Truestory, Not that I'm an expert on wimpy rock, but that song was from my era and it was actually called, "The Night Chicago Died", by Paper Lace. It was sung from the perspecive of a kid whose father was a cop on the East Side of Chicago back in the days when Al Capone and his gangsters essentially ruled the city. So the answer to your question is, no - that song had nothing to do with the Great Chicago Fire. I believe we did have very different backgrounds, and I realize that my perspective is vastly different from that of most people, for whatever reason. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you like about what the Preacher was saying in Ecclesiastes - but I believe that only he knew for sure, and he isn't around to explain it to us. I believe that was indeed part of his point - but not the whole point. I think there are hidden messages all throughout the Bible for anyone to find who wants to find them. I just happen to be one of those oddballs who likes to see something different. ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Hey SkyeBlue - I guess we're both off-topic! (Danged Californians, anyway!) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for the website address - that's one of the few places I've ever seen with the Peshtigo fire mentioned along side the Chicago fire. This might seem off-topic as well, but does anyone remember the Foghorn Leghorn cartoon where the old spinster hen was plotting to catch a husband by knocking him over the head with a club? Then Foghorn decides to use her to antagonize his nemesis, the dog - so he tells the hen that the dog is really a rooster in disguise? Do you remember the scene where Foghorn gives her a cassaba melon and advises her to show it to the dog, tease him with it a little bit, but don't let him have it? Did anyone miss the double entendre there? Does anyone think it was unintentional on the part of the writers? Maybe it was, but those lines could be interpreted in two different ways, and it is my belief that that cartoon was done that way intentionally so that the adults could enjoy the cartoon right along side their children. I have similar ideas about the writers of the Bible. Of course, I could be wrong - but the writers aren't here to explain it to us, so we have to try to figure it out for ourselves. I always look for possible double meanings when I read the Bible, and when I find them, that's what makes it interesting and worthwhile to me. Otherwise, as I stated before, I might as well read soup can labels. ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
I know what you mean, Searcher. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's why I'm a huge Simpsons fan - that show has soooo many double meanings it's incredible. I record the episodes and I can watch them 5 or 6 times before I stop seeing something I missed before. I agree that there probably is quite a few double-meaings in the bible. While I'm not nearly so familiar with it as you are, Searcher, I find that very easy to believe. I don't believe in God, but there are quite a few good things to be gleaned from the Bible itself. I don't believe Jesus was the Son of God - I think he was a good person and he said a lot of really nice things and tried to help people... Wait, what was the topic again?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, here's an extract, 'If the organic brain/mind was related to an electronic computer, then you could say, that the brain/mind is programmed and conditioned by the sum of its experiences and that any notions of soul are purely illussory and based on fear or wishful thinking. A computer is programmed and configured by the sum of its maker and it's user.It can play music to you all day, it can offer you fantastic environments for you to play games in, it can do an abundance of things but, does it have a soul? Yes, it does now, well almost.But its soul actually existed long, long before computers were even thought of. Yeah right!! I hear you say. But of course they have a soul now, the internet is the soul. That intangible quality which was never programmed or configured by either the maker or the user' etc. Disagree? fine! Gibberish? no! Ilgwamh, when we look at a star through a telescope, we are seeing that star as it was, at a certain date, x of millions of light years ago.Now let's give the date an arbitrary number. Let's just say for arguments sake that the date on that star as we see it is, November 23, 1999lyBC.Ok, if this is the case, then that means that we are looking at a portion of time that is actually the future of that star for any moment before November 23,1999lyBC. D'you see it? time is relative, therefore we can view relative future in our universe, but not our own. If we reversed the situation and say, were looking at Earth from this star we would be seeing a portion of time that is the future of anypoint in time before November 23 1999! Confused? oh what do I know, anyway.
Tablariddim-- "Although this isn't strictly legal I do command a certain amount of discretion and I'm not likely to turn you on to anything really spooky because you just simply wouldn't understand it anyway, well, not unless you understand Gfirrifusian fractal code - It's not normally taught east of the Thracudnwrrnjan central meridian, so I don't expect to have any problems with the Rolsd of Suctije or,'lawmakers' as you would simply describe them" That's what I meant when I said gibberish. Sorry if it offended you, but hey ... were we really s'posed to understand that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As to the brain/computer/soul paragraph you presented ... sure, why not? The inkling of a soul you describe will be the full-blown consideration the closer we get to awarding our frankensteins free will. But I have nothing substantial to offer in return. It isn't that the idea is irrelevant ...rather, I think it leads toward a set of conclusions, assumptions, or otherwise ... it's a parallel track, essentially. I can't disagree with it. It's not quite on the same line. But it's hardly wrong in its essence or its intent. * * * * * In General-- While we're on the subject of the Chicago Fire ... there's a song about Mrs. O'Leary's Cow, and schoolyard set of alternate words. These are all I want here. "Scheiderwinkinsted." "She eyed her wink and said, it'll be a hot town in the old time tonight." It's just jumbled syllables. Anyone, anyone? thanx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
tab - I am having difficulty understanding your reply to ilgwamh in your 11/22, 3:43 PM post. Firstly, a light year is a measure of distance - the amount of distance light travels in a year. In the vaccuum of space, this is approximately 9.46 x 10^12 kilometers, or about 9,460,000,000,000 km. Also, that light has to be emitted before it can be viewed.. in the case of your example, rougly 4 millennia prior to it reaching earth. So in effect, when we see this light, we are looking 4 thousand years into the past. We can't look into an arbitrary future, because for it to have generated light, it had to have happened already. If, at this very moment, somebody was 4000 light years away and viewing earth, they would see the earth of 4000 years ago.. far in the past. Could you explain further what you mean? Thanks, FyreStar
Fyrestar, um.. yeah ofcourse I see your point, we can only see into the past because it takes time for the light to reach us -from whatever source- no matter what planet we're on.Thanks, I knew there was something wrong with that. But I think the point I was trying to make, was that whatever we can see, must have had a past and what we are seeing is the planets future, relative to its past. By the same token, something could be looking at the light emitted from our sun from some point so old and distant, that they would be witnessing a portion of light from our future. Therefore, what will be, will be because it's already happened, according to some alien astronomer somewhere.Feasible? In that sense, can't we say that everything is pre destined? Isn't the universe/multiverse and everything it contains pre destined to be in a constant state of flux and evolution? Sure we use freewill and so do probably all lifeforms that are not in captivity. But isn't the exercise of freewill, simply the manifestation of flux and evolution in Earthly,Human/Animal/Social terms? Waddaya think?
hi tablariddim. You lost me somewhere but I think you corrected yourself. When we look up at the stars we are seeing the past. Actually when you look at anything you are seeing the past. You are seeing 8 minute old light when you view the sun. The computer screen your your viewing is old, but not that old because of its proximity to you. I agree that when we look at stuff in our present we are seeing it as it was in the past. It takes time for the light to reach our eyes. You said "But I think the point I was trying to make, was that whatever we can see, must have had a past and what we are seeing is the planets future, relative to its past." I understand the part about it needing a past but what do you mean by "the planets future, relative to its past"??? I think you need to rethink some of what you said. It doesn't make sense, especially this part: "By the same token, something could be looking at the light emitted from our sun from some point so old and distant, that they would be witnessing a portion of light from our future. Therefore, what will be, will be because it's already happened, according to some alien astronomer somewhere.Feasible?""" Free Will only goes so far. Can you choose your relatives? Can you choose your date of birth, your parents, where you were born? Science, in a sense, predestines us. Jump off a building and your free will won't help you very much. You are predestined to fall (gravity). Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
"You are seeing 8 minute old light when you view the sun." " I understand the part about it needing a past but what do you mean by "the planets future, relative to its past"???" You cannot have past without a future.They are 2 sides of the same coin.Each millisecond that passes was once the future and now is the past.Therefore, everything once had and continues to have, a future. Example (I think): I am writing this now in my present and I'm hoping that you will read it sometime in my near future. By the time you do read it,it will be your present and you'll be reading something that was written in your past. But your past to come(for me) would be my future now, yeah? That is why when you look at something-whatever it is-you are seeing its future relative to its past. Confused?..you will be....
Tab- I think you have it backwards. Some alien astronomer would be seeing our past, not our future. I think this is what you are trying to say (if not, then I don't think anyone understands you): -When we look at the star Alpha Centaui we see light from 1 year ago -Therefore we see Alpha Centauri as it was 1 year ago -Lets use 2 different Alpha Centauris-The one in the present (AC1) which we cannot see, and they 1 year old star(AC2) which we can see -We are in AC2's future, and we can see what happens on our planet in AC2's future, but not AC1's future Make sense to anyone? I think essentially that Tabladirrim is saying we can see the future of the past, or the present.
Corp-Hudson, -When we look at the star Alpha Centaui we see light from 1 year ago -Therefore we see Alpha Centauri as it was 1 year ago. Yes agreed, but I can't seem to explain what I really mean.Being more of a dreamer than an academic or scientist I've just got this gut feeling that time is multi dimentional, that it stretches and contracts and that light may travel at different speeds according to where you are in the universe.And that from some point in the universe our future can be seen now. "What! go and stand in the corner till break time?..oh ok.But I'm not wearing that silly pointy hat!" -I'VE GOT SO MUCH FUNKY SH*T INSIDE MY BRAIN I CAN'T EXPLAIN I CAN"T EXPLAIN I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT ANYWAY- -I'VE GOT SO MUCH FUNKY SH*T INSIDE MY BRAIN I CAN'T EXPLAIN I CAN'T EXPLAIN YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND IT ANYWAY-
Hi Tab. Your still a little mixed up. You can't see the future. You said this [And that from some point in the universe our future can be seen now.] Lets assume light travels instantaneously. If it did we still wouldn't be able to see the future. We wouldn't be looking at the past when we look at the stars anymore. We would be seing them in the present. Everything would be seen in the present. You can't see the future unless, of course, your a Biblical Prophet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also, last time I checked the speed of light was a constant. Young earth creationists claimed that the speed of light changed. They needed some reason to explain why we see 4 billion year old light in the sky if the earth is supposedly 6 to 10,000 years old. Though, even the 10,000 year old date for adam is way off. Biblical geneologies are not complete. A more realistic look at Adams birth would take us back around 30,000 years. All contradictions resolved. I think its pretty well established that the speed of light has been constant for at least the last 11 million years. Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
One more thing. I don't think we are seeing one year old light from that Alpha Centauri star. I think its about 4.3 year old light. Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
If the universe behaved like a bunch of cells in a piece of living tissue, ie, if it formed, evolved, died, formed, evolved, died etc etc. Then it would be feasible to assume that there would be multiple, parallel, identical worlds, each one in a different stage of evolution, formation and death, just like cells. And because of this the multiple worlds will be in their own time spheres, therefore all of the past and all of the future would be in existence at the same relative time! Everything predestined,everything connected born of each other.Everything already done, freewill merely a reflex reaction and icidental, like backround music. Isn't the universe a bit like living cells? we know it formed, we kow it evolves, we know it dies and we know that it gives birth to new galaxies. I believe the truth lies in nature and is hidden deep inside all of us. Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So Tabladdirim: Your agrument is that because it is possible, we should assume that it is true? The Universe is not a living organism, and cells are. There is the problem with your theory. Igwamh: I just picked a number for Alpha Centauri, you may be correct. Actually, I think I used the number from the game Alpha Centauri Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tab-- You are definitely onto a powerful set of considerations ... I've offered similar concepts over too much beer before. But I would like to suggest that there is an inherent flaw in your 11/28 post re: If the universe.... Most people keep their own perspective when examining things like the universe. Therefore ideas like life and time, extremely relevant to our human needs, become the focus of a grander scheme, which you've touched on. If I were a teacher, I would say, "Rewrite this without mentioning life, death, or time." Easier said than done, eh? For instance: as most religions hail God as the creator and overseer of the universe, does it not seem just a little bit absurd that the whole of our religious regard has to do with humans and their nature? None of the major religions offer any good advice regarding the universe outside the Earthly family. How about this? We say, life, death, time, feeding, digestion, reproducing, excreting .... I offer you the universe as a single process. Where we segregate human processes as myriad and unique, they are all but facets of the same process. Anything that makes us different, say, from a quasar is mere perception. I remember in high school one of the things that amazed me was that people had a hard time understanding that one shouldn't use the word being defined in the definition. The whole of this growing mess of philosophical tidbits has something to do with that. You're trying to describe something transcending human capacity using terms only relevant in the human regard. Or so it seems. If this makes sense and succeeds in Not Offending, I will consider myself fortunate. I don't think your post is wrong ... it's just that I think I'm nitpicking your terms. thanx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
What does the universe eat? Excrete? How does it reproduce? And we know there aren't any others out there as the universe is ,by definition, all there is.
