phenomena are presented to those, who are willing to grasp them with their brain as well as with their spirit.



I'm pretty open minded, but I struggled to see any rational progression in the text. It seemed to me like one author's opinion (which it is) and if it is anything else it would have to be 'mystical revelation' otherwise all it is is just ontological self-defined being conjured from language itself.

Wasn't Heidegger writing similar works around the same time?

5/12/2006, 7:08 am Link to this post Send Email to NPCoombs   Send PM to NPCoombs
 
NPCoombs Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 32
Karma: 3 (+3/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about science


quote:

Narek mysticism is based on someone's authority.



I would argue that it is generally the opposite. Mysticism in the protestant tradition has generally worked as a subversive force undermining the authority of the Church. Mystics in the reformation claimed to contact and form a relationship with God by cutting out the infrastructure of organized religion and reinterpreting the texts to fit their own mystical experiences.

Every 'mystic' will emphasize their own unique experience of divine contact.

 

5/12/2006, 7:12 am Link to this post Send Email to NPCoombs   Send PM to NPCoombs
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)