The Ark of the Covenant: Fact or Fiction.

[mojo]

I guess most people know that the Ark of the Covenant has been widely claimed to be kept in Ethiopia for quite some time now.
This article on the Smithsonian magazine website adds alot more colour and detail to the story, whether you believe that is where the ark is kept or if in fact you believe that there is an Ark it still makes for fascinating reading.
It remains that there are still many unanswered questions.

Enjoy.

Keepers of the Lost Ark? (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html)


According to the First Book of Kings, King Solomon built the First Temple in Jerusalem to house the ark. It was venerated there during Solomon's reign (c. 970-930 B.C.) and beyond.
Then it vanished. Much of Jewish tradition holds that it disappeared before or while the Babylonians sacked the temple in Jerusalem in 586 B.C.
But through the centuries, Ethiopian Christians have claimed that the ark rests in a chapel in the small town of Aksum, in their country's northern highlands. It arrived nearly 3,000 years ago, they say, and has been guarded by a succession of virgin monks who, once anointed, are forbidden to set foot outside the chapel grounds until they die.

Lake Tana (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html?c=y&page=2)


Then Abba Gebre added: "The baby Jesus and Mary spent ten days here during their long exile from Israel." It was after King Herod ordered the death of all boys under the age of 2 in Bethlehem, he said. "Would you like to see the place where they often sat?"
I followed him up a wooded path and onto a ridge where a pair of young monks were standing by a small shrine, their eyes closed in prayer. Abba Gebre pointed to the shrine. "That's where Jesus and Mary sat each day while they were here."
"What proof do you have that they came here?" I asked.
He looked at me with what appeared to be tender sympathy and said: "We don't need proof because it's a fact. The monks here have passed this down for centuries."

Gonder (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html?c=y&page=3)


As the clerics began to walk down a rocky pathway toward a piazza at the center of town (a legacy of Italy's occupation of Ethiopia in the 1930s), they were hemmed in by perhaps 1,000 more chanting and ululating devotees. At the piazza, the procession joined clerics carrying tabots from seven other churches. Together they set off farther downhill, with the trailing throng swelling into the thousands, with thousands more lining the road. About five miles later, the priests stopped beside a pool of murky water in a park.

Aksum (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html?c=y&page=4)


Ahead was a towering stele, or column, 79 feet high and said to weigh 500 tons. Like other fallen and standing steles nearby, it was carved from a single slab of granite, perhaps as early as the first or second century A.D. Legend has it that the ark of the covenant's supreme power sliced it out of the rock and set it into place.
On our way to the chapel where the ark is said to be kept, we passed Sheba's bath again and saw about 50 people in white shawls crouched near the water. A boy had drowned there shortly before, and his parents and other relatives were waiting for the body to surface. "They say it will take one to two days," Abbay said. "They know this because many other boys have drowned here while swimming. They believe the curse has struck again."

The Guardian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html?c=y&page=5)


He wore an olive-colored robe, dark pillbox turban and sandals. He glanced warily at me with deep-set eyes. Through the bars he held out a wooden cross painted yellow, touching my forehead with it in a blessing and pausing as I kissed the top and bottom in the traditional way.
I asked his name.
"I'm the guardian of the ark," he said, with the priest translating. "I have no other name."

The mystery lingers on. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html?c=y&page=6)


But the reality of the ark, like a vision in the moonlight, floated just beyond my grasp, and so the millennia-old mystery remained. As the devotion of the worshipers at Timkat and the monks at Tana Kirkos came back to me in the shimmering light, I decided that simply being in the presence of this eternal mystery was a fitting ending to my quest.

This link claims the Ark has been found and is in fact part of the treasure discovered by Howard Carter in King Tut's tomb.

www.lexiline (http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi80.htm), the text detailing its hiding in the Mishnayot.

And a picture of the Ark they say was found in Tut-ankh-amun's tomb. (http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi222.htm)

The Mercy seat of the Tabernacle (http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi333.htm)

Other links to pictures and various objects on each page.

Moses copied an Ark that he had seen in Egypt?.

Then there is this theory that suggests that the Ark is hidden on or around Mt Nebo. Link (http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/where-is-the-ark-of-the-covenant-faq.htm), but this may be about as reliable as Ron Wyatt's evidence, ie none. :D


Some people believe that the Ark is hidden somewhere in or around Mt. Nebo on the Jordan River's east bank. In the apocryphal Second Maccabees, chapter 2, verses 1-8, we read how the prophet Jeremiah "following a divine revelation, ordered that the tent [i.e. the tabernacle of meeting] and the ark [i.e. the ark of the covenant] should accompany him and how he went off to the mountain which Moses climbed to see God's inheritance [i.e. Mt. Nebo; see Deuteronomy 31:1-4]. When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance." (vv. 4-5) There is some debate as to whether or not this second-hand account (see v. 1) is trustworthy.

Anyway seems to be a lot of differing opinions on where it is and what it is. Other sites include under Tara in Ireland, in the Vaticans secret storerooms, Roslyn Chapel in Scotland and under the Temple Mount.

One thing that i find interesting is that in all the time that it has supposedly been held in Ethiopia is why it has never been captured or stolen in all that time. I mean there have been numerous wars, rebellions and changes of government in all that time.

Anyone willing to put together a team of mercenarys and drop in there in the dead of night and steal it away, surely others over the past 3000 years have thought of doing something similar, particularly if its as powerful as stated.

Was a copy purposefully sent to Ethiopia by Solomon to ensure the real Arks safety.

Is the Ark real, is it in Ethiopia, if not where?

mojo

[JiveTurkey]

i actually do happen to believe in the Ark.


I don't believe in the mysticism surrounding it...but it makes perfect sense that there was an actual ark.


What are your opinions on the Ark being found in Tut's tomb mojo?


J


Edit to add: DOH! Missed that part haha.



J

[mojo]

I think the ark found in Tuts tomb was the actual ark that the judeo/christians based their ark on.
Whether they actually made one or not im not sure.
Id love to know what the Ethiopians are actually guarding!

[Martian Exile]

Please forgive me for a lengthy preamble.

One day, long before the history or discovery channel came into being, I was enjoying a fine cigar, good scotch, a wingback chair, and the company of fellow law school students after class. The purpose of the cigars was to run off the broads. We were talking about all sorts of cool shit, when the professor told me I should study Theology to better understand the law, and to be more rounded. I stated that I would study it when I could hold the original documents in my hand, that revisionist history is nothing new, man has practiced it since the dawn of time.

As I was driving home (an old hanger at an abandoned WWII bomber strip in the Mojave Desert) I passed by an old crumbling Catholic Church, and something hit me. Priests commit to seminary for 12 years of study. I pulled off the road to the weed filled parking lot. The place looked is if it had been abandoned for years. I knocked on the door not expecting anyone, but an old padre answered the door. I told him of my quest, he smiled and beckoned I come in. Thus began a wonderful friendship. His congregation was down to six, none of them spoke English, none of them cared to chat with a lonely old man. He was seeking companionship, and I the truth. (Not religion, just the truth.)

He brought me into large cluttered room filled with books. Marvelous books. He spoke Aramaic, ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin, Old French, and German. That day he took a dusty book from a self, a book of photographic plates of the Dead Sea scrolls. He then began to read strait from the Aramaic, and compared the words to the King James. I ended up studying under him for six years.

One night I had the most magnificent dream, I could actually feel the hot desert wind, and smell the stink of camel slobber. I was dreaming that I was searching for the Arc of the Covenant. It was an unbelievably realistic dream. In the dream, I found the Arc in Ethiopia. I told the old man about it. He smiled, and I heard from him an amazing tale of the tryst of an Israeli king, and an Ethiopian queen. Of how the queen ferried it home for safekeeping, and of how the Knights Templar came upon it during the Crusades.

The Ethiopians have an advantage. No one takes them seriously. If no one believes it is real, no one is going to stage an armed attack to steel it. The thought of simple monks guarding such a treasure for millenniums is one of the most romantic notions I can think of. Do I believe? Yes I do. As I said in another thread, I believe in the Lock Ness Monster, because it is fun to believe in the Lock Ness Monster.

[anarch]

hmm fact or fiction?

[Nephy]

The ark if it exists is most likely NOT what most people believe it to be.

[Lexion]

It's a drum.

[BE2]

The Ark of the Covenant: Fact or Fiction.i vote 'fiction.' let's have a poll.

[FancyFree]

The ark if it exists is most likely NOT what most people believe it to be.

I agree, Nephy.

[egg]

The ark is clearly described in the old testament. If it exists, we know what it is.

[BE2]

what is it?

[Lexion]

The ark is clearly described in the old testament. If it exists, we know what it is.

Yes, but the New Testament says the Old
is full of shit.

And the Mormans say Jesus walked across
the Atlantic and preached to John.

[egg]

Yes, but the New Testament says the Old
is full of shit.

And the Mormans say Jesus walked across
the Atlantic and preached to John.

They're all right.

[BE2]

actually- what christ said about the torah- 'i come not to overturn it but to fulfill it.' i think Lex never read either one.

[egg]

actually- what christ said about the torah- 'i come not to overturn it but to fulfill it.' i think Lex never read either one.

Yeah, pretty much everything that hippy said came straight out of the Old Testament.

God, just became much kinder in the New Testament.

[Lexion]

actually- what christ said about the torah- 'i come not to overturn it but to fulfill it.' i think Lex never read either one.

You know better.

[BE2]

i do?

[Lexion]

You should.

[BE2]

OK. The Gospels According to Lex-


the New Testament says the Old
is full of shit.It would have been more efective had it referenced chapter and verse though.

[egg]

More people would have read it and understood it if that's what it said.

[Nephy]

The ark is clearly described in the old testament. If it exists, we know what it is.
You are assuming that the old testament can be taken literally at face value.
If you take something and translate it 10,000 times in as many different languages will all them really say the same thing as the original?

[egg]

You are assuming that the old testament can be taken literally at face value.
If you take something and translate it 10,000 times in as many different languages will all them really say the same thing as the original?

The original is in Hebrew and can be translated properly. It wasn't translated 10,000 times unless you read it in another language.

[Lexion]

Hey, Sitchin got Sumerian right
the first time.

[BE2]

You are assuming that the old testament can be taken literally at face value.
If you take something and translate it 10,000 times in as many different languages will all them really say the same thing as the original?
the late bronze age Hebrew version is still extant. that was a truly dumb comment.

[egg]

Hey, Sitchin got Sumerian right
the first time.

Yup, that only applies to Genesis. No ark in Genesis.

[BE2]

i'm not sure Sitchin got anything right. but i enjoy his books.

[Lexion]

I was being sarcastic.

[FancyFree]

You are assuming that the old testament can be taken literally at face value.


Agreed again. :)

[egg]

Hey, Sitchin got Sumerian right
the first time.

Sumerian is a dead language. Hebrew isn't. Even though it's changed somewhat, they're a plenty of scholars, in an unbroken line, that can translate it.

[Nephy]

the late bronze age Hebrew version is still extant. that was a truly dumb comment.
So anything that is very old.. and was reprinted and distributed must contain truth? Do you just accept everything your told at face value? When I say literally lets put this in context. How do you describe something you don't understand? How accurate can it be? And yes translations do not stay true to the original.. If you take something from the source.. you are doing the best you can, but even at that.. you are reading something that may well be a very failed attempt at describing something that was beyond understanding to the writer.

Hey wait.. you think if I add an insult about your assessment of my comment that it will make me seem or feel smarter than you?

hmm nope. Just makes me an ass.

[BE2]

so?

[egg]

So anything that is very old.. and was reprinted and distributed must contain truth? Do you just accept everything your told at face value? When I say literally lets put this in context. How do you describe something you don't understand? How accurate can it be? And yes translations do not stay true to the original.. If you take something from the source.. you are doing the best you can, but even at that.. you are reading something that may well be a very failed attempt at describing something that was beyond understanding to the writer.

We translate languages every day and get along quite fine in the world doing it.

As for it being the truth, who knows?

[BE2]

Agreed again. :)
You agree? Did the Egg ever say that " that the old testament can be taken literally at face value.?" If you read that I musta missed it.

[BE2]

And yes translations do not stay true to the original.The original is still available- written around 700 BC.

[egg]

The original is still available- written around 700 BC.

Exactly. No different than translating the Koran or foreign business documents, for that matter. You just need a good translator.

[FancyFree]

The ark is clearly described in the old testament. If it exists, we know what it is.

I believe this is the statement we're trying to debate.

[egg]

I believe this is the statement we're trying to debate.

What part of the statement? That it exists? That it is what is described in the Tanakh? That the translations are correct?

[Nephy]

I believe this is the statement we're trying to debate.
Exactly.

[Lexion]

You just need a good translator.

Which is where Sitchin fucked up.

[egg]

Which is where Sitchin fucked up.

That's a whole different story.

[BE2]

I believe this is the statement we're trying to debate.
Let me explain the obvious. We have the description of the means and methods and the materials of it's construction as recorded in Exodus. That happens to be a true statement. That is all we know about it. It may or may not be accurate and the Egg is certainly aware of that fact.

[Nephy]

What part of the statement? That it exists? That it is what is described in the Tanakh? That the translations are correct?
That we know what it is based on the descriptions given. The description was given originally by people who knew very little, who lived in a time that mankind was relatively in the dark when it came to things of science. If they did not understand what they were seeing exactly then their description of it cannot be exact enough to actually acurately depict what it is. Because perhaps, they had no clue.

[egg]

Let me explain the obvious. We have the description of the means and methods and the materials of it's construction as recorded in Exodus. That happens to be a true statement. That is all we know about it. It may or may not be accurate and the Egg is certainly aware of that fact.

Exactly. Not to mention, that the ancient Hebrews came from Egypt where there were a million arks of similar construction.

[egg]

That we know what it is based on the descriptions given. The description was given originally by people who knew very little, who lived in a time that mankind was relatively in the dark when it came to things of science. If they did not understand what they were seeing exactly then their description of it cannot be exact enough to actually acurately depict what it is. Because perhaps, they had no clue.

Yeah, I see where you're going with this. I have no problem with imagining what it could have been. See my post below the one I'm quoting of yours.

The ancient Egyptians had their own arks for their own gods. The ancient Hebrews lived under them. They probably just copied their style of worship in certain ways.

[FancyFree]

It may or may not be accurate and the Egg is certainly aware of that fact.

This is what we're trying to say. It may not be accurate. You just said it yourself.

[BE2]

duh

[Nephy]

Let me explain the obvious. We have the description of the means and methods and the materials of it's construction as recorded in Exodus. That happens to be a true statement. That is all we know about it. It may or may not be accurate and the Egg is certainly aware of that fact.
If egg was aware of that... then they would not have said..


Originally Posted by egg http://amkon.net/Styles/alien_nation/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://amkon.net/showthread.php?p=505810#post505810)
The ark is clearly described in the old testament. If it exists, we know what it is.

[egg]

This is what we're trying to say. It may not be accurate. You just said it yourself.

There also may have been no Ark, at all. No Moses, no Joshua, No Jericho, etc.

[egg]

If egg was aware of that... then they would not have said..
[/I]

I can take any piece of recorded possible history and dispute the facts of its possible existence.

Maybe the Trojan Horse was a Trojan Camel.

[Nephy]

BTW why is BE2 speaking for Egg anyway?
seems to me egg is capable of speaking for themselves.

[Trauma Teased]

The ancient Egyptians had their own arks for their own gods. The ancient Hebrews lived under them. They probably just copied their style of worship in certain ways.

Indeed. This "ark" was found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

http://amkon.net/picture.php?albumid=49&pictureid=460

[BE2]

If egg was aware of that... then they would not have said..
[/I]


If it exists, we know what it is (said to be).Better?

[egg]

Indeed. This "ark" was found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

http://amkon.net/picture.php?albumid=49&pictureid=460

Exactly.

[egg]

BTW why is BE2 speaking for Egg anyway?
seems to me egg is capable of speaking for themselves.

I guess he just agrees, like Fancy agrees with you.

[BE2]

BTW why is BE2 speaking for Egg anyway?
seems to me egg is capable of speaking for themselves.
Because the Egg is an idiot and I'm a nice guy.

[egg]

Because the Egg is an idiot and I'm a nice guy.

At least 1/2 of that statement is incorrect. I'll leave it up to you (ustedes/vosotros) to pick which one. :D

[BE2]

Indeed. This "ark" was found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

http://amkon.net/picture.php?albumid=49&pictureid=460
wtf? source? that thing sure looks like it.

[BE2]

At least 1/2 of that statement is incorrect. I'll leave it up to you (ustedes/vosotros) to pick which one. :D
:lol:

[egg]

wtf? source? that thing sure looks like it.

Just replace the animal with Cherubim and you got it.

Add some gold, too.

[egg]

Nephy, forgetting about the text, what do you think the Ark might have been, then?

[Trauma Teased]

wtf? source? that thing sure looks like it.

Holy Thor, what a nit pick.

http://www.crystalinks.com/ark.html

Here you go!
:D

Edit cause my first link was lousy, suddenly didn't work anymore. But that pic can be found a lot of places. It IS real, Mr. Kluthead.

[BE2]

Holy Thor, what a nit pick.

http://www.crystalinks.com/ark.html

Here you go!
:D

Edit cause my first link was lousy, suddenly didn't work anymore. But that pic can be found a lot of places. It IS real, Mr. Kluthead.Thanks. Considering that Tut lived around the period as the exodus and that this kind of contraption was obviously in use by the Egyptians at that time- it would seem to at least give a bit of credence to the biblical description. Nice find, Mrs Teased. You're not as useless as I thought.

[egg]

Thanks. Considering that Tut lived around the period as the exodus and that this kind of contraption was obviously in use by the Egyptians at that time- it would seem to at least give a bit of credence to the biblical description. Nice find, Mrs Teased. You're not as useless as I thought.

Hey, what about me, you dried up douchebag? It was my point to begin with!!!!

:D

[BE2]

On the other hand- modern archaeology seems to be vectoring on the opinion that the Exodus was not a specific event but rather a migration that took place over a period of years. I tend to agree with this revisionist school.

[BE2]

Hey, what about me, you dried up douchebag? It was my point to begin with!!!!

:D
ok. jeezizz.. you suck a little less than an hour ago. happy now?

[egg]

On the other hand- modern archaeology seems to be vectoring on the opinion that the Exodus was not a specific event but rather a migration that took place over a period of years. I tend to agree with this revisionist school.

Ever hear of the Sea of Reeds and the tablets found there?

The Yam Suph
"Red Sea" or "Sea of Reeds"?

Dennis Bratcher

There has long been debate about the account of the crossing of the sea in Exodus 13-15, including the number of people, the route taken, the date, etc. For some, these details, none of which are clear from Scripture, have become the battleground for arguing about the inerrancy of Scripture and, indeed, about the very nature of Scripture itself. Of course some simply discount the entire account as tribal legend told to justify the worship of a certain deity. However, for those who want to take the Bible seriously as Scripture, such a central biblical account cannot be so easily dismissed as little more than fanciful fiction.

That commitment to the Bible as Scripture for the Church demands a more careful and reasoned approach to understanding the nature of the account and what it says to us as Scripture. Yet, a careful examination of the exodus account raises questions even among those committed to the Bible as Scripture. While there are various issues, one of the points of debate is the geographical location of the exit from the land and the route taken by the liberated slaves (see also Date of the Exodus).

Some want to preserve a very narrowly literal reading of the exodus narrative. So, for example, many adamantly argue that the point of exit from the land was across the Red Sea "as the Bible clearly says" (at least in some translations). This would mean that the Hebrews journeyed far to the south and before turning across the Red Sea into the Sinai peninsula. Some like to point out the great width of the sea as a further proof of the miraculous nature of the escape, since the Red Sea averages about 150 miles wide.

However, even among those who believe in a more literal perspective of the account of the crossing recognize that this is much too far for a large company to traverse in a single night. The miracle emphasized in the biblical account is the parting of the waters, not the speed at which they crossed or the amount of land covered. It is also a problem that the main body of the Red Sea lies much too far to the south to be reached by a large company of people in such a short span of time. So most would want to contend for the northwestern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez, which is only about 17 miles wide at its narrowest point. This would mean a more northerly route for the exodus with a later turn to the south into the Sinai. But this still raises questions of logistics for the large company of people portrayed in the biblical account.

Read it all, here. It's worth it.

http://www.crivoice.org/yamsuph.html

[egg]

ok. jeezizz.. you suck a little less than an hour ago. happy now?

Yeah.

[BE2]

Points also made by Israel Finkelstein. Steal his book. Here's a review (http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm). Who says there's no progress in modern archeology?

[egg]

Points also made by Israel Finkelstein. Steal his book. Here's a review (http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm). Who says there's no progress in modern archeology?

Israel Finkelstein? He's Hindu?

[BE2]

Finkelstein's book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FBJG86/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0684869136&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=16DX75FHH4FD6VD1FQDR). $10 bucks Get the fucking thing.

[egg]

But, I'm talking more about the glyptic art found on stones describing the Exodus through the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea.
http://www.bibleprobe.com/inscript-lg.jpg

There are more, here:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

[BE2]

Nice link. Damn I love biblical archaeology.

[egg]

It's good stuff. Basically they found these glyphs describing the Exodus, right near the Reed Sea (if memory serves). It's pretty much on point with the biblical account.

[BE2]

Well there may have been many sporadic rebellions but I think the bible squoze out the juice and zeitgheisted the whole schmere. zee?

[BE2]

what's a good myth without that process?

[Cogburn]

That we know what it is based on the descriptions given. The description was given originally by people who knew very little, who lived in a time that mankind was relatively in the dark when it came to things of science.

You're kidding, right? The only fact in evidence which supports your statement is Western hubris.

For all you're modern "knowledge" you wouldn't survive a week in their time.

[BE2]

You're kidding, right? The only fact in evidence which supports your statement is Western hubris.

For all you're modern "knowledge" you wouldn't survive a week in their time.
Go get her, Commander!

[BE2]

christ it's good to see you show sometimes.

[Cogburn]

Hahah... I'ts a pet-peeve.

That kind of thinking is part and parcel of a Western-centric education.

The Classical world functioned quite nicely for a thousand years and without modern gadgetry.

I guess the Library at Alexandria was just filled w/ Bronze Age manga.

[Trauma Teased]

The Classical world functioned quite nicely for a thousand years and without modern gadgetry that is basically just polluting and fucking up the planet.




Indeed-fixt.

[BE2]

what Mrs Teased said.

[BE2]

This just in!

Viking takes claim to bowling alley. More on this story as it develops.

http://amkon.net/image.php?u=1415&dateline=1284397544

[Nephy]

Nephy, forgetting about the text, what do you think the Ark might have been, then?Not sure. But I do feel that the ancients worshipped that which they did not understand and was beyond their knowledge. If presented with technology of some kind from being more advanced than they were, they would not know how to properly explain it, and they would likely view the more advanced beings as gods or angels or demons.. it was the mentality of that time. BTW please don't read more into this statement than is stated. The origin of the more advanced beings, human or otherwise has many possibilities other than the first obvious conclusions.

[BE2]

But I do feel that the ancients worshipped that which they did not understand and was beyond their knowledgesomething's changed? i must've missed the memo.

[Nephy]

You're kidding, right? The only fact in evidence which supports your statement is Western hubris.

For all you're modern "knowledge" you wouldn't survive a week in their time.That has absolutely no relevance to the point I was making.

[egg]

Well there may have been many sporadic rebellions but I think the bible squoze out the juice and zeitgheisted the whole schmere. zee?

Probably. It is quite a schmere. Leaves me with heartburn, though. :D

[century]

Freeman TV :Templar Origins of Freemasonry
4775729603895673174

[BE2]

Probably. It is quite a schmere. Leaves me with heartburn, though. :D
that's cuz you bought the schmaltz thinking it was cream cheese. easy mistake. i've done it myself a few times.

[egg]

Not sure. But I do feel that the ancients worshipped that which they did not understand and was beyond their knowledge. If presented with technology of some kind from being more advanced than they were, they would not know how to properly explain it, and they would likely view the more advanced beings as gods or angels or demons.. it was the mentality of that time. BTW please don't read more into this statement than is stated. The origin of the more advanced beings, human or otherwise has many possibilities other than the first obvious conclusions.

That's a possibility. It's also possible that, if true, the more advanced beings may have explained the technology to those they gave it to. Just like people think that much of the tech we use today comes from more advanced beings, but there are people here who can explain its science/function and replicate it.

I like this sort of stuff, and will not bash you for it. I've spent many an hour thinking about the exact same things.

[Nephy]

You know I think I have been pretty clear and direct with what I am trying to say. I see people twisting it and arguing things that are unrelated. I have stated my opinion.. and you know what it is as much as you want to disuade and pretend you don't get it.
It is what it is. That is my view on it. make of it what you will. agree, disagree, but don't pretend you don't understand what I mean, I know you are all more intelligient than that.

[BE2]

Freeman TV :Templar Origins of Freemasonry


shut the fuck up, Century. who asked you?

[egg]

That has absolutely no relevance to the point I was making.

Mmmmm..... it might. Technology is not entirely linear. For all we know, the ancients may have had ways to move stones so heavy that we don't know how they did it today, with ancient technology lost to us.

We think we're more advanced in most ways technologically, we don't know.

[egg]

You know I think I have been pretty clear and direct with what I am trying to say. I see people twisting it and arguing things that are unrelated. I have stated my opinion.. and you know what it is as much as you want to disuade and pretend you don't get it.
It is what it is. That is my view on it. make of it what you will. agree, disagree, but don't pretend you don't understand what I mean, I know you are all more intelligient than that.

I haven't tried to twist anything you've said.

[Lexion]

I haven't tried to twist anything you've said.

Actually, she's dancing around what she
is really wanting to say.

Attempting to make others say it.

Tried and true ATS tactic.

[Nephy]

I haven't tried to twist anything you've said.It wasn't directed at any one person specifically. was just a statement.

[BE2]

I know you are all more intelligient than that.
Assume at you're own risk.

[egg]

Assume at you're own risk.

:lol:

[BE2]

Nippy needs a sense of humour.

[egg]

She'll get used to it here. Either that, or it will just be the same 20-30 usual posters soon enough. ;)

[BE2]

yeah but you gotta admit- Tut was a crack up.

[egg]

Yeah, but he really knew how to drive people away.

[Cogburn]

It's not a matter of twisting your argument, Nephy.

It's a function of the fact your argument was poorly presented, unsupported, and ill-defended.

Welcome to AmKon.

[FancyFree]

The ark is clearly described in the old testament. If it exists, we know what it is.

Again.....this is the only statement Nephy and I were disagreeing with. We are simply trying to state our opinions that we don't believe we can know for sure what the ark truly is. Do you take everything said in the old testament as gospel and word for word face value?

[BE2]

. Do you take everything said in the old testament as gospel and word for word face value?Oh you know I do! Praise the Load!

[egg]

Again.....this is the only statement Nephy and I were disagreeing with. We are simply trying to state our opinions that we don't believe we can know for sure what the ark truly is. Do you take everything said in the old testament as gospel and word for word face value?

Already said, I don't. But, the mistranslation thing is most probably not correct. There's also plenty of circumstantial evidence (see - Egyptian arks, above) that it is probably exactly what it was written as being.

[egg]

Oh you know I do! Praise the Load!

:lol: "Praise the load!!!"

[BE2]

Already said, I don't. But, the mistranslation thing is most probably not correct. There's also plenty of circumstantial evidence (see - Egyptian arks, above) that it is probably exactly what it was written as being.circumcisal evidence aside, that was a pretty awkward locution. gotta admit...

[egg]

circumcisal evidence aside, that was a pretty awkward locution. gotta admit...

How's this locution:

Go fuck yourself.

Better?

[BE2]

that gives new meaning to 'praise the load.' good work.

[egg]

:lol:

[BE2]

thanks to you and Cogburn, Nippy has performed a koidal evaporation. proud of yourselves?

[egg]

thanks to you and Cogburn, Nippy has performed a koidal evaporation. proud of yourselves?

Thanks to me? I didn't insult her, I think that was you.

[BE2]

moi???

[egg]

Sorry, I must have mistaken you with somebody else.

Do you write them down, memorize them or do you just riff?

[Trauma Teased]

thanks to you and Cogburn, Nippy has performed a koidal evaporation.

Don't count on it. Some girls are tougher than you think.

Haven't seen the Housewife around lately, though.
:p

[BE2]

Don't count on it. Some girls are tougher than you think.

Haven't seen the Housewife around lately, though.
:p
she'll be back to bite your sorry ass. mark my words.

[Trauma Teased]

she'll be back to bite your sorry ass. mark my words.

Oh, I look forward to it, trust me.
:D

[century]

Me to

[Trauma Teased]

Me to

LOL, I am so not gonna ask why!

[century]

Love the Avatar, you look so controlling

[BE2]

Oh, I look forward to it, trust me.
:D
holy shit. my two favorite nutters duking it out. i won't survive it. and maybe that's the meaning of my life. who can say?

[egg]

holy shit. my two favorite nutters duking it out. i won't survive it. and maybe that's the meaning of my life. who can say?

Death by cat-fight! I can think of worse ways to go. I'm showing up in a black suit and tie.

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

On the subject.
If an alien race gave the Ark to them why exactly should they have explained it? And why exactly would the people have understood it? Rather hard to explain something to someone with out the fundamentals of the concept you're attempting to explain.

[Trauma Teased]

Death by cat-fight! I can think of worse ways to go. I'm showing up in a black suit and tie.

Oh, my! Dressing up for me?

Me like.
;)

[egg]

On the subject.
If an alien race gave the Ark to them why exactly should they have explained it? And why exactly would the people understood it? Rather hard to explain something to someone with out the fundamentals of the concept you're attempting to explain.

Why shouldn't they have? If aliens created us, maybe they explained a lot to us. Why wouldn't the people understand it. We had no microwave ovens, they aren't natural, but plenty of people know how they work and how to make them. The rest of us know how to use them. How long has the science existed to even create them?

The only place we have mention of the Ark of the Covenant in detail is from the Old Testament. I have no problem imagining that the Ark was something other than written about. Maybe, it was. Maybe, it didn't exist. But, that's all just a guess. It's fun. I'm down to do it. But, there is absolutely no proof.

Also, I was more arguing the translation part that Nephy mentioned.

[egg]

Oh, my! Dressing up for me?

Me like.
;)

:D I like to dress for events.

[BE2]

i'm coming in a loincloth and facepaint.

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I am not sure I am understanding.


Why shouldn't they have? If aliens created us, maybe they explained a lot to us. Why wouldn't the people understand it. We had no microwave ovens, they aren't natural, but plenty of people know how they work and how to make them. The rest of us know how to use them. How long has the science existed to even create them?

If "they" created us. Why would they have to explain anything to us? And what I mean is exactly what I meant on the subject of understanding. Often with knowledge you have to understand the supporting principles to understand the concept. We are talking about ancient people, before such things as even bacteria was known.

On the subject of microwaves: And A LOT especially these days have no clue as to how or why they work. They just know they do. I know how and why they work but you can't expect me to reproduce one from scratch. Can you? Then there is the nature of assembly lines for the people that actually make them.



The only place we have mention of the Ark of the Covenant in detail is from the Old Testament. I have no problem imagining that the Ark was something other than written about. Maybe, it was. Maybe, it didn't exist. But, that's all just a guess. It's fun. I'm down to do it. But, there is absolutely no proof.

So peoples that had no contact with the Hebrews at that time should have known about a Hebrew artifact?

[egg]

I am not sure I am understanding.



If "they" created us. Why would they have to explain anything to us? And what I mean is exactly what I meant on the subject of understanding. Often with knowledge you have to understand the supporting principles to understand the concept. We are talking about ancient people, before such things as even bacteria was known.

On the subject of microwaves: And A LOT especially these days have no clue as to how or why they work. They just know they do. I know how and why they work but you can't expect me to reproduce one from scratch. Can you? Then there is the nature of assembly lines for the people that actually make them.




So peoples that had no contact with the Hebrews at that time should have known about a Hebrew artifact?

If they created us, or just gave us knowledge, we have no idea how much time they had to do that. They could have taught us a lot of things. Or, they could have downloaded the information into our little brains, or whatever. Since we don't know, we can pretty much make up anything and base that on absolutely nothing.

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

If they created us, or just gave us knowledge, we have no idea how much time they had to do that. They could have taught us a lot of things. Or, they could have downloaded the information into our little brains, or whatever. Since we don't know, we can pretty much make up anything and base that on absolutely nothing.

Yea but speculation need not be all or nothing. :p Just because "they" could make us does not directly mean that "they" could do those other things. :p

[BE2]

I am not sure I am understanding.



nuff said.

[BE2]

kindly don't reply to inveterate banners here. thank you.

[BE2]

Egg- listen up. You're enabling assholery.

[Lexion]

i'm coming in a loincloth

oh my

[century]

Be really pimps lambskin undies

[BE2]

who asked you?

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Poor poor BE. Still pissed ignored his worthless ass.
I shall now cry.
:lol:

[BE2]

Poor poor BE. Still pissed ignored his worthless ass.
I shall now cry.
:lol:I can only sum up with an essntial truth: you stink.

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

If I must "stink" as you put it to become immune to your worthless self serving bullshit.
Then I do it happily.
Fuck you.

[BE2]

I must "stink"true

QFT

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

That was lame even by your usual low standards.

[BE2]

true


QFT

[Cogburn]

If "they" did create us, perhaps the proof of such is so simple, so obvious, that 99.999% of humanity misses it completely. :)

[egg]

If "they" did create us, perhaps the proof of such is so simple, so obvious, that 99.999% of humanity misses it completely. :)

Such as?

[Cogburn]

Sentience, itself.

As far as I am aware, there is no biochemical justification for sentience.

[egg]

Sentience, itself.

As far as I am aware, there is no biochemical justification for sentience.

Mmmm..... but, then where did They become sentient? Does that make Them gods?

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Sentience, itself.

As far as I am aware, there is no biochemical justification for sentience.

Or understanding really. :p
Which one requires for a justification I think.

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Two words: Infinite Regress. :p

[Cogburn]

Mmmm..... but, then where did They become sentient? Does that make Them gods?

Would it make the inhabitants of such a hypothetical civilization "gods" or merely the agents of change in the universe; seeding consciousness like dandelion seeds throughout the cosmos?

[egg]

Would it make the inhabitants of such a hypothetical civilization "gods" or merely the agents of change in the universe; seeding consciousness like dandelion seeds throughout the cosmos?

Well, that's getting a bit too semantic.

If, as you propose, "there is no biochemical justification for sentience" then those who are sentient without being "seeded" with consciousness, would seem to be creators, of a sort. Gods to the rest of us common humans.
Without them we'd be no better off than any other non-sentient being/thing.

[Cogburn]

I'm certainly grateful to my parents for copulating and conceiving me, however I don't think that necessarily creates an obligation for worship.

Shintoists may disagree, however.

[mojo]

i notice that the person that has me on ignore has no problems posting in my threads.

funny shit.

[Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Then ignore me and I can't. :D

[egg]

I'm certainly grateful to my parents for copulating and conceiving me, however I don't think that necessarily creates an obligation for worship.

Shintoists may disagree, however.

Hahahahhaaa.... but they are just like you. If there are beings seeding consciousness across the universe, your parents owe their consciousness to them, too. However, the consciousness spreaders owe their sentience to no one. That's my point.

Edit to add - there's nothing your parents to do guarantee your sentience. They do it with purpose.

[mojo]

Then ignore me and I can't. :D


why do that......i'd rather the whole board was able to see your blatant hypocrisy.

[Cogburn]

However, the consciousness spreaders owe their sentience to no one. That's my point.

As sentience is a function of the universe itself (evidenced by the fact that we possess it and exist within the universe), the assertion being made is that it must be "triggered" before it is able to manifest, which is suggested because not everything - not even all life - has sentience and there is no specific structure or biochemical function which differentiates the sentient from the non-sentient.

This suggests that sentience arose as a result of artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection: like breeding cows that produce more milk, as opposed to those that don't.

The manner of the artificial selection is completely beyond any of our ability to analyze, certainly.

[mojo]

sentience is an emotional response to the absurdity of reality imo.

[Cogburn]

Sentience isn't required for an animal (for the sake of argument) to express emotion, or even to express emotion that humans are able to interpret.

[egg]

As sentience is a function of the universe itself (evidenced by the fact that we possess it and exist within the universe), the assertion being made is that it must be "triggered" before it is able to manifest, which is suggested because not everything - not even all life - has sentience and there is no specific structure or biochemical function which differentiates the sentient from the non-sentient.

This suggests that sentience arose as a result of artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection: like breeding cows that produce more milk, as opposed to those that don't.

The manner of the artificial selection is completely beyond any of our ability to analyze, certainly.

Hmmm... I wasn't asserting that it must be triggered. Just going along with the whole alien or higher life forms coming down and changing around humanity thing.

[mojo]

Sentience isn't required for an animal (for the sake of argument) to express emotion, or even to express emotion that humans are able to interpret.

perhaps, but an animals emotional response is defined by by reality, not the absurdity of it as is the case for us.
but that just my lame perspective of it.

[egg]

perhaps, but an animals emotional response is defined by by reality, not the absurdity of it as is the case for us.
but that just my lame perspective of it.

Nah, I get it. Kinda like laughter.

[egg]

Which is kind of interesting. Do we know why we laugh? Perhaps, it is the absurdity of sentience.

[Cogburn]

Hmmm... I wasn't asserting that it must be triggered. Just going along with the whole alien or higher life forms coming down and changing around humanity thing.

"Sentience" does not de facto imply "life": we're about 3 developments in artificial intelligence away from proving that out.

[mojo]

i wonder if our defining of emotion had more to do with human evolution than opposable thumbs, walking upright, toolmaking or anything else the scientific magicians throw up.

[BE2]

The argument for Intelligent Design is tempting but full of shit.

[egg]

"Sentience" does not de facto imply "life": we're about 3 developments in artificial intelligence away from proving that out.

You mean life, or living, in a biological sense:

1. movement;
2. feeding;
3. breathing/respiration;
4. excretion;
5. growth;
6. sensitivity/responsiveness;
7. reproduction

If so, are you saying something can be sentient without being alive?

[BE2]

Cogburn is a perfect example of number 4.

[Cogburn]

i wonder if our defining of emotion had more to do with human evolution than opposable thumbs, walking upright, toolmaking or anything else the scientific magicians throw up.

The foundations of psychology are built upon the scientific comparison of behaviors between species. Species tend to share common hallmarks of emotional expression after a certain evolutionary point (read: level of biological complexity).


The argument for Intelligent Design is tempting but full of shit.

This isn't ID, not by a long shot. We're only discussing the nature of sentience, not the Golden Ratio.

[Cogburn]

Biology would tend to indicate a capacity for the potential to achieve sentience, but does not guarantee results.

[egg]

Biology would tend to indicate a capacity for the potential to achieve sentience, but does not guarantee results.

AH! Yeah, agreed.

[BE2]

the universe is sentient in toto.

[Cogburn]

Yeah, I was just sitting here thinking that my entire line of argument was completely wrong.

[BE2]

human consciousness is a quality not a state.

[BE2]

(whatever that means...)

[egg]

the universe is sentient in toto.

Does that mean every single component of the universe is sentient?

If so, can you measure it degrees of sentience?

[BE2]

degrees of the quality. the highest order is Ethics.

[BE2]

that's our potential.

[egg]

degrees of the quality. the highest order is Ethics.

Sounds like Kabbalah, to a degree. Except, they talk about desire as opposed to sentience.

[Cogburn]

human consciousness is a quality not a state.


(whatever that means...)

No, that works.

Toolmaking, the opposable thumb... all of those things serve to provide the illusion of uniqueness.

Sentience is, in fact, all present.

[BE2]

well- except for the ShitHouse Wanker and MrPeePee

[BE2]

Sounds like Kabbalah, to a degree. Except, they talk about desire as opposed to sentience.
fuck kabbala. you don't need it.

[Cogburn]

Sounds like Kabbalah, to a degree. Except, they talk about desire as opposed to sentience.

Careful... that's "free will" not "desire."

The difference is subtle but important.

[BE2]

there goes that number 4 again.

[egg]

Careful... that's "free wil" not "desire."

The difference is subtle but important.

Well, desire is the reason for being for all living things, according to Kabbalah. The more desire, the higher the life form. Even inanimate objects have desire, just in much smaller amounts.

[egg]

fuck kabbala. you don't need it.

But, it needs me. Asked me to feed its cat this weekend.

[BE2]

too fruedian. think ethics.

[Cogburn]

there goes that number 4 again.

Houses aren't "necessary," but you'd be out of work without them.

No need to be a prat.

[BE2]

oh bite me. but i would not wish you dead.

[BE2]

that kiwism is never far from lips.

[theeindiee]

Strange how when I'm in total objection to all of the shit, kabahbah, and hermaspagghetics, and crackkultschism.... they come beckon me back with new mysteries.... but then, when I unwrap this mysterious new present handed to me... all see is a ple of dog shit.... repeated infinitely. Pile of dogshit turnin others into bigger and bigger piles of dogshit as they "ascend" the smartass totem pole.

Go fly a kite.

[Cogburn]

Well, desire is the reason for being for all living things, according to Kabbalah. The more desire, the higher the life form. Even inanimate objects have desire, just in much smaller amounts.

I'm not sure where you got that from, but that's a very... non-technical... way of putting it.

Time to digress for a moment...

The Kabbalah is a description of the world in the negative, that is to say that our physical reality is the side effect of those rules it describes.

Biblically speaking, it is the process of the "separation of light from darkness" where our universe is created in the seam where the two meet.

Free will is what empowers one to draw from both the light and the dark, ethics is the guide by which one arrives at the decision.

[egg]

Sure it's desire for the self - egoism

Kabbalah says that the whole of reality consists of a substance called “the will to receive pleasure.” This will to receive pleasure is essentially a desire to be filled with delight, enjoyment; it is what we so often refer to as “egoism.” This will to receive operates on all levels of existence: still (inanimate), vegetative, animate, and speaking.

Although the will to receive is the substance of all reality, the desire in itself is neither matter nor atoms, which came later. Everything that was created, that exists as the basis of reality, is based on the desire to enjoy, an aspiration for pleasure. In each level of reality, this aspiration takes on different form
http://www.esolibris.com/articles/kabbalah/fundamentals_science_kabbalah.php

Desire is the core of everything created.

[egg]

Burp

[egg]

Our desires, in the end, lead us to the desire for spiritual advancement. But, desire is the core of all things in this world/universe, according to Kabbalah.

[egg]

As we already know, when development within a stage reaches a certain limit, it stops, thus causing appearance of a new stage. The question is, what desire is going to appear next, after the desire for knowledge, which is, as we know, the last stage of egoism development? This is where the genuine spiritual desire begins to manifest itself, and this is actually what Kabbalah starts with.
The spiritual desire, in its initial form, is called a point in the heart. I have already mentioned, that the word heart refers to the full spectrum of human’s egoistic desires. Thus, the point within it represents the embryo of the spiritual desire (the sixth sense). Initially, the embryo represents the higher egoistic level, which through the kabbalistic method, gradually turns into an altruistic desire. Every human being, regardless of egoism level, is born with a point in the heart. It manifests itself only in young age – mostly as a question being asked by every child – a question about the meaning of life. In fact, this is a question about the root of one’s existence, from which he or she descended to the corporeal world. This is the embryo of soul. That particular question becomes forgotten as soon as a child becomes involved into daily life, egoistic desires and society influences.
When egoism reaches its apogee, a man usually falls into a deep depression, and a point in the heart begins to clearly manifest itself again. Initially, its appearance causes a sensation of inner emptiness. Man belonging to this level begins to understand, that there is nothing in this world that can fulfill him, and regardless of money, power, fame, and knowledge, he remains empty. At the same time, he begins to feel another desire, but the desired subject is unclear, as the fulfillment cannot be found in this world. A man begins to feel a need for unknown pleasure. The method of Kabbalah is meant for those, who have reached the most egoistic state in humans development – the clear appearance of a point in the heart. In this case, Kabbalah allows one to expand this point, so that it turns into a spiritual desire, called Kli (hebr. vessel).

http://www.symbolicliving.com/authentic-kabbalah-part-4/

[Cogburn]

Ahh, okay. this bit right here...

... is based on the desire to enjoy, an aspiration for pleasure. In each level of reality, this aspiration takes on different form

... is just a particular interpretation.

Quite to the contrary, Aryeh Kaplan states in chapter one (pg 61) of his translation to the Sepher Yetzirah (the Book of Creation) that:

There are concepts of good decreed by God, and as His decrees, they are intimately bound to Him. When a man physically involves himself with these good concepts, he literally binds himself to God. He thus acheives a closeness that no angel could ever hope to reach.

This is a major difference between a man and an angel. An angel is assigned to one spiritual station, and has no way to rise any higher.

It then goes to reason that Kaplan states that it is man's choice to be close to God, not a desire for pleasure, which determines the nature of creation.

The author you cited too easily substitutes "pleasure" for "God," and thus desire (ego) takes precedence over free will (pure choice).

[egg]

Possibly, I've read many authors who state the same thing. In fact, I cited two different ones above. But, desire to be close to God is the highest desire. Humans are the only beings on this planet able to feel that, according to a lot of the literature. Everything/being has desire at its root. But, just as BE was saying above about sentience, there are levels to desire. We, as humans, are able to reach the highest and the lowest levels of desire.

[Cogburn]

Possibly, I've read many authors who state the same thing. In fact, I cited two different ones above. But, desire to be close to God is the highest desire. Humans are the only beings on this planet able to feel that, according to a lot of the literature. Everything/being has desire at its root. But, just as BE was saying above about sentience, there are levels to desire. We, as humans, are able to reach the highest and the lowest levels of desire.

A choice which is enabled by free will. :)

[egg]

A choice which is enabled by free will. :)

Hahaahaahaa.... but true free will is only available to more enlightened people. Not to flora, fauna, rocks, etc.

[egg]

They only act on their desires, as do most of us, usually.

[Cogburn]

Instinct is also not a valid substitute for desire.

I always suggest multiple translations of the original material, and then drawn conclusions for one's self.

You'll come to find that some authors tend to put their own spin on things which becomes meme'd.

[egg]

Instinct is also not a valid substitute for desire.

I always suggest multiple translations of the original material, and then drawn conclusions for one's self.

You'll come to find that some authors tend to put their own spin on things which becomes meme'd.

That may be true. But, instinct is a natural byproduct of desire. Desire to eat, have sex, LIVE, protect yourself, etc.

[Cogburn]

That may be true. But, instinct is a natural byproduct of desire. Desire to eat, have sex, LIVE, protect yourself, etc.

Biologically driven instincts are independent of free will.

I have a working theory - similar to Maslow's Ladder - which states that Biology is the first thing which must be overcome in order to achieve enlightenment.

Biology consists of all those things you mentioned: health, mating, reproduction, food, shelter.

To put it simply: why is it that the only people who are able to practice yoga daily are those who abandon everything, or those who are able to buy anything? They have both overcome the needs of biology.

[egg]

Biologically driven instincts are independent of free will.

I have a working theory - similar to Maslow's Ladder - which states that Biology is the first thing which must be overcome in order to achieve enlightenment.

Biology consists of all those things you mentioned: health, mating, reproduction, food, shelter.

To put it simply: why is it that the only people who are able to practice yoga daily are those who abandon everything, or those who are able to buy anything? They have both overcome the needs of biology.

We're basically getting into a semantic argument, I think. The biological needs are desires. Only human beings have the necessary.... equipment to get passed this and move onto more spiritual pursuits. We're sort of saying the same thing.

However, free will is not available to other beings according to the Kabbalah, only to us. AND, not many of us ever get there.

[egg]

Our desires are born with us into this world. All beings are born with their desires.

[Cogburn]

Noun

S: (n) instinct, inherent aptitude (inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli) "the spawning instinct in salmon"; "altruistic instincts in social animals"
Adjective

S: (adj) instinct, replete ((followed by `with')deeply filled or permeated) "imbued with the spirit of the Reformation"; "words instinct with love"; "it is replete with misery"

Noun

S: (n) desire (the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state)
S: (n) desire (an inclination to want things) "a man of many desires"
S: (n) desire (something that is desired)


Noun

S: (n) free will, discretion (the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies)

An instinct creates a desire.

If a desire is born from an unsatisfied state, then it might be said that a satisfied state is then determined by external agencies (genetic influence in the example of instinct).

Therefore it might be said that free will comes from within, while desire is something you accept from without.

[egg]

Noun

S: (n) instinct, inherent aptitude (inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli) "the spawning instinct in salmon"; "altruistic instincts in social animals"
Adjective

S: (adj) instinct, replete ((followed by `with')deeply filled or permeated) "imbued with the spirit of the Reformation"; "words instinct with love"; "it is replete with misery"

Noun

S: (n) desire (the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state)
S: (n) desire (an inclination to want things) "a man of many desires"
S: (n) desire (something that is desired)


Noun

S: (n) free will, discretion (the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies)

An instinct creates a desire.

If a desire is born from an unsatisfied state, then it might be said that a satisfied state is then determined by external agencies.

Therefore it might be said that free will comes from within, while desire is something you accept from without.

Sure, if you look at things from a worldly view. But, the whole shebang started before we were here. Ohr, the vessel and all of that. Those physical needs are born of desire that existed before we took this form.

[Cogburn]

Sure, if you look at things from a worldly view. But, the whole shebang started before we were here. Ohr, the vessel and all of that. Those physical needs are born of desire that existed before we took this form.

If sentience is universal (as I have corrected myself), then we were always here.

Before we took this form, we had no free will.

It is only in the physical world that both light and dark might co-exist, which is what enables free will.

One could argue that free will is the first and only desire. :)

[egg]

If sentience is universal (as I have corrected myself), then we were always here.

Before we took this form, we had no free will.

It is only in the physical world that both light and dark might co-exist, which is what enables free will.

One could argue that free will is the first and only desire. :)

That I can agree with completely.

[Cogburn]

So what is that external agent which creates the desire for free will?

God? The Higgs boson (gravity)? The meditations of Shiva?

You got me. I'm still goofing around with the rules, much less the rulemaker.

[egg]

So what is that external agent which creates the desire for free will?

God? The Higgs boson (gravity)? The meditations of Shiva?

You got me. I'm still goofing around with the rules, much less the rulemaker.

Sticking with the Kabbalah, if I remember correctly (very quickly):

Ohr existed (LIGHT - probably what most people think of as God). Ohr had everything it needed and so created a vessel to receive, as all it did not have is something to give to. Think of Ohr as water and the vessel as ice. Same thing in different forms. So, Ohr "fed" the vessel everything it could ever desire. Eventually, the vessel desired to give back to Ohr but what could it give to the higher life form that has everything? Well, it first had to cut the apron strings to even figure that out. So, the vessel moved away from Ohr, forming a void. Into the void part of the vessel fell and Ohr went in their, too. That void is the universe or multiverse. We are all part of the vessel and desire Ohr.

But, I'm with you, I have no idea where the desire comes from. I just know I like to read this shit. ;)

[Cogburn]

Your terms are a little off, but the concept is solid.

As that Ein (God) existed everywhere, it was non-existent as there was nothing which was not Ein. In order to exist, Ein began creation by "withdrawing" that divine nature in order to create places where Ein did not exist, therefore creating a place where Ein did exist. This process is called tzimtzum.

The Ohr (Will of God) fills the space from which Ein withdrew with the Ein Soph (the Breath of God). The Ein Soph descends through the Four Wolds creation via the Sepher Sephirot. The Tree of Life is a closed circuit, so once the Ein Soph descends to the bottom (Malkuth, physical world) it returns to the top (Kether, Heaven).

It is because we reside at the bottom, the Malkuth, that was have direct access to the divine... but not vise versa.