Thanks for clarifying that. I knew about the imaginary axis i had just never heard about an imaginary plane.

>> dictatorships and democries, then turned into discussion about religion, and finally about mathametics
Why finally, dragon? :)
.

I only meant finally up to the point of my post :) I suppose it could take on other branches.

There is no imaginary plane. There's an imaginary axis, and the real and imaginary axes make up the axes of the complex plane.

I still don't understand what the spiritual plane is.

i dont think i understand what you are talking about. i know what an imaginary number is. it is like the square root of a negative number etc. but i have never heard of an imaginary axis or plane or for that matter the complex plane. is it advanced mathematics or something?

the imaginary axis would be if you were graphing an equation with an imaginary number in it.

@ jasimp

its OK. i went and did some research on it. i now know what it is. it is a subset of complex numbers which is another thing i did not know existed until today.

if the math is not a nightmare to you:
Z = X + i.Y
where i is the negative product of a number multiplied with itself and x and y are real numbers.

but excuse me for saying that i cannot possibly imagine how to multiply something with itself and end up with a negative number. is a negative multiplied by a negative not a positive? or perhaps some positive multiplied by that same positive gives this negative! it could be my imagination but i can almost bet that some mathematical concepts derives from that simple principle.

Wrong way around. i is the square root of -1, something that is usually considered to be impossible. Hence, the 'imaginary' designation.

i = i
i * i = -1.
i * i * i = -i
i * i * i * i = 1
i * i * i * i * i = i

And for the record, I wouldn't have ID'd the
imaginary numbers with what I call the spiritual plane; that's simply a designation for the portion of reality that doesn't relate to the physical world. For example, thoughts and emotions would exist there (as opposed to the neural/chemical activity associated with them, which does lie within the physical plane).

@ enderx

OK. i is the square root of -1. but even so just is anything multiplied by itself equal to minus one or for that matter minus anything?

>>spiritual plane

i understand what you mean. you have a soul and that soul is not material but exists still. not physically but another context. almost like a seperate dimension. all souls and all things which exist but is not physical exists only on the spiritual plane.

you must read "The hologhrapic universe" by some guy whose name or surname is michael. it is pretty interresting. it could be the one thing that bring science and the believe of souls and spiritual realms together.

but i am afraid that if that book is telling the truth then christianity is probably wrong. the book does not say that christianity is wrong. it does not even get religious. but an intelligent person can detect some pattern and in that pattern christianity is highly unlikely. but souls are all but guaranteed.

You mean the ones that dont exist ? ;)

Right. They existed only in the memo.

@ jbennet

>we do/did the same thing

that is why i think abolishment of religion can only be good. throughout history religion has done little good and a lot of bad.

What do you think every religious person will do to you if you get your way?

The problem is that each group want their religion to be the state religion. There should be no state religions anywhere.

sorry. i dont understand what you mean. is it not christianity which says "believe as i believe or you will burn in hell!"?

That is a warning, not a demand. But the choice is up to you.

Hollywodd wants you to think they are nuts, so they make Christians look crazy in films and TV shows. But they have an ulterior motive: They want to sin.

Regarding "The Holographic Universe", I have read that book as well and found it fascinating...It's been almost 10 years since I read it though, so I think I may have to read it again...thanks for reminding me! :)

Who wants to sin, Hollywood? If they believed in Christianity then they would not want to sin. If they did not believe in it they would not sin becasue there is no such thing as "sin" to them.

from purely efficient point of view, dictatorship is obviously more efficient because only one person (ok maybe a small group of people) make all the decisions, eliminating all the problems and delays associated with allowing the citizens to cast ballots. And that is one of the reasons why we in USA do not have a democracy ("mob rule")

Dictatorship == more efficient, most definitely overall, yet not so pretty or nice to live under as history has noted.

"Democracy" == less efficient and strikingly so in general, but with patience a bit more comfortable if ones lives in Middle class\ borgeoius (like I do).

Socialist Democracy == Dare I utter this term within the borders of the United States? :sweat:
* Perhaps the best of two worlds: Democratic vote on the matters the people\ citizens should have a say in (leaders, etc), and Government mandate on matters the citizens are not versed enough to have an open say in: Military, education systems, etc. Hmm-- This sounds a bit like the United States, no? :-O

(* Canada, Holland, Germany, France, UK, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, all Socialist Democratic nations in theory at least (no matter what their Constitution states.) And, please note their Math\ Science testing scores, Internationally-- all top of the list versus the U.S. that ranks, what No. 16 :icon_rolleyes:; Please explain this empirical fact, someone, with a touching heap of the typical, irrational justification so rampant within our borders, here. Pathetic. :S )

Matty

Government mandate on matters the citizens are not versed enough to have an open say in

Doesn't sound like a democracy to me.

Doesn't sound like a democracy to me.

Correct, yes.

Who wants to sin, Hollywood? If they believed in Christianity then they would not want to sin. If they did not believe in it they would not sin becasue there is no such thing as "sin" to them.

Certain actions are defined in the Scriptures (largely in the Hebrew portion, in fact) as being sin. Even if the people of Hollywood don't believe in Christianity, and therefore sin, they still have to deal with the fact that there are others who do, and who might call them to task for their own actions. Even if the Hollywoodites don't think of their actions as being sinful, those who do see them as such will tend to stand against such actions. Ergo, Hollywood uses its own power as a media force (even if it's ostensibly only as an 'entertainment' medium) to preemptively declare all Christians to be in the wrong, usually by painting them as bigoted, intolerant, arrogant, foolish, hypocritical, or some combination of the above. It should be noted that this preemptive attitude is not limited to Christians: Hollywood (or more precisely, the major movers/shakers within Hollywood) also uses its media power to preemptively bolster any kind of political argument it agrees with, and strike down any kind of political argument that it disagrees with, by painting those it presents as having its own collective ideas in a sympathetic light, and those who it disagrees with in a profoundly anti-sympathetic light.

Dictatorship == more efficient, most definitely overall, yet not so pretty or nice to live under as history has noted.

"Democracy" == less efficient and strikingly so in general, but with patience a bit more comfortable if ones lives in Middle class\ borgeoius (like I do).

Actually, with the exception of those who, in the dictatorship, had garnered the dictator's personal favor, I'd say a 'democracy' would be more comfortable for everyone...at least until the point where the nature of democracy began to cause problems. From what I understand of the term, a true democracy could basically be defined as 'government by mob rule.'

Socialist Democracy == Dare I utter this term within the borders of the United States?
* Perhaps the best of two worlds: Democratic vote on the matters the people\ citizens should have a say in (leaders, etc), and Government mandate on matters the citizens are not versed enough to have an open say in: Military, education systems, etc. Hmm-- This sounds a bit like the United States, no?

Not quite. From what I understand, the United States of America isn't any kind of Democracy; we're considered to be a Representative Republic. While I admit that this shares a few of the traits you've lavished out on 'Socialist Democracy', I'm curious as to where you've taken your definition from. For that matter, I can't recall having ever heard the term 'Socialist Democracy' before, so I would also appreciate knowing where you pulled it from also.

(* Canada, Holland, Germany, France, UK, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, all Socialist Democratic nations in theory at least (no matter what their Constitution states.) And, please note their Math\ Science testing scores, Internationally-- all top of the list versus the U.S. that ranks, what No. 16 ; Please explain this empirical fact, someone, with a touching heap of the typical, irrational justification so rampant within our borders, here. Pathetic.)

I acknowledge that I don't know enough about the contries you mention to make an argument, but I thought the high-ranking math/science scores were going to countries like South Korea. Am I mistaken in this? I will attempt to learn more about the countries you mention, and see if I can derive where you're coming from.

I will state, however, that from the historical evidence I've seen, anything calling itself socialist will either quickly fall apart, or have the leaders revert to something resembling a dictatorship/oligarchy in order to hold it together. Can you provide any counterexamples?

I doubt the Netherlands rank highly in mathematical skill among the general population.
Sure kids get high grades in school but that's because our school system is fundamentally broken and grades are doctored to keep the percentage of failing kids artificially low (schools get paid per pupil, so they don't want to get a bad rep, therefore doctor tests to keep the scores high, this goes all the way up to university level).
In the meantime 50% of students studying to become primary school teachers are incapable of doing the math from the textbooks that they're going to be teaching 5 year old children out of.

I will state, however, that from the historical evidence I've seen, anything calling itself socialist will either quickly fall apart, or have the leaders revert to something resembling a dictatorship/oligarchy in order to hold it together. Can you provide any counterexamples?

Socialism can only survive in a totalitarian environment. Anywhere else it leads to constant infighting among cliques trying to establish such an environment. It's almost a law of nature.

"believe as i believe or you will burn in hell!"

I understand things have changed down there, they now have air conditioning, cable and runnig water!

On the democracy/dictatorship front, I know the US , at least in the past, has rather worked with dictatorships. They are easier to purchase and cooperate with.

Hell is the best

And exactly what evidence do you base that statement on?

And exactly what evidence do you base that statement on?

Hell:

Cool rock bands
All the cool people from history
Drugs, sex and rock and roll

Heaven:

"Bible bashers"
Nuns (which i find really creepy)
no dirty girls, drinking etc...

Therefore i conclude that hell is the best using my flawed logic ;)

Again, I request specific evidence if you are going to make the statement. You have given me a pair of lists, both of which appear to be reflections of your own personal opinions, but you have nothing in them to back your statements up as far as I can tell.

I do not know that your logic is necessarily flawed; after all, if your lists are correct (although I do not believe them to be so) then your arguments would have merit.

If you do not have specific evidence to back up the lists you have protrayed, may I request to know the source or sources of the items you placed in each one?

Hey man why do you take everything so seriously, im having a frienly joke here.

Because I consider the issue of Life/Death/Eternity to be a very important one, and will always treat it as such. And since the Heaven / Hell issue is part of the Eternity aspect of the issue, I will also continue to treat those in a similar manner.

I think your right jbennet :)

So, who thinks Heaven is Democracy and Hell is Dictatorship?

To some folks Hell is life on earth, everything after that is Heaven. Like any numbscull earthling would know what comes after life.

who thinks Heaven is Democracy and Hell is Dictatorship?

In heaven god is the dictator. Do as he says or be sentanced to damnnation whereas in hell anyone can do as they please (democracy)

an interesting take on things...

There is one perspective! The only thing is, once you are dead all your senses are gone. God can say what he wants, you can't hear him anyway!