Just because the blender doesn't exist without me doesn't mean it's a part of me. There MAY be an argument that it includes elements FROM me, but that's abotu it, and that's a MAYBE. Case in point, if the logger doesn't exist, someone else will create paper. If there is no sun, there is NOTHING, much less paper. All you explained is the theory of cause and effect - but that doesn't conclude that everything is made of everything else. It just concludes that the paper is the effect of several causes. You smack someone in th ehead, it causes a headache. That doesn't mean you are a part of the headache and the headache is a part of you. It just means that you smacked someone in the head (cause) and they got a headache (effect). You are not physically a part of this headache and vice versa. Who created the conditions present for you to manifest? You know where I'm going with this. Who created cause and effect? Who created the laws of science? Gravity? Who created the universe? Where is the source according to your beliefs?
Name one thing is is not made from everything else. In science, the theory of the conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. The whole cosmos can be seen, can be identified, can be touched, in one balde of grass.
the problem is that science, like religion, is a construct that tends to prejudice us against tolerance. most "ologies" contain considerable merit but it is essential to remain open to the concept that they are possibly wrong.
I understand, I was just using it as an example. Emptiness is Form refers to a Buddhist text called the Heart Sutra, which is the distillation of all teachings on Emptiness. Emptiness in Buddhism refers not to nothingness, but to the inherent lack of independent existence of all phenomena - both mental and physical. In the case of physical phenomena, the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh explains, "You are only made of non-you elements". That is, your body is composed entirely of non-body elements - dirt, plants, decomposed bodies, stardust, etc. Thinking about the human body in this way one may come to understand that independent existence is a mental construction, unverified by physical interrogation. In a similar way, one can explore the boundaries between physical objects. For example, the specific line between your body and the rest of the world is unidentifiable and indefinable. Your body dissolves into the world around it, both losing microscopic particles and absorbing particles of the "outside world" through your skin, orifices and senses. Furthermore, as many philosophers and scientists note, if you remove parts of your body, you do not become any less "you" - e.g. when you get a haircut, or, much worse, lose a limb. Finally, your mind is composed of thoughts, ideas and perceptions which are understood through the language you learned, the culture you were raised in and the people you encountered. Thus, the notion that any part of you, or "you" itself, exists independent of the world, even your thoughts, is purely a mental construction.
Meowgi -- there is a physical reality that affects the "you" in you. people without the reality of nutrition have the "you" affected. people without water have the "you" affected. people who suffer brain damage have the "you" affected.
The point is, it had to be created in the first place. Once it was created, it couldn't be destroyed, just transformed. Who created the laws that govern the theory of the conservation of matter and energy?
the problem is that your world view is closed. while i might not see things like MadMax, JuanValdez, and even if my own views most closely resemble Mr. Meowgi's, i won't hesitate to agree or disagree with them on anything. i have respect for their thoughtfulness but none for yours.
The laws that govern the theory of the conservation of matter and energy were created becasue the condtitions were present for them to come into existance. Sorry, I don't get what you are saying Max.
Uhuh... So what's wrong with me saying that a fact is not up for debate? Are we going to debate that a circle is round?
I don't know exactly and I don't think it is necessary to know. Knowing how it happened won't help to bring peace into the present moment. But I do think it was another case of cause and effect.
My take on gay marriage is, that the government should issue certificate to them, since they are recognizing and protecting their rights. But they should not be allowed to get married in the churches, coz that's not up to the government, nothing about the rights, but more about the religion. It's not supported in the Bible, and of course not supported in the church. Just like you have the right to smoke, but you can't smoke in the library.
I think Marriage should be taken out of the Government hands PERIOD I think all those nice perks one gets for being married should be REVOKED it is discrimination against single people. Rocket River
Aside from the discount on auto insurance when a young man gets married (I'm not sure if the girls get that one) and the ability to insure my spouse through my work insurance cheaper than I could if she wasn't my spouse, I can't think of any. With respect to government "perks" I don't know of too many. Tax wise, it's not that much of a break with the exception of claiming a spouse as a dependant.
no, because this is something we agree on. let's say that a circle is like the nucleus of an atom. just to make an analogy, we 'll say that this and the number of particles surrounding it is your "element," your world view. but Sane, there are many other atoms out there, they form molecules and more and more complex structures. with or without your blessings you are part of a system of interlocking circles. this is humanity and we all choose how much of it we want to participate in. homosexuality is a part of humanity and always has been. religion and science are parts of it as well. it's a live and let live thing with me.
