Total posts: 2,869
-->
@Sum1hugme
Lol, you have to have a specimen to observe. How do you plan on achieving that?
Created:
Isn't everything that exists already a part of a physical system.
It is connected to the physical system of course, but the physical system is a single succession of several events. To build and construct the physical world and its components there first needs to be a process of manipulating energy into matter and form. But why would energy begin to generate, manipulate and create anything? the answer of course lies beneath the activity of energy. What is beneath the activity of energy, that's where we tap into the reality of the foundations of creation. What produces energy? why does it act as an intelligent force?
Conscious activity (awareness) generates energy, energy is then manipulated to create form. Therefore energy actually does not exist alone in and of itself, it co-exists with another proponent, that being awareness.
Every time you observe energy, you observe awareness. Every time you observe awareness you observe energy. Nowhere does something exist where both energy and awareness are not present. It is the succession of events of these two properties that connects all things.
Basically, the evolution of matter within the constraints of physical laws.
But what is the evolution of matter lol? why does matter evolve? through what components? why do physical laws exist?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Can we Reduce the World to it's Physical Systems?
Sure, but only on one level. However it would never account for the full scope of experience, not even slightly.
why not?
Because the physical world is like the outermost scale covering the many layers beneath. It would be like reducing an onion to it's outer peal, not knowing the amount of layers beneath it.
When one studies the brain for example and believes that because we could detect activity within that brain we can reduce our conscious existence to merely that location lol, that's like hooking an electrical meter to a circuit board and believing that we can reduce the existence of electricity to that component because we can read and measure "activity" within it, and that somehow it is the circuit board creating the existence of electricity.
But we obviously know that a circuit board merely confines and restricts the flow of electricity to harness it for the use of that circuit, and does not create it.
Similarly observing the physical world and all its components does nothing to unravel the mysteries of our existence on every level. One reason to remain open-minded about spirituality and spiritual experience (which includes NDE's as well as paranormal activity) is because it's tapping into the deeper layers of what exists. Using a physical medium to study the physical layer is restricted to merely that one observation, and in doing so one cannot account for the dynamics of what exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How much should consequences matter when weighing the moral value of an action?
It should matter a great deal, but the more subtle actions are going to be dependent upon a persons understanding of the world and their recourse or resolve.
Questions like "who's watching, who cares, what does it really matter, who does it matter to, why should it matter, is this even important, to whom is it important?" are going to vary greatly among different people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Is it right to tell their child that they will burn for eternity
Who does that? or perhaps a better question.... do you personally know anybody who does this?
if they do not believe a God for which there is no evidence to?
That's not why souls can spend time in hell. Hell is for criminals, hells are simply astral prisons. So when you inform someone about possible consequences for criminal behavior, you are informing them that there are places located in the afterlife for those who commit crimes against creation. We have prisons and jails on earth to reduce the threat of criminal activity and this same premise extends to other parts of creation....or the "afterlife".
It's not meant as some threat or scare tactic, the information is there so that we have access to knowledge of what exists. However, it has nothing to do with beliefs rather it serves the purpose of maintaining control over places within creation.
Even if God was real, is it right to tell them that they will burn in fire forever for lying, something that all of us have done before?
It is not right because it's only a half truth, but again do you know anyone personally who does that or are you just making it up because you think people do that?
I do not think it is right to enforce this ideology, especially since it’s so morbid, on a small child simply because you believe in it and want to pass it on.
If you know someone who is telling their child they will burn for eternity for lying they are simply portraying an inaccurate depiction, so I would also say it's borderline abuse. When you threaten an innocent child with inaccurate information you yourself are in danger of your own words. Now that's the reality of cause and effect.
The Bible lumps in liars with workers of iniquity (criminals) as well as unbelievers but that doesn't mean that people who have lied or people who have no reasons for believing in God go to hell. That's a misconception, even if it were claimed within spiritual texts it's simply untrue.
If you study religion as a whole you get a better understanding or a more wholistic view of what is true, because often times a single source may have only bits of information. Astral prisons are foretold in almost all religious sources including Buddhism and Hinduism, and there are levels of hell and the severity of punishment is congruent with the crime committed. The misconception that sentences in hell are eternal for finite crimes is a shame and like you alluded to is a means to scare people for the wrong reasons.
Had you opened up this topic in a different manner it could have been much more enlightening. Like for example below...
What is hell?
What purpose does it serve?
Who goes there?
For what reasons do they go there?
Should such information be made known?
To whom should it be made known to?
Where are hells?
Are they eternal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I think there is a lot of metaphor and figurative tales/stories in the Bible. I think it's just another book written and maintained by humans. Since it's about spirituality, i believe there are hints of spiritual lessons in the Bible as well.
I agree with you completely. But I'm going to get off my rocker here, this should only make sense to you ...... knowing that creation (anime lol) has many layers, worlds, planets and places (which include all different types of beings) each religious source and societies exist within parts of creation (outside the physical world). So while I do agree that religions are mans observations, the societies they observe from exist. This means that there is a place to go for whomever desires to commune with these sources. It of course does not have to be permanent, they just don't know that yet.
That's where i stand with any written religion and/or even philosophical spiritual theories. In particular to Job, his story is one of many that don't make sense to me and/or are stories that contradict god being omniscient. For ex, another being Adam and Eve. Why would god be surprised they disobeyed him? He would have known the second he created both what would happen. Now, this doesn't make sense to me as to the Biblical religion... but it does make sense to me in my own spiritual thoughts. Bc i truly believe no consciousness/intelligence would stay as an infinite being. To be infinite would mean to be everything... from beginning to end, what i call the ultimate spoiler.
This is where your natural intelligence and wisdom get you beyond the religious trap, but you just haven't really paid attention how it all fits together. The Biblical God is a Demi God, not the infinite Platform. The Infinite Platform that we understand, is the Source of all gods. It doesn't just want to be a little soul in the crowd of a million looking to the throne of God but also the God on the throne looking down at the millions. But the Gods within religion come out of the Platform too, sometimes they are creator Gods....the Platform uses them to also express power and creativity and sends souls to experience all of this.
It's quite amazing, don't know if you ever thought about that.
The Infinite Platform steps down into layers, each layer reduces the Platform to a smaller degree. So there is a succession of coverings from the Platform all the way down to a soul and then a physical body. The closer each covering or layer is to the Platform the more powerful it is, the fuller that Entity is because it only has one veil that reduces it from the Infinite. The Beings that have only a single or perhaps a couple steps down from the Infinite possess much the powers and knowledge that the Infinite (Platform) has but not all, we call these Beings God because they are far greater than us (only by less layers of reduction), but they too come from the Platform. The Infinite Platform has no covering or layer, It is the full power and knowledge of anything that exists and all things come out of this Platform.
We as souls, in this physical world have several coverings or layers that reduce us to what we are so we are tiny expressions of the Infinite. The Beings that inherit the heavenly planes or the spiritual worlds are that of great abilities and knowledge, they have bodies and forms that are far less limited...we call them Gods whether or not we know they too come from the Infinite Platform. They serve their purpose, they are part of the journey in creation.
Remember the analogy you shared with me about the fans and the band? how God would want to be both the fan and the band that the fan follows? lol, now picture us as the fans and God as the Band. Yet we both come from the Infinite Platform. And that doesn't mean you stay a fan or have to follow the band they simply exist whether or not you wish to be a part of it. You could have your own journey completely separate from that or maybe you already played those roles. But the fans that follow the Band (God) are completely captivated with that. They love it and worship it. That can be for you or not for you.
I believe we can dip are feet into the infinite knowledge, but i believe there is a bell curve of how long one would stay that way... for me, i would say maybe a second, no longer than 10 seconds, lol. Therefore, an infinite source wouldn't stay infinite in the Omni sense. I Believe there is a process of "shutting down" away from the source. I think this source can stay in an infinite state, but would restrict itself away from being the Omni's. So a "God" can be something like Odin... fully knowledgeable of its universe and destiny, maybe, but never fully all knowing, and even Odin wouldn't want to know it's "the god." Bc then, nothing matters.
Exactly!! bingo, and you're the only other person that gets this that I have talked to on forums. So what I'm getting at though, is when we talk about the Bible and that God there is a place in creation for all of that. It's just one place though, and the God that rules that Kingdom comes out of the Infinite Platform. Some gods know this and some don't know, some gods choose to believe they are greater than the Platform. All of this has a place in creation under the infinite creativity of the Platform.
The Infinite Platform can incarnate just ever so slightly that God has much of It's power and knowledge but not all of it. Very good intuition you have.
What a horrible existence it would be to be an entity that is omniscient... well, actually, more like omniscient to all realities. A character can be like a super hero omniscient, but only to a level... never to the whole picture, or i shouldn't say "never" ... maybe just for a few seconds. I believe when you go into that state which is basically all of our true home, it will be so overwhelming that the process of shutting it off happens within a blink of an eye.
Well one thing where we disagree or don't fully collaborate on is that the Full state of the Platform always exists at It is (because It can be nothing else), but at the same time has access to every channel of creation and every state of consciousness. So there is always two states of consciousness, one in the full state and one in the created state. We are the ones in the created state but the Infinite Platform is always in the full state. The full state can never shut off, but the full state can also experience everything right through your channel. I don't know if that makes any sense to you or not. It's not something the Platform can get rid of, but creates through you and I to have parallel experiences.
This is going to be one of those conversations where we get really weird lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
From where do you derive your ethics?
Myself, from experience (learning) and from extrinsic influence.
I don't believe there is a single answer, some are innate some are extrinsic and much is from experience. Things change a lot with age as well, because experience and maturity plays a big role in ethics and how a person will eventually conduct themselves.
Remembering that ethics are a persons moral principles and behavior they can be negative or positive.
I think that compassion and empathy are innate, that also means that selfishness can be innate as well as apathy. Here a person will discover which one they wish to work more with. I think compassion naturally co-exists with the inner conscious being. Of course I'm not a materialist so I don't believe we are reduced to a series of impulses and neural brain activity. I believe in the soul (not to get off topic).
I think when it comes to behaviors that are learned obviously they are from experience....what bad I could do to you I don't want done to me so it's better not to do it, so on and so forth...
I believe when it comes to much more subtle attributes, ethics and strong character there could be an extrinsic influence.... an external source or perhaps a mentor. These are things one could do that no one would ever really notice if you did them or not. So in this category I think an extrinsic factor plays a big role.
I don't necessarily need anyone to tell me how to act, though I may need an influence to deepen my understanding and resolve.
I could give examples for each, but maybe you know what I mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Hey, i thought Lots story was Job for a second, so i had a question that is off topic bc i thought of that. If god is Omniscient, why would he put Job through everything he did since he would already know what happens? I was wondering this... isn't that a contradiction to god's power? What do Christians answer to this paradox?
Well I'm not a Bible literalist in the sense that everything in the Bible has to be taken so literal rather than the scriptures using stories and illustrations to portray deeper meanings or lessons. In fact, spiritual literature is very much like that in general not just the Bible....And I'm not just making excuses the Bible weaves in and out of literal and figurative throughout the whole book, in other words it doesn't have to be just one or the other it is both. It uses a lot of symbolic writing styles as well, metaphors, analogies and things alike. Anyone who doesn't know that just simply doesn't know the Bible. I've been reading it since I was a kid so I just happen to get its style.
I'm also not a model of fundamentalist religious systems either so I'm considered a heretic anyways lol. (Not that I particularly care).
Not that this has anything to do with what you asked really, other than I believe the focus of such accounts should be more on the principles involved rather than focused on the objects, people and settings. This is where people get tripped up, the meaning behind such accounts seems to simply evade them.
Anyways two things I wish to point out for you, keeping in mind we're just looking for what makes sense about the story. Number one, people seem to forget that the God of the Bible can be surprised, disappointed, have regrets and even change His mind. I only point this out because when God tests individuals...- although God may have an idea of what someone may choose - God can be joyed or displeased with an outcome. So it seems to me this idea that the God of the Bible knows everything is somewhat of a blurred concept. The Noah's Ark tale just as an example says that God regretted He made man and His heart was deeply troubled. If it was so that everything was known how could that be true? there are also examples of the Bible God changing His mind according to mans choices. So it seems to me God was more an Observer rather than a Puppet Master in relation to created beings.
Now this is going to sound contradictory to what I just wrote somewhat but let me say this, I do think God probably knew what Job would do because the challenge was set for Satan that Job would remain faithful to God. The challenge wasn't that God would see Jobs faithfulness but that Satan would observe it by testing Jobs resolve. So in this particular event God was definitely familiar with Jobs faith, otherwise the test would have been worthless.
Why did God do this? because supposedly Satan challenged God and mocked his servants faith in the midst of a counsel lol. Sounds like a silly reason but again, we are just focusing on principles here. And so it wasn't God that did cruel acts to Job it was Satan, God just observed it.
So getting to the moral of the story since that is what I believe the focus should be on. It's basically the same theme throughout the entire Bible really, which is to trust God and put God above all things no matter what goes on around us. Now in the end Job would also learn no matter what we could lose in this life God would always be there and God could always restore the worst case scenarios no matter the loss.
It is a change in perspective, to see how fleeting and temporary the possessions and material gains of this life can be and that any minute they could be lost. To me, it's an exaggerated example meant to make our personal trials look smaller, seeing that Job was able to not only maintain his loyalty to God but that he could also make it through something so terrible and gain back what he lost. Most of us will never have to face such a terrible story, at least not on the scale Job did. But, even if we did it gives us a sense of hope.
When I was young at the time, it helped me because I had a shaky childhood and a poor upbringing. My family was broken, they were all hurt people so I never really had a solid foundation so I learned pretty early I was not going to be able to rely much on any of it. At an early age I had already made up my mind I wasn't going to put any emphasis of hope or faith in people or material possessions. I was going to make God my rock and my fortress and maintain my faith and passion for the Creator no matter what I went through. And I did, I've had to build my own life out of nothing and I've kept my faith and unwavering passion for God all these years.
I know this may come across as funny, but I'm just giving you an idea what a story like this can inspire. There's a lot of strange tales in the Bible, but they have a powerful beating heart beneath them of spiritual principles and meaning which is why I tend not to focus too much on the surface of them. That came naturally to me as a kid anyways, which is why I'm always scratching my head when people debate these topics. It's like atheists have zero perception of what the underlying principles are.
But to answer your initial question, it wasn't about what God knew would happen, it wasn't a test for God but the other two parties involved. To me though, it's just a story about hope meant to inspire. Sorry about rambling, I was just showing you another way of looking at a story like this. It often comes up in question, why would God gamble with someone's life in that way, that it seems rather petty the way it started. I agree, that's why I tend to think it's probably more of a figurative tale than how God would deal with people. Either way, whether it be literal or figurative what I wrote about the underlying meaning maintains its conclusion.
What do you think, would you tend to think this is something that literally happened or rather writers using metaphorical styles to convey messages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How is "self-defense" (or pre-emptive self-defense) quantitatively distinct from "murder"?
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.
Self defense is having a justification or valid excuse to stop something from happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What if your respective "wills" are in conflict?
Does not negate the objective fact you took another beings will from them. It doesn't matter, there's nothing subjective about that!
What if someone is trying to (or even just apparently trying to) rob you of your choice to choose?
They don't, because they never made a choice. You took their choice, they didn't take yours. When you murder, only one party has made a choice.
How is "self-defense" (or pre-emptive self-defense) quantitatively distinct from "murder"?
I thinks that's pretty obvious lol. Even in self defense, two people are making a choice, one is trying to cause harm and one is trying to stop that harm from occurring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
It's simply wrong because you remove the choice of the other party involved. And this has nothing to do with being subjective, you violate the will of another being.
I categorize morality as being either negative, positive or neutral. It makes it easier this way because it's much harder to categorize something as right or wrong and so it becomes subjective. Negative actions are those that cause harm to the self, others or nature. Positive actions are those that edify and bring good to the self, others or nature and neutral are actions that do neither. Again, these categories have nothing to do with subjectivism because causing harm is not subjective it's an objective observation.
When you strip another person of their will you are robbing them of their choice to choose. When you murder, you violate a persons will by taking something of value from them, and perhaps causing them harm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
EtrnlVw.....Yep. I could twist and turn your answers back again and you could do the same again and so on and so on.
Go ahead... at some point you will see that you have limited thinking, poor reasons for denying what could be a great thing, for yourself as well.
The fact is though, there are no facts. Only speculation based upon a naive hypothesis.
That's your opinion, and ignoring the facts is not a wise move, it just makes you ignorant of the truth. Perhaps you would like to expand on the supposed naivety of this hypothesis, I'd be happy to fix that for you.
Heaven is a concept and can be what ever one imagines it to be.
Sure, but it's not just a concept, it's a reality that CAN be experienced. That's part of the problem and is a very sad thing for materialists, they have no way to comprehend the implications of consciousness because they don't understand what it is.
Who knows....But it does no harm to speculate.
No need for speculation with such a wide data base of facts and information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Yes, but one should be very careful. There is likely a really good reason why we are in this game. I imagine if we wanted to be in our infinite selves, we'd be there.
I think it's more to remind us TBH, if that's what that person needs. Maybe escape was the wrong word, it's more like a recharging, a break from the cruel game, a rest of the mind of the relentlessness of duality and suffering. But you're right, no one has to meditate but the point is that it is what you truly are and it is always there. Many people don't and that's fine, it's not a must it's just for the interested.
That's what i find funny with people like "yogis" trying to separate from this world back to their source. I find it funny bc the source wanted to be here, and they are doing the opposite.
It depends, and I don't pretend to know what Yogis want but the game can be played as many times as one wants. It's usually when a person grows weary of the game they begin to get curious about leaving it, this is where you see this type of activity occurring. Just as playing the game is not bad, wanting to leave the game is not bad either and actually will take place for each soul at some point anyways. And it usually begins to happen while the person is in the game. This is what makes it exciting though, it's like finding treasure or learning about the greatest possible secret and you get to be a part of it.
Since there are many levels of the game, a soul gets to leave each layer and experience the next one once that time is ready. So I'm for souls waking up, because a lot of times a soul can get trapped or maybe they don't know there is more to experience. It's always fun to nudge a soul and get them thinking about exciting possibilities. But I'm not dumb, I know this is not for everyone.
However, these people are characters too. Maybe their role is to escape to remind us conscious levels beyond what we realize exists too.
Exactly, but don't forget....remember that video we were watching about people's beliefs and mindsets and how each color saw the other color as being stupid? so just because the information and practice is there it does not interfere with a persons progress, they simply ignore it, don't see it or think it's really nutso lol. So I tend not to judge either side, those that want to play the game and those that are ready to leave it. So really there's no danger involved at all, if a soul is not ready they simply won't wake up no matter what you say or do. On the other hand, those that are ready will be wanting to learn from you, listen and begin to let go of what they thought was true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One persons heaven is another persons hell.
Often true, however many people can enjoy the very same paradise.
A mansion in New York or Chicago sounds like hell to me.
Lol I'm sure it does. But does that mean there's no place in New York or Chicago you might love with your choice of home?
Heaven needs to be what one wants it to be, otherwise it's a flawed concept.
You're right here, but who has defined heaven for you and why?
Though conventional ideas of heaven are flawed concepts anyway.
Not really flawed, perhaps just not to your personal tastes. But I assure you, elevated places of existence would astound you, even the Christian paradise. Going along with what you said though, you aren't forced to inhabit any heaven where your hearts desire is elsewhere.
There's a slim chance that internal processes might leave some sort of residual effect...Call it a soul if you like
Wow, why is it you must deny the soul as it is proposed, why always something else?.....ever thought of that?
....But it's too speculative to say that this will include sentience.
It's not, not with such a wide data base of facts, evidence and experience. That's why it's just too speculative to deny it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Yeah, all of what you said exists in an anime world. Lol... i'm just playing around, kinda.
Lol creation is anime! with lots of various levels. It's hard to keep that in mind when buried deep within a mundane level. It's just temporary though....once you leave the physical body you'll remember.
But i'm glad to hear back from you. I've been drinking a little so i'm a little off my game, but you have to always be the one that throws me way off my game, which is a compliment to everything you just said. I know other planes exist, but the interesting thing is this plane of existence exists too. And i think both you and i, would willingly play this game for the things we personally get... and through all my troubles and pain, so far (there may be more to come), i love this for what it is. It's a drama, a mystery, a boring series, a great series (like the Queen's gambit which i would highly recommend to watch)... it's this game and there is nothing we can do to really change what the game is. All we can do is play it...
That's what I like about you, you always get it! I can say the nuttiest (yet truthful) things and you still get it lol.
and to not leave alone the original OP from Jane, mediation should help us realize not freedom away from the game, not selfish i'm so enlightened i'm beyond you... it should make us realize we are in this current game. How you want to play it is up to you, your character... who you are. And that's beautiful to me. I can be a no-body... but i am someone to somebody. That's all that matters, figure out your game.
Perfectly stated.
Meditation could also be a way to escape such a game like this, kinda like a drug in a way but no negative effects, just a pure natural escape. If consciousness exists independent of the physical body (which it does) then the practice of meditation should focus us in on that because your attention is on that observation, puts you in the seat of what exists beyond the physical body, the self, you.
Your writing always makes me think deep my dude... luv you.
Love you man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
When Jesus said we would always have the poor with us, I wonder if His mind went to the future and thought the same thing about trolls?
Lol, surely He wasn't thinking the ending of Matthew 5 applied to trolls too? maybe there's a loophole there since internet trolls didn't exist then...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I've come to accept reality for what it is... a rat race, with a lot of rats.
Yeah I can't argue that, I agree. But only on this planet within the physical plane. I know we've talked a bit about it, not all places are like this one. Here, it's more the system involved than the actual planet or nature. It is the grip of this particular world system that makes it what it is currently. It can be broken, but for now it plays a role in this particular experience. Just don't be bummed too much, you may doubt it but consider that even right now there's places that exist where such a system has no power or existence. And the inhabitants have much higher motivations and intentions, bodies and technology have far less limitations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
I would rather not entangle myself in an endless comment war.
Well you could open up a new thread and ask questions or challenge a premise rather than posting drive by topics that don't express much of yourself. It doesn't have to be a war either at all, just a game of the intellect. This would be ideal for me, and I play in the forums because I'm too busy to commit to debates. I know you weren't talking to me, but if you want to make this interesting make topics that really intrigue your interests about specific ideas you like or don't like and wish to hash out. There's too many "I'm mad at the Bible threads" and theist bashing topics....we can have discussions about God, the existence of God, the after life, theistic concepts and spiritual principles without picking at the Bible. It's a waste of time really, and atheists hate apologists so do you want to have a discussion about spirituality without it being some kind of a fight? it actually bothers me atheists and theists can't talk about these things without there being animosity, I personally have no hate towards opposing sides of beliefs and worldviews, that's silly stuff.
If you get into conversations with me, I'll give you interesting things to think about and ponder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ethang! glad to see ya around. I check in from time to time on DDO, it's pretty pathetic to see Hari still occupying the forum acting like a psycho. Hope you hang here for awhile!
I've been doing okay, not too active in these forums much anymore, especially this religion forum. Same obsessed folks taking up all the threads, I've seen some new names that's good though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Because it's usually associated with an overaccentuated self, too much of anything ain't good lol. Ever known anyone with a "big" ego? possibly self-absorbed?
There's difference in references too, as the ego associated with spirituality which often refers to a persons identity or personality, and too much of that ain't good either. In spirituality it's also good practice to "let go" more and more of the self to allow for a more sacrificial attitude/nature, a more wholistic understanding and perception of things. Basically, the "ego" can get in the way, get in the way of what depends on what we are referring to.
The ego is needed obviously, but it's when it becomes an obstacle or over pronounced is when it's frowned upon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If we are to take the account as a literal tale that Christians generally accept, then I would say....
- What's the moral of the story?
The moral of the story is pretty much the underlying theme of the Bible. That is, to put God first in all things. That is...to also stay in line with righteousness, so that doesn't include breaking commandments or losing sight of principles, it's just a mindset or commitment when approaching the trials of life. Some of the stories could appear pretty savage or immoral at first glance, ironically, but at the heart of them is the same basic theme. To trust God and to seek God first before anything else.
- Did god ask Abraham to kill his son or not?
It's probably hard to deny that, but the term I would use is sacrifice. Is there a difference? only that the motivation here is at play, generally killing someone is done out of rage and selfishness. On the other hand sacrifice is done out of love and unselfishness. Seems like I'm making excuses possibly, but honestly I'm just being genuine. I believe that the only real difference here is literally the meaning of terms, or the intention of each.
As a kid reading this account at the time, I never got the feeling something bad was happening. I suppose that's just the feel of the story, it didn't come across as brutal or immoral. I kinda got the idea that God was just testing the man, and of course I knew how the ending would go. Don't get me wrong I know where you're going with this, I don't believe in sacrificing people in the name of God lol, and I wouldn't watch someone kill their child.
- Was god being serious?
Lol, it depends.....if God actually knew He wasn't going to let him do it. I do believe God was serious about testing his resolve, as morbid as it may appear. Again, keeping in mind that sacrifice is doing something you don't wish to do. Or something that takes a lot of courage to carry out, complete trust and willingness.
- Did Abraham believe him
I would have to say yes, doesn't mean that Abraham didn't have some hope that it was just a display and God would change the scenario either. Which is what happened in the end.
- Is this a story about the depth of Abraham's faith?
I would say probably yes. It could have also been a foreshadow of future events.
At the core of the story, Abraham had to completely let go of any fears or apprehensions and that's hard to do. If you have kids you should know what I mean, on one hand it was the ultimate sacrifice, no other test would prove something so great. As well, it's very scary and nothing I would ever do. I guess that's the point though, that is what made it the ultimate test. Keeping in mind no one was killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
But you are even confused about reincarnation because you are confused between philosophical and religious things. And then you talk about Indian and Chinky religions which are false. It is clear in the bible that we will be raised but that includes our soul anyway so I dont know what you are really going on about.
Sure, you're the one that asked. Let me know if you have another question.
Created:
Posted in:
When we die are we reincarnated or does our body become immaculate and it goes up to heaven?
Reincarnation is not a single, one-dimensional concept. Reincarnation is often misunderstood, it's basically just a term for the transitioning of the soul to its next destination. It can mean reincarnating back within the same world (rebirth) but is not limited to that alone, it could also be the transitioning to a heavenly place as well. Either way, the soul inhabits a new dwelling place wherever that may be. If you were to reincarnate......say back to earth as an example you would obviously inhabit a new body, if you were to transcend to a higher plane of dwelling you would remain present within your spiritual body, what they call the subtle body. This is still a covering of the actual soul though.
For each soul it is unique and in accordance with many variables, mainly ones Karma. Many times a soul is unaware they have attained several experiences before this physical journey here on this planet.
If you were to ascend to the Christian heaven, you would maintain your spirit body which is what you will be present within when you leave this world.
In Mathew 17 Jesus took Peter James and John there he was transgendered before them and his clothes changed and he was glowing. And that was like he was going to be reincarnated but he didn't anyway. He was just showing then what is going to happen when he dies. But when the time came that Jesus did die the rock in front of the cave moved and there was nothing inside. So that is proof that jesus was actually raised from the dead and his whole body raised up to heaven. But is there such a thing as reincarnation?
Reincarnation is simply...
Reincarnation is the philosophical or religious belief that the non-physical essence of a living being starts a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death.
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
in religion and philosophy, rebirth of the aspect of an individual that persists after bodily death—whether it be consciousness, mind, the soul, or some other entity
Yes there is such a thing as reincarnation, a lot of Christians would assume that the term is not compatible with their beliefs and that's because they are unaware that there are many options when a person dies. Not just going to Heaven, that's just one of many, many options. That's where reincarnation comes into play. Even if you were to ascend to a heaven, which is located on various planets you're still reincarnating...that is the transmigration of the soul to another destination. Because the term is associated with Hinduism and Buddhism and many other religious sources it's typically shunned lol, and that's because religious people can be very silly.
When the physical body fails, as it will, the soul simply detaches from the physical body. At that point depending on whom you are and what you did will dictate where your soul will sojourn.
Basically it's not just one thing or another, as I said there are many options and possible scenarios.
Some of the examples given in the Bible, as with Jesus are obviously not typical illustrations of what the soul will experience at death. You will however get to observe the spiritual form, which is the spirit body and all the benefits and differences of that body when you leave the physical body.
Created:
-->
@Checkmate
Most people don't really understand spirituality at its most effective layer is a science, not even most religious types get it. So when intelligence and spirituality cross breed and meet in the middle you have a hybrid freak. A scientifically minded (analytical thinking) individual mixed with the dynamics of spirituality make for the most fascinating people.
Spirituality can be super intellectual as well as scientific, it's just rare to see unfortunately. What you have is the best of both worlds because really there's no reason for them not to work together (other than asserting opposing worldviews), both science and spirituality are the study of two distinct natures, they run parallel with each other and are relentless in the revealing of all the fine intricacies between the two.
It's really sad to see that for the most part people see religious framework as something distinct from science or intelligence when in fact they are very compatible, and what kind of personality types are attracted to either system is completely irrelevant to truth and reality.
The battle is not even between science and spirituality but between atheism and theism.
Perhaps, if any truth to it at all...."gullible" people work more with intuition rather than analytical thinking, and with religion there's less worry about an appeal to intellect when it comes to pursuing it.....in other words you don't have to be a genius to believe in God. It is not a requirement, on the other hand that doesn't mean that spirituality is not for the intelligent or logical thinker.
Given that, there could be more people that are religious that are generally less intellectually inclined but that doesn't make them wrong either, that's the irony of this lol. Stupid people could be closer to the truth than academically inclined individuals, because many times educated folk are just conditioned thinkers and actually less intuitive. To accept God one has to be more intuitive (perhaps "gullible") but to grasp the real framework and foundations of spirituality one also has to appeal to the intellect, be more intellectually inclined. It's possible the limitations of less intelligent people works in their favor.
One thing that is interesting to me, is that an analytical thinker has no more access to truth than a gullible person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay.... but that wasn't my question (the last part), my question was why, to which you responded essentially because the soul wanted to. But earlier you said the soul started as a blank slate? So why did it gravitate towards one then? Because it interested them? That seems kind of like a weak basis for someone's gender identity to be determined. Especially whenever a god was the reason we assume the soul is there.
The soul does leave the Godhead as a seed, to essentially become whatever it wants. The catch though, is that the choice is usually governed by its own perceptions, and perceptions are governed by the experiences it has. So the answer here is not complex, why it gravitated to one sort of attribute or expression is unknown to me. All I know is that the soul can express gender, being masculine or feminine or a mixture of both. Perhaps the Creator imparted some expression in that seed, I think it's more that the soul is reacting with its own encounters in creation and becoming anything it wants in the moment (you seen the movie Frankenstein right lol?). The dynamics of this are pretty involved but the reasoning behind it simple. The souls potential encounters are as vast as creation, and there are so many factors involved in the decisions it makes.... and you never really know how many experiences you've had unless you reach the Akashic Records.
And again I'd like to point out, that gender identity is just a superficial thing, only in duality does it have any real meaning. In God, a Singular Reality, duality does not exist, contrast does not exist....male or female does not exist. Anything that is influenced by duality, the mind, emotions or the body is not what the soul truly is anyways. The soul exists as one observing such things, whether controlled by them or not.
Why does it have natural attributes? A couple of quiotes up you said that the soul may gravitate towards certain attributes, but why? Is it just the random will of the soul? Is there any real reason at all? I'm really curious as I have no real idea about what these souls really are or what attributes they have besides a few basic ones we've discussed.
The soul is simply you, and you know exactly what that is because you are IT. You are first a conscious being, the bodies you inhabit are just vehicles, your soul is observing through those vehicles.
Let me see if I can't paint a clearer picture here. When God creates a soul, God is essentially reducing Itself within an encapsulation, that soul comes into creation like a baby coming out of the womb it really has no idea what or where it is. You are an expression of God, you are both free as well as a created being. A lot of what you are is simply random will like you asked, this is what makes it interesting for God, you're basically a co-creator...not a puppet....you become whatever you want. It is unknown to me the specifics of why you became what you are, all I am sure I know is that you are free to choose it. What influences your choices are yours to know, not mine. All I can answer for is myself.
You may feel more drawn to a masculine type of attribute, maybe a feminine one, maybe both...it's whatever means you express your creativity better with.
So essentially - because god said so? That isn't really a very compelling answer.
Lol then why do you think creators make things? because somebody else said so? lol come on, the answer was simple because the answer is obvious. God creates what God wants to and how God wants to do it. There is no real deep answer....creation is what it is because the Creator wanted it that way. That's the nature of created things, artists, sculptors....they create what they want though their own creative expressions.
If this god wanted to maximize a process or even make the experience better, then having our sexual pleasure and reproduction entirely separate would have been her best bet. It just doesn't make sense why any intelligent god would do it as she did.
Well I guess you're entitled to you opinion here, not much to argue I suppose.
I meant the end of the soul, it is seemingly arbitrarily selecting its next soul, gathering characteristics and such. Would that mean that the more bodies a soul has inhabited the more aspects the body would attain from the soul? Wouldn't that mean that transgender people would become less and less apparent, even though the opposite has happened? In regards to the unstable thing, it makes perfect sense, it is slowly gathering "things" just like an atom collecting electrons, either the decay would outrun it, destroying it, or it would achieve balance.
I'm not fully following this much, maybe I'm tired lol, what I said was pretty clear and I don't see any real problem with it . When you leave the Godhead as a seed, you're basically a collection of experiences and those experiences stay within your conscious field and make up who you are. As you choose positive and negative intentions and actions you create your future experiences, your choices are your teacher. A soul can become trapped in these lower worlds such as this physical world if they fail to rise above the carnal influence and deceptions and they begin a cycle of cause and effect. These cycles become cyclical, and their trials and tribulations become repetitive. Once the soul learns it is allowed to advance in creation. If you watch carefully you can see your own cycles of behaviors and occurrences.
If you were a male in a previous life and abused women and looked down on them, you very well could have to come back and take on a woman's body and possibly be in a situation where you are domineered. This is to break up a negative pattern within your consciousness, so that you gain a new perspective of life and hopefully improve your output thus improving your future.
This applies to everyone and all experiences, not everyone is bad and not everyone is good, some right in between but you are sum of all your experiences. But your soul is never destroyed, that can never happen no matter what happens to your bodies. Every time your current body is destroyed you simple move on. You come back here or you move on to another part of creation where your creativity is needed, depending on your actions of course. The more positive you do the more freedom you get.
Would that mean that the more bodies a soul has inhabited the more aspects the body would attain from the soul?
This doesn't make much sense to me, could you rephrase it? the physical body doesn't attain anything from the soul, that refers to simply genetics. It's just an avatar if you will.
Wouldn't that mean that transgender people would become less and less apparent, even though the opposite has happened?
I think the more experiences one has had the less attached they feel to what they were born as, which is why we see transgenders, being transgender would become more apparent not less. They would feel detached in a way, but this is in there conscious awareness, which doesn't always play out in such ways. But as I said, a soul could have felt more connected to their previous role, and they may not even know they had a previous role. They just know they have a male body yet have feminine attributes, or wish they had a female body.
I'm not necessarily trying to disagree with or prove you wrong, I just want things that make logical sense is all.
Of course, that's what I do best! I'll elaborate on anything here, but I'm trying to keep it as tight as I can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Mind and emotions are just the physicals, again, it's presumptuous to assume otherwise
We agree here, where did you get the impression otherwise? however the soul itself is distinct from the mind and emotions, it is the observer of both. And the soul is not physical.
but once more granting the soul. Why is it so dependent on the body to drive it?
Without a physical body the soul cannot interact within the physical world. It uses the physical body and senses to have a physical experience, not a conscious experience. Bodies play no role in the conscious awareness of a person, other than as a vehicle for that soul. The body does not drive the soul, the soul drives the body. Only one is conscious, the body is inanimate without a soul.
Why isn't the soul more in control if it literally the person behind the face?
The soul literally operates the physical body, much like a video game so it is in control, the body is nothing more than hardware and the world an interface. Like a video game you need a controller (body) and a simulation (world) to interact with.
Essentially you're saying that the soul is based on it's surroundings.
Not at all.
But so is the brain, so what is the difference between the two?
Again, the soul is the conscious being behind the mask (body), the brain is simply a component that confines your soul to this physical body (it's much like an electrical panel that channels electricity through your house), your nervous system enables you to feel and touch this world ect ect...if you had no physical body you could not interact within this world, or rather you could observe it but no one could interact with you.
The brain is not an animate thing or person, it's a device, and that is the biggest difference of course.
So then let me rephrase the question, how does the soul interact with the gender spectrum? which the answer seems to be, reflect what the brain says? But that really isn't a unique or interesting interaction. Does it just copy the brain but less effectively? How does the soul uniquely interact with the gender identity, if it doesn't interact with one's gender identity uniquely from the brain, then how do you know a soul even interacts with gender identity?
I don't know that the soul interacts with gender identity more than they just choose, or are influenced by external factors, or maybe I don't understand what you're asking.
If a person is unaware they are soul, they basically interact with superficial factors, they are subject to them because they have no other way to see beyond that. If a persons experience is primarily through the brain and their immediate perceptions, then their perspective will also reflect that.
Most transgenders are probably not spiritual thinkers (making a blanket assertion, which is most likely due to religious thugs), so they struggle more with psychological conditions. And that's mainly because of societal pressures and conditioning. And we know there is a lot of confusion and emotional baggage about the whole thing, and that's because the core of the issue (as I've been pointing out) has not been fully understood. There's a lot of freedom in what I'm saying here. Unfortunately our world is not prepared for this at this time and even the religious don't know what the hell is going on.
But it's like this....the soul gains its own unique perspective through it's own experience and its own progression and often times it is disengaged from its physical body. This is part of the game though, the game is sooo real it's almost impossible not to be influenced by it. You have to get outside the brain, mind and emotions to really see clearly and this takes practice, you have to know how the mind and emotions work and how to simply observe them rather than follow them.
This is why we look to God as the better, more perfect Source because God is unaffected by what we are affected by. God sees the whole of what is happening while we are stuck in a narrow point of view.
All I'm really trying to point out is why such phenomenon occurs at all, or why a person could have unattached feelings and interests that seemingly conflict with what they were born as. And this is due to the fact that really the soul and body are distinctly two separate things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also, Karma? That's another new topic, what proves Karma?
You wouldn't really know about Karma unless you are familiar with spiritual practices and principles. I think most people know about the basic meaning of Karma, Jesus calls it sowing and reaping. There are universal laws that religious sources have different names for, just like there are different languages for different cultures. One culture may observe the same principle another culture observes but have a different term for it. It's basically a cause and effect law.
In creation you have natural laws as well as moral spiritual laws. The universe is governed by both systems, only with spiritual laws it's not as easy to simply detect or quantify unless you begin to participate and work within these systems of laws. You may reap the consequences of them, but you may never know it because your attention was never on it.
Again you go back to the word "proves", I'm not sure how I could prove something like that for you. It's more of an observation, but one you would have to be aware of and intuitive of, perhaps discerning of. The thing about Karma though is it is not limited to any single lifetime, and yet could manifest immediately. This of course makes people wonder how anyone could get away with very bad things and seemingly have no consequence. However as I said the laws of cause and effect have no time frame to work within, and the more a person becomes sensitive to it the faster the law comes back around. This is so both the awareness of an individual and the process of learning through mistakes reach homeostasis. Apart from that, a soul may never see the consequence of their action until another lifetime, and that's because their future experiences are tailored to the actions they committed. What you do now, determines what you will experience later.
What determines who gets what Karma?
Our own actions determine our own Karma.
Why is Karma fairer to some and not to others?
That's not for you to see or decide, because again you may never see a persons Karma in one lifetime so you have no real knowledge of it other than your own experience. Karma is not limited to this one life, it certainly relates to future occurrences, and may be reflected in a persons next embodiment. In other words, it's never unfair, it always is balanced in accordance with what a person does. Because of this, you can never judge it with just your own eyes thinking you see the whole picture. This is why you must only judge yourself and watch your own actions, not judging the lives of others or focusing on other souls Karma.
That's actually the point though, if you see something what you believe is unfair, we create own own Karma. How then could you call anything unfair? and by what measurement or knowledge could you judge that? it's always best to judge your own Karma not others, because we have limited knowing.
Is Karma operating on another plane of existence or does it also have some sort of physical presence we can detect?
It's a universal law that operates at all levels and places of creation. Can we detect it? it's not a thing....it's a consequence.
Karma-
action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation:
karma in the present affects one's future in the current life, as well as the nature and quality of future lives
the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence
such a force considered as affecting the events of one's life
it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect). Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths.
Created:
Posted in:
I agree that most relgious people and organizations wouldn't give it a second thought, and I applaud you for your obvious thought to the matter. However, whereas you see me as assuming souls don't exist, I presume you are assuming they do (A note, I will get to your post on my "Does God exist" page, I had a set back and most of my response was deleted, but it'll take a little bit longer to get to.)
I'm not assuming souls exists, I have good reason and look at all the evidence to propose it. I also regard my own observations and experience as being a source of what I know.
While I don't disagree that your idea of a soul and transgender don't contradict one another, I want to point out that it adds another, unneccesary level to the equation, similar to what you noted earlier, except this time it;s with regards to the plausibility and not simply how a position works intrinsinically.
I'm going to disagree with you here (as I explained earlier) and since there is not a real argument in this statement let's just call it our opinions for now.
Um... just because something is a possibility, that does not make it a likely possibility.
Lol really? why can't it be a likely possibility if there is sound evidence and obvious correlation that support it? we have more than a possibility though I'm just being modest here. I'm trying to show you the logistics involved. It's funny how atheists always grant spiritual sided things that take place as being unlikely rather than likely. Any biases here?
Something which is supernatural is by the laws of physics: impossible, and therefore if anyone were to claim it would need strong evidence than an appeal to populum. Else, one could also justify: The earth being flat, aliens visiting earth, the sun revolving around the sun, etc, etc... My point is, tesimonial "evidence" which is so loose 95% of the time isn't trust worthy in the first place, the other 5% that have other plausible reasonings not to mention.
BTW I'm not appealing to what is popular I'm appealing to actual evidence and how it is defined. Whether or not you accept the evidence is your choice, but I look at all things surrounding a claim, so yes....it does depend on what is being proposed. NDE's are a direct fit with this proposition (soul), whether or not you like that is your personal problem. If there is a proposition being made, then there should be clear evidence to support it and in this case there's a perfect match. So why doesn't it count? and if it does count (which it does) maybe you should consider it more seriously.
The problem with the first claim is that is lacks evidence, the second question is a misunderstanding: Something which is simpler is not always the preferred solution, something with the least amount of assumptions are. One way is based on multi-layered scientifically verrified fact, one is based on the (to me at least) assumption that sould exist, but I digress.
When you say lacks evidence I simply have to disagree. Science is only compatible the the physical/material side of things. So as I told you before we have to look at correlating evidence and sources not limited studies. Again, I wish you would stop assuming that I'm assuming a soul exists. I'm trying to show you I have good reason and insight to believe so, so that there are no assumptions being made.
I find each of these claims interesting, but even if I were to presume a soul, I'd have to ask, why are all of these seemingly arbitrary properties being ascribed to it?
Like what? what properties specifically have bothered you? when you use the term arbitrary I can't help but to feel insulted, because this has nothing to do with me or what I feel or want. This is precisely in accordance with a system of reason which has nothing to do with myself. So please make no assumptions about the integrity of my premises, rather first inquire and follow the logic.
Not to mention, how could we detect this soul?
This is going to come across as foolish at first, but you are a soul. That is the core of your being, you are an actual being (conscious entity) not a fluctuation of electrical impulses and brain activity. You brain is just a component to confine your immediate experience to a physical body.....This you should already know, but because of the conditioned mind you simply can't see it, or just are unaware of it. The soul is just a term for what you already are, so when you say how do we detect it, it is somewhat comical because you are asking me how do we detect something you already are just by existing.
If you mean how do we study or examine a soul that's much more complicated because again, the soul is just conscious awareness it has no physical base to obtain.
The soul has several layers covering it in creation, with the physical layer being the outermost layer. It is the heaviest most restrictive layer. The layers are what reduces/confines the soul to location and points of creation. When you leave the physical world you leave your physical layer but your soul is still covered and contained within more subtle embodiments, which some call the spirit body. Believe it or not the spirit body is not the same as the soul, they are distinctly something different altogether. A spirit body is the subtle body, even though it is far less dense and invisible to the naked eye it still has a viable measurable quality. The problem with that is, is who is going to measure a spirit? how are they to obtain one when they are at naked eye sight invisible? there was a guy (I forget the name) who created a device or scale that weighed the physical body when someone died to show the spirit leaves the body at death and I think he showed that a spirit weighed less than an ounce lol.
Not sure if that was even a legit experiment but nevertheless it goes to show that the spirit body is extremely light. Everything in creation occurs at frequencies of energetic levels, and so the spirit form has its own range of frequencies. Some try to measure and chase ghosts and there is some evidence suggesting there is strange activity but all this is questionable because I don't think there is a sincere commitment or serious studies focusing on it. That's nothing I can do anything about but I can say this, spiritual activity occurs all the time, I guess people call it paranormal activity but again more that not people scoff at it.
Did you know one in three people have either seen or experienced a spirit being? that's pretty amazing statistics if you were to take it open-mindedly. They have dedicated documentaries for both NDE's and ghost encounters, maybe instead of laughing at it (which I don't really blame you) at least know there is certainly documented cases and testimonials.
You're saying there isn't another plane of existence, or at least you're not using it for souls, but then there should be some physical basis for souls, plasma, wavelength, etc, etc, can we detect them? I would say no.
There are several planes of existence (did you look up subtle body?).....this is where creation gets real interesting. Obviously when people leave the physical body they are in a transcendent plane of existence. Not only is there an afterlife there are multiverses. God created our world in layers, and these layers (planes) correlate with each layer that makes up the covering of the soul. This gives the soul virtually endless places to have experiences. As you leave one layer, you are present within the next plane.
The soul itself though exists independent of location or embodiment, at that point you are in the full state and full form with God. The soul comes right out of the Godhead, the soul is then encapsulated in layers to make it distinct from that full state. But God makes these layers of planes for the soul to experience life through creation, the universes.
I believe that each layer that covers the soul could be detected if you actually had the equipment, then of course a spirit to measure lol. Since the spirit bodies is still made up of atoms they can be measured. However when talking about the soul itself, you're talking about nothing but conscious activity.
At that point we're only going to be able to measure energetic movement, this is where quantum mechanics has an advantage, because they are beginning to evaluate base layers of existence. But this would be everywhere not just one location, you would find energetic activity in all places at all times. Not knowing though that this energetic activity co-exists with awareness. This awareness is what we call God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Interesting - What I was saying is that whenever there is something proposed, say the existence of a soul, it is then necessarily true that the person who made the claim has now a burden of proof to make that claim true. Regardless of one's implications, you would have to do the leg work to make this certain.
I haven't specifically made a claim saying that "hey, a soul exists" lol. First I wanted to get the point across that having a soul answers specific questions. In return, you may have greater faith that one might exist. As I said, if the soul exists many pieces of the puzzle should begin to fit together. At least to the point where you are able to consider it. I've already admitted I can't "prove" this to you, because often times spirituality is an inward quality/reality not a collective one in terms of demonstration, as well the soul is an inward quality not necessarily a physical external one. So basically I'm left with trying to put together a puzzle for you so that you have a complete picture of what could exist.
Having said that, the soul IS YOU. How I can prove to you that YOU exist should be pretty simple ;D now I just have to get you to believe that you are a soul and not a series of neural firing and I'm confident that I can do such. You may not admit it, but I'll get you thinking about it.
That does make sense I know of certain users who would no doubt stop the train at the very beginning of the conversation. I think there is a certain value in regarding propositions that you believe to not be evidenced. A) Because you could always be incorrect, and B) Because they could offer a perspective on grounds agreed. So I try not to dismiss claims due to something like that.
Wait a minute here, I'm not avoiding anything if that's what you mean. I don't think it is worth discussing simply because I've already decided and thought about it and I'd rather not go haywire on this topic. I think we'd be better off keeping this as tight as we can for the time being seeing as this could turn into a book and it's only been a few exchanges lol.
Lets get back to this later if you truly believe it makes sense that a soul exists but not God, for now when I say it's an illogical premise just assume I've put a lot of time in the subject to be very efficient with what is true.
Unfortunately, I would disagree, I presume the implication that we wouldn't, therefore, know where or why these souls or spirits existed without a god? The problem with that is that regardless of what may or may not be more complicated it's just the truth of the word, others have their ways of justifying it, me myself do not accept either proposition, so I suppose this is a nonpoint.
Let me back up a hair here just for the heck of it. I'll say this.....the substance of the soul and of God are one and the same. When I say "God" I'm talking about the original state of the whole platform out of which everything originates, the Reality that encompasses all of creation including the soul. When I say soul, I'm talking about a reduced, limited and confined version of that on a tiny scale (within God/within creation). The same thing that God is, is what the soul is made of only God is in full form and the soul a fraction of that Reality. God can't create a soul out of some other substance because consciousness is only consciousness, life is only life there are no other means of creating it. I can articulate how God would do that later on.
So while the soul does have an origin, it is still of One Reality, or from a Singular Reality which has no origins. So if the soul exists God MUST exist, one comes before the other. If you say God does not exist and yet a soul exists, now you have to account for millions of souls and where did millions of souls come from?? now you have a big problem on your hands that you must account for with solid reasoning and logic.
I don't have to account for millions of souls that came from somewhere, all souls come out of One Soul so all we have to account for is God. And the One Soul (God) is a unified omnipresent Force, awareness itself is the very backdrop of our universe and that which extends before and after it. The only other property that extends from this first Reality is energy, both energy and conscious activity (awareness) co-exist, and I attempt to explain how that works but now we're getting a bit too far ahead. I was hoping at least first getting you to consider a soul and how that relates to this topic.
If you study quantum mechanics it basically proposes the same scenario only they have no conception of God yet (mainly because awareness itself is not detectable as what it is). All things seem to come back to one unified, interconnected foundation or "fabric" that all other things derive from. This always seems to make more sense in the grand scheme of things and deals with the infinite regression paradox. I can get more into detail about that later. So for now lets stick to a tried and true method here, the soul is more than always associate with God, or has its origins in God.
Again - you insinuate some larger research or insight, as well as presume the soul and such, which, given my framing of this conversation I will grant. I don't see you as someone who particularly fits into the brand of someone who doesn't understand transgender people, well, I suppose that you have a take on the situation, but I do not see it as valid per se, at least not with the same weight that I give to the psychological perspectives
Psychological perspectives are a fleeting occurrence and while they have a card in the game you have not yet dealt with the core of the person whereas I am. You may not see this as important or significant but I assure you souls (people) are not made up of brain activity, emotions or psychological issues, there is a succession of events that stem from a core. You're only targeting that which may have some influence on that core. You don't lend weight to this of course because you're an atheist.
There is a larger research and insights, this of course falls within the boundaries of spirituality and insights presented by sources that correlate with this nature. There is an available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid and in this case it is the whole of spiritual or transcendent phenomenon, which I have put many hours and years into cross referencing and learning from my own observations and experience.
I'm not just blowing smoke out my azz lol.
I'm actually heavily and solidly against the proposition that a soul exists.
I figured, but again you have not accounted for the full scope of human experience if you are. You basically ignored it because you don't think a soul exists. I'm bringing it to your attention now though so hopefully you don't just dismiss it anymore. What I mean by account for it is that you acknowledge the proposition is there, consider the wide range of experience and evidence that surround it and give reason or argument why you think it's not legit or plausible. That would be better than just pretending it's not there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Forgive me I'm a busy guy..... thanks for being patient, hopefully I can get to all of this tonight or at least half so you have something to read. At some point though we may have to find a way to condense this into a more workable format. Maybe focus on what really interests you.
I'm going to have to break this up because I'm hitting character limits so hang in there. Some of your questions take up a lot of space to respond to. I may use some of your responses in separate posts.
At any point you become uninterested just let me know, I'm not doing this because I'm bored lol. If you're not really into this whole thing I'll leave it be. But as long as you inquire I'm going to assume you want to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
We don't need organized religion (or proposed supposed beings) to propose a Creator, religion is the products of mans observations of that reality. God exists independent of that.
- You don't believe in Zeus, the most powerful of the gods according to the Ancient Greeks, you don't believe in Helios or in any of the other gods, goddesses, spirits and the like of the Greco-Roman pantheon?
- You don't believe in Odin, the most powerful god for the Nordic religion, you don't believer in Thor of the mighty hammer. You don't believe in the rest of that pantheon.?
- You don't believe in the ancient Celtic gods and goddesses who required human sacrifice?
- You don't believe in the ancient Aztec and other South American gods/goddesses who also required human sacrifice?
That being said I don't see what this has to do with the topic or there being a Creator.
Why would you assume we would have to accept any of mans particular ideas about God? God exists independent of mans ideas. Do you also have to abandon the fact that music exists and that you can enjoy the benefits of partaking of it just because man has opinions, ideas and preferences of particular kinds and styles of music? And don't miss the analogy here, trying to get you to understand you can consider the existence of God without any of mans concepts or ideas involved about that.
That being said I look into all forms of spiritual sources and concepts. However not all sources need to be accepted, as well not just only one needs to be accepted. I study a variety of sources mainly to discover clean and true insights.
Generally speaking I stay within the guidelines of rational, logic and commonsense when evaluating Theistic claims along with my own observations and experience while also employing cross referencing/examination. Not everything within the spiritual arena put forward is accurate and not everything is wrong.
If you want to talk about my specific beliefs just ask, I'm fully prepared to discuss them and defend them. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Present your case for any God's existence
Without the existence of God you must account for the processes of our universe and why they occur, meaning articulate how inanimate forces begin to produce intelligent productions on their own will.
Now, I can start by presenting my own premise but before I get to that I'll have you consider your own assumption about our world. That's just to get you thinking about what and why you believe what you do without any real objection to it. And that the alternative might just be a better proposition.
Next, I can lay out that there really are only two options available in regards to the existence of the universe just to make clear how simplistic this really is. Either God created it, or God didn't. This means that either Theism is true or materialism/atheism is true, and if I can get you to see that materialism is an absurd conclusion I have a shot at getting you to consider the only other option.
I can do that by correlating the processes of our universe with intelligence, or correlating productions with a producer, that construction is always associated with a constructor. To do that I have to convince you that inanimate materials cannot begin to generate desired outcomes and intelligent beings and I do that simply through commonsense. We know through our own world observations mind and thought (agency) are always associated with processes and productions. To understand the mechanisms involved in the manufacturing of something there first needs to be foreknowledge, and so this would indicate very convincingly that Agency was involved in the production of our universe.
We know that inanimate materials don't produce things by themselves, materials are gathered and utilized as a means to produce a desired outcome first through a user, by thought and mind (intelligence). Foreknowledge is necessary to understand how a process should begin and unfold, what materials are needed and to achieve a particular product or result. To believe the alternative is to accept an absurdity, something that is not believable.
I understand that a person becomes accustom to a certain way of thinking and what they believe, which is why I would want to get them really thinking about what they have accepted as true.
Only one of two options is true, only one fits with reality as we know it. I would argue for Theism obviously as being the superior option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Put forth your best arguments for the existence of a God.
I don't think the traditional arguments for God are well thought out enough to show anything. Rather I start with the processes of the universe and how things are produced through those processes within our universe. Being that intelligent processes (productions that produce a desired outcome) can be seen in intention and foreknowledge through thought and mind AKA agency. Processes indicate those very factors.
The actions of energy are the key element to observe and consider. How anyone could accept or believe without question that inanimate forces and materials could begin to produce/generate processes as if they had minds is somewhat unbelievable. I'm not trying to insult anyone that's just my opinion on the matter.
I can answer for why energy exists at all and why it acts as an intelligent force within our universe. Energy itself is accepted as being neither created or destroyed and exists both independent of form and within form. In other words it is considered omnipresent and eternal both of which are associated with the attributes of God.
Awareness exists wherever something exists, there is no place something exists where awareness is not present that is what makes it exist. Consciousness is proposed within spirituality as being uncreated and eternal, that is....the conscious awareness of God.
It is the very activity of conscious awareness that generates energy, it co-exists with conscious activity and therefore energy co-exists with the consciousness of God. This is the first step in the utilization of an inanimate force to create form within the universe, to begin the very processes of constructing our world.
Before the Big Bang was conscious activity, this conscious activity was omnipresent and without location. This massive Reality generated megatons of energy no one could conceive of. This force of energy was condensed and released to produce what we call a Big Bang, the moment our universe began to expand at such an accelerated pace. God knew this would produce even more materials to begin utilizing through the fusion and chemical changes of force and heat.
God used and initiated the very processes of the birth and death of stars to generate light, heat and elements that would continually seed our universe. God uses the processes of creating planets and stars through arrangements, solar systems, galaxies and ecosystems that would be suitable for many forms of life known and unknown to our planet. God uses the processes of evolution to transform inanimate materials into something usable for life and the soul. These worlds, planets and embodiments are created for the purpose of the soul having experience within creation.
It is through the very processes themselves that I can support such a premise through correlation, logic and common sense. The evidence, or indication is strong and lends to conclude only one answer for our existence. When it is all said and done there's really only two options not many. It's either God created our universe through intelligent processes or God did not, and inanimate forces began acting like animate mind and thought.
In the end one view is superior to the other but only one can be compatible with commonsense.
The argument does not end though, that's only one angle of rationale. The evidence that correlates with a transcendent (spiritual) reality is overwhelming. There's more observations and experience of spirituality than any other single topic hands down.
I will define God as Maximal Great Being, that is omnipotence(all powerful), omniscience, (all knowing) and omnipresence (all loving).
I would say only one of those terms is appropriate as a means of evaluating any truth and that would be omnipresence, the other two are unnecessary and fail to provide a clear depiction of reality. If God exists, God certainly needs to be omnipresent because if not.....that would indicate something exists outside of God and if something exists outside of God it assumes something could exist without God. But why would God need to be omniscient, omnipotent or even omnibenevolent. Maximal Being suits just fine, no need to add descriptions that have no real basis in truth. God would certainly be a maximal Being, meaning the greatest of what exists that's all that needs to be claimed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
My statement was more of a summary of my own point of view, it was not a fact that all people have to accept. if you believe the evidence brings you to a specific conclusion, then you should follow it there.
What I'm getting at is how you come to such a conclusion and believe it. I believe you think that, but why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This is the Truth, The average across a large number of historical studies suggests that in the past around one-quarter of infants died in their first year of life and around half of all children died before they reached the end of puberty.
This physical world is a cause and effect reality and within the physical world there will never be perfection. On top of that it is completely irrelevant to the soul of any individual which is neither imperfect nor destroyed. Physical bodies come and go, and many times they fall under consequence to the imperfections of cause and effect in this physical experience.
Humans couldn't believe we lived in such a poorly designed world so they invented the concept of a loving God that would give their dead children eternal life.
Lol, not really that is a poorly designed assumption on anyone's part who believes that. Eternal life isn't a concept to produce hope, it is the very implications and reality of God and the soul. It doesn't mater what anyone wants, that's simply the nature of God.
Intelligent people now realize this ( Einstein: “The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses. Hawking: — "It's my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.")
It isn't intelligence to deny the existence of God, it's an uneducated and misguided opinion. One that usually produces arrogance and the false pretense that they have become intelligent lol.
It is intelligent man that has made life livable and in a thousand years there will be no organized religions and no Jim Jones's.
We don't need organized religion to propose a Creator, religion is the products of mans observations of that reality. God exists independent of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
"I do not know if God exists, we do not have enough information to make any sort of conclusion on the matter" - the agnostic
Lol very modest of you but we have more than enough information. That is a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
What do you believe (Christianity, Islam ,theism, Deism, Atheistism, Agnosticism, ect.)
As a good starting point for a basic foundation of what is true I believe in the descriptions as defined in Spiritism and Spiritualism, not as a religion per say but as a system of belief/experience of the full scope of reality as it is. Everything that follows can be derived from these assessments.
Spiritism-
"the nature, origin, and destiny of spirits, and their relation with the corporeal world....
Spiritist philosophy postulates that humans, along with all other living beings, are essentially immortal spirits that temporarily inhabit physical bodies for several necessary incarnations to attain moral and intellectual improvement. It also asserts that disembodied spirits, through passive or active mediumship, may have beneficent or malevolent influence on the physical world.
Kardec calls Spiritism a science dedicated to the relationship between incorporeal beings (spirits) and human beings.
Thus, some Spiritists see themselves as not adhering to a religion, but to a philosophical doctrine with a scientific fulcrum and moral grounds.
Spiritualism-
is a metaphysical belief that the world is made up of at least two fundamental substances, matter and spirit. This very broad metaphysical distinction is further developed into many and various forms by the inclusion of details about what spiritual entities exist such as a soul, the afterlife, spirits of the dead, deities and mediums; as well as details about the nature of the relationship between spirit and matter. It may also refer to the philosophy, doctrine, or religion pertaining to a spiritual aspect of existence.
It is also a term commonly used for various psychic or paranormal practices and beliefs recorded throughout humanity's history and in a variety of cultures.
the view that spirit is a prime element of reality
And why do you believe it?
My own experience, observation of the world, evidence and cross referencing.
What evidence or arguments persuade you to your position?
It coincides with religion and spiritual observations/experiences as a whole, accounts for the full scope of human experience. The evidence is loud and clear, the arguments I have concluded are the results of a perfect match for the entire framework of spiritual reality. Cross referencing provides a powerful body of evidence and support when evaluating spiritual propositions.
Many people might be unaware that there is a science to spirituality, the very nature of it is based on application and observation. This is not about a system of mere beliefs but of participation and experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
BTW I plan on getting to your other topic "Is God Real" soon, I'm glad to see it sparks your interest. One thing to remember though is the nature of such a question and the nature of spirituality in general. When trying to make observations about it or inquiries it is not the same as what we are used to dealing with on a physical level like when we observe something say through the scientific method, since there is no observable physical base to obtain. There is a science to it all just not tangible in the physical sense. That's not to say it's just a nothing, because it is simply a matter of a transcendent reality evading the immediate physical sense perceptions not that there is nothing to observe.
The ranges of energetic frequencies that manifest within the spiritual planes happen at much finer vibrational frequencies so we are dealing with a nature one would assume simply doesn't exist. But like much of the full spectrum of color is invisible to the human range of visible sight so is the transparency of the more subtle observation of the higher worlds. Even the spirit bodies, that cover the soul are much more subtle than the physical body (look up the term subtle body).....the atoms that make up that form spin at much finer, lighter, higher frequencies so not only are they transparent to the physical sight they last eons longer than our physical, dense limited bodies. So that's why when you study NDE's and spirituality you hear of the spirit body "floating" or hovering, that's due to the lightness of that covering/body. Also why they appear transparent looking or "ghostly" in appearance.
As we discussed about the soul, consciousness is much more akin to energy or electricity rather than physical objects that we can look at and grasp. And because of the lightness and rate of energetic frequencies that make up the spiritual worlds as well as the conscious worlds it makes it near impossible to prove something you can't visually detect or observe on a physical level. But because of the soul existing independent of the physical body it can and does make observations of that reality. So I say all this just keep that in mind when expecting anyone to demonstrate God exists in a way where anyone could prove it. You have to rely more on evidence that correlates with that nature as well as commonsense and rationale.
And these types of observations happen within a persons conscious field, at various levels and channels of experience. Just be open minded about that, I will say other than that everything about it is logical and well perceived. You should be willing to follow arguments that simply make sense and fit within our reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That past lives might be the reason that trans individuals exist? That might explain it,
My point is that the soul is genderless, but that past lives may influence what that soul chooses.
but again, perhaps a different perspective? I would think that the relation between a soul and their gender is in psychological terms
That's what I said, yes.
so would the soul that is more separate from its host be one that is more fluid regarding the identities of its physical body? If that makes any sense, it was more of a note.
Exactly true. Very good.
This kind of goes back to what I was saying before, with the echoes and all. Even with souls, I do feel the simpler answer is that the body has different preferences according to a host of genetic, psychological, and other factors. Of course, I may also just go back to what I was talking about in my last response, More separate and therefore the identities that one has is not as rigidly instructed by the body.
With my premise I'm not negating genetic, psychological, and other factors. Only that they aren't the only factor involved, at least the main factor. I completely agree with your last sentence. A person may wonder about the core of themselves, not just external factors.
So a soul does build up some kind of attributes, as it goes through bodies, it is no longer the blank canvas it started out as? I’m curious, could a serial killer be reincarnated as a good person? Or vice versa? Or would the attributes, the taint, so to speak, prevent something like that from happening?
A serial killers immediate perceptions through a new body are new just like that of a babies, but yes their previous tendencies will arise in their consciousness. Actually their new role is meant for that soul to be able to change their old tendencies so they choose to. Many times a male that killed females will be given a female body so they gain a particular experience that may help them choose different paths.
In all honesty, I would not care for any god regardless if there were any souls. This god does not seem to care about any of us, and I will do them a favor and revere them as much as they revere me.
God experiences everything through you, there is no real distinction lol. So you only avoid your true self not some Being that has no connection to you.
To say- not at all. It is a tad bit patriarchal that a god was depicted as such. I think we both agree that typically god is seen as a parent or parental, and isn’t it true that women are seen as more parently? Even if that isn’t the case? If it’s often portrayed, why isn’t god seen as female then? It would only make sense for a god to not have any sex, a gender perhaps if it were conscious, but not sex.
God is portrayed as a variety of things and personalities and really it's because God reflects all these things not one or the other but typically in this culture we use the Bible as the main reference of how we portray God....the war God, God of vengeance, maybe love, God of power and masculinity.....the God that will devour you if you screw up lol.
Creation is simply a play at the basic level, a movie if you will with actors and roles, how we portray God is often how God wants to experience something through you. God simply observes through every channel of experience, God is not removed from anything that's why God creates, is to have a form of experience away from the alone state. In pure consciousness there is only one Reality like in pure energy, yet both consciousness and energy exist independent of form and within form, one singular reality yet many, many observations. Whatever the point of form is the point of observation. Both have distinct observation points which create distinct experiences for consciousness.
So you're right, there is no mommy God or lover partner for God, and therefore no sex or opposing roles. That is all created within creation through embodiments and opposing forces/contrast using the "soul" as a point of observation.
Hmm, not much to note on this, I guess if the god we are defining is by definition having no embodiment then they wouldn’t have a gender? Eh, I suppose so, basic thought was that that god would still be aware and even interact with the same concepts that inform human identity, so I would assume it would be possible for any god to develop one.
Only attributes sure, God may have more masculine attributes than female but I doubt it. There would be no real reason to believe so. Either way, if there is no body and just one singular Reality then there is no point of reference really. That only applies to creation and created things.
I suppose it really depends on how you define god in that case.
Well how do you define a singular reality? what reference point could you possibly use to define it? it's easy for us humans in creation to define things because we have many points of contrast to make descriptions.
Could a god simply not control its mas of powers and consciousness in a physical body? Seems like an arbitrary limit to me. Why is this the case? Could you elaborate?
If and when God incarnates it basically reduces Itself and as a result reduces It's abilities. If you picture consciousness like that of electricity or energy, every time you add a component to confine it you reduce its power. You take something that is the All and reduce it to form, then you reduce it to less than what It previously was. It's not arbitrary, God doesn't want to be God in creation, that's the point lol. That's what gives God a fresh experience, whatever you yourself (soul) experiences. If you were God that would be no real experience.
Not necessarily scoff, I at least, consider it with less weight due to the inherent assumption it forces the wearer to presume, but it at least seems like a new perspective, so I’d be interested in having the conversation.
I'll give you credit, you took this very, very well and I am excited you are open-minded enough to play around with the implications of it being a possibility. Thank you for that I only apologize for not replying sooner.
Please note: No I do not believe a soul exists, this is simply granting a proposition for the sake of discussion. Thank you.
I figured, but don't let your worldview or ideology suppress that which could be true. You seem like a very bright person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thanks for the reply I'm going to split this into two posts assuming I'll hit a characters limit...
Even a valid and sound syllogism would work, and while fascinating your points are all claimed. They do not actually prove anything regarding the matter.
But you just said a sound syllogism would work, so here that's what I will do as opposed to "proving" something for you. Again I can't prove to you there is a soul all I can do is point to you the implications, and in that alone everything should make sense, be perfectly clear to you. Reading over your post I'm not sure if you fully absorbed the simplicity of my propositions as being clear answers for this topic. Having said that, I think there are clear forms of evidence for considering the existence of the soul.
Interesting, both the concept that me being an atheist is unfortunate and that if I were open to it I would understand things. To clarify - being an atheist does not inherently mean that you don’t believe in spirits, it means you don’t believe in god(s). Full stop.
I only meant unfortunate in terms of you dismissing my posts, which at first seemed like the way you were going. I'm glad you decided to keep this flexible :) just don't assume at any point I'm being insulting because that's not my intentions.
I would argue though, spirits or souls existing without God involved makes for an illogical premise. Because now you have multiple layers of reality that somehow began to exist, I don't think it's worth arguing but maybe later I could elaborate on that. For now, lets just assume if the soul exists, it's more than likely it is because God exists. No need to make things more complicated.
I understand the concept perfectly well, people are misinformed and don’t understand transgender people. People react to things they don’t understand very differently, some are afraid, some lash out at it, some deny it in some hopes of it going away as long as they don’t acknowledge it, whatever.
Hopefully you don't see me as being any of that. I'm not reacting to it really more than just showing you the implications of an existing soul how it is in reality and how it effects our experience. And many religious types would never even go this far with you, TBH. Most would probably just call it an abomination or some rebellion to God's will. Perhaps a sin or some perversion. I've gathered a lot of information believe it or not to articulate this simplistically.
Not really, but I’ll try not to dismiss it. “Homosexual tendencies” I find that phrase a bit more insulting than any claim you make of spirits. It might just be me, but it just gives me a feeling of the whole, “It’s just a phase!” thing ya know? I could answer why people are homosexual. Because some people like the same gender that they are romantically and/or sexually.
If what I'm saying is true, would it not be plausible? all I'm really saying is to put less emphasis on the physical side of our existence, whether we have a male or female body, that should resonate with you so I wonder why you didn't really ponder about it more. I certainly wasn't using the term "tendencies" to be insulting, what would you rather me say? I just mean an attraction to a certain gender....
Boom done, no souls required.
The conclusion to you might be that simple, and I would agree if we were to assume no soul exists. But, in a world where we have to face a variety of worldviews we can't afford to just assume things. I am trying to show you it's just as simple though, even if we have a soul. Basically I'm trying to get the point across that there is a compatibility here, between a soul and what transgenders and homosexuals experience. Most religious sources would never offer a compatible platform, they would mostly just reject any thought of being either. And mainly I'm referring to religious people.
Definitely an interesting take; however, there is no other realm but the physical.
This is something you've assumed and really for no good reason. It definitely does not explain the full scope of human experience or account for it. I don't think it is a good practice to simply ignore testimonial evidence, especially when it is so widely recorded and so well established, at the very least one should consider a transcendent reality as being possible. This would obviously account for such a wide date base of religious and spiritual experience. Not even getting into NDE's or OBE's, but certainly those are included.
NDE's would be a very clear point of reference supporting the claim that the soul exists independent of the physical body, no other clear reason should this phenomenon happen at all. At face value, it's a perfect match for this premise.
Your mind is simply a connection of high-speed transmission of nerves and the like. I don’t see another realm to particulate someone’s experience in. I think there is a clear-cut answer. If someone’s gender identity is that of a female and their sex expressed phenotype is male, that person is a female.
I don't believe that is more clear cut at all. If the soul is non-gender (which it is) then that is a much more direct answer. That would explain why in some instances, a person does not really identify with their born gender role because at the center of their being nothing of the sort exists. Basically then, gender and preferences are just a superficial occurrence at one level.
BTW, I'm not using another realm of existence to articulate what one experiences in their mind per say rather what one experiences in their immediate conscious experience. The physical body and or the brain is just a conduit, a component that confines a souls experience to this world. The conscious awareness of a person is always connected to the soul, where the soul goes there the conscious experience follows. The mind is only a piece of machinery, the soul uses the mind to navigate creation but the conscious soul is the one observing the mind. The mind is really more of a storage compartment for memory and information, it is inanimate.
Pursuing that spirits exist, I would assume so. It also depends on what type of soul you are talking about. This seems like an obvious extrapolation from most beliefs of reincarnation and the like. I would also argue that there are clearly individuals who do not have a clear gender or even sex, what happened to the soul there? I am genuinely curious about your opinion regarding the matter.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, it should be clear what I'm saying. The only time you have a gender (identity) is when you have a physical body. Consciousness (soul) does not have body parts, which is what reflects a gender. Reincarnation is just the placement of the soul in any given part of creation, once the soul is placed within an embodiment that's what dictates what gender that soul will possess, but again just at the physical level not the soul itself. However, many times the physical body morphs from what people normally expect, because there is never perfection at the physical level. And often times, a persons Karma dictates what that soul must experience within the physical world.
Like I said, an interesting take, not one I buy, but I’ll grant for the sake of discussion. This is practically where I went in my last response. To elaborate on my own response. Gender is not binary, regardless of how one attains it, it is clearly a complex scale of spectrums that determine gender. How does the reincarnated soul interact with this?
I agree, but remember much of ones identity rests at the physical surface layer (psychological) at least superficially, because like you say it's a complex configuration, much of which is influenced by ones surroundings. Since a souls perception is confined primarily to the physical experience it is tossed about like the wind with much of what it observes. What I'm saying here might not ever even cross the mind of most souls experiencing what they are experiencing, they may inadvertently feel it but not know it. This of course is how the physical world and bodies were created, so that the soul believes that what it is experiencing is what reality is. This helps one keep their focus and attention on the physical world while they are here.
Again, reincarnation is simply the destination of the soul, it is just a term used to describe the transmigration of where the soul goes next. The only interactions are the soul itself and with the embodiments of that soul. Which include the mind and emotions.
As for gravitating towards one or the other, could I ask why? Why does the soul do this specifically? You have some kind of principals behind whatever souls you are using, so I’m curious about a lot.
The soul instinctively may gravitate towards a masculine or feminine characteristic because of what it desires or what attributes interest it, but again it may want to express both. So this is why I say this answers many questions about transgenders. Because the physical body may not always determine anything.
I wouldn’t assume that no.
Well maybe you wouldn't assume it, but I would guess most religious people would assume it and why they tend to look down on the topic altogether and why they judge it wrongly.
Gender is societally constructed,
That may be true, but gender "identity" is usually assumed with what physical apparatus one is born with. Whether a person is "male" or "female". Since the soul has no physical apparatus gender doesn't exist, however a soul may have natural attributes, and those attributes may reflect a masculine or feminine role or even both.
therefore any base layer or model would not have one. I agree. I agree, if there were a god, they would recognize the need to reproduce, and therefore create us with organs in order to accomplish that My question, if the creator is not bound by normal rules, why not make us capable of sexual pleasure and able to reproduce asexually? It would be less hassle in the long run.
That's a good question and much of what could be explained by experience alone. In creation God does things primarily for the pure experience not really by what may be more efficient. What you propose may be true of another species and even somewhere else in creation, but God wanted it this particular way for whatever experience it brings forth on this planet.
So in other words, the foundation of the human is never truly changed, parts and other things are simply added as they gain physical being? A truly fascinating take, however, I would pose a different interpretation. I would say that if reincarnation is how the soul moves after their original body is gone, that they would collect kind of like an echo of all of their past lives, and slowly build up towards some maximum or unstable state, similar to atoms or molecules.
Yes they do collect a trail of experience that the soul carries in their consciousness unconsciously. What that amounts to I can't say, all I can say is that you are what you are through all of your experiences. I don't think it amounts to some usable state, that seems illogical to me. It may lead to a certain state, but your journey in creation is long and tailored for you specifically. The end of your state of being is actually where you originated.
So in other words, perhaps my theory wasn’t as far off as according to you?
Our implications are much the same, just with different foundations. That's kind of what I'd like to point out. I am not really trying to prove you wrong more than I am trying to resonate with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I apologize, they weren't aimed at you specifically, but in general. People are drastically misinformed. And yes, I understand the process of learning, however, I am not open to things that are not justified or at all demonstrated. Every tested claim had a basis or hypothesis that proceeded it.
Again, your claim that it is unjustified is just a claim. I have yet to support my claims with an argument, an argument would necessitate a rebuttal on your part. Hopefully they won't be narrow minded.
What's yours?
I demonstrate it first by giving you relevant content that deals directly with your topic, if you want me to demonstrate a soul exists it's not that simple unfortunately, maybe you're not too acquainted with how spiritual discussions go lol? this is not a topic where I can just hand over peer reviewed studies that something exists. You'll have to argue content not demand some external justifications. There's good reasons to believe a soul exists but we will get to that when I see some content from you.
Regardless I assure you I am working on a detailed response, if you would just be patient with me I will have it posted here soon. I apologize for the delay.
I'm in no rush, just not sure why you decided to blow me off just because you're an atheist. As if there's no possibility I have legit knowledge and information, please take your time. If you wish not to respond at all that's fine too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
For all you know, souls could exist and you'll never know anything about that because you dismiss the very possibility. If there's truth to what I'm saying it should at the very least make sense. Maybe you should read that again, being open-minded to the possibility and see what you think of my premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Perhaps you don't understand. The claims you make are an important part of the discussion.
Perhaps it's not me who doesn't understand, isn't that what our discussion will consist of? I give my opinion, and you respond as you see appropriate. I address your response, as of yet you have given me no response to argue or answer. You can claim it's all bunk, but you have in no way shown that, you haven't even addressed or asked one single thing. I have no idea what you even disagree with other than you are an atheist so I'm sure you reject any Theistic propositions.
Whenever people fundamentally misunderstand an issue, I'd like at least some kind of justification behind a claim.
Which part did I fundamentally misunderstand lol?
I don't dismiss what you are saying as bunk out of hasty work, but out of an unproven and unjustified axiom. Why should I care what a spirit has to do with it if I don't believe in spirits?
That's how you learn new things, you don't just dismiss them due to your chosen worldview. You have to address the contents of my post.
I mean no disrespect towards you or your beliefs, but before one can extrapolate these beliefs justifiably, one must have some reason that is justified validly that they believe in
I guess you never have discussions in debate forums? this is a forum with a wide range of beliefs, you find the truth behind those claims by debating them, not dismissing them. I'm still waiting for your response, as of yet you have not touched any contents of my post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately for you, that is all it is. An opinion.
You're welcome, but just because it's my opinion doesn't disqualify it as being true, after all that's what you asked for.
I see no reason to believe that a soul exists, and you have provided no evidence for such.
I understand that, why would I need to hand over evidence for a soul just to give you my opinion? lol, is that how you handle all discussions? we can get there, but first I was giving you my thoughts on the matter.
This is for psychologists, neurosurgeons, and biologists to study
Pardon me, but I'm not ignorant to those studies and IF the soul does exist it has a say in the matter. And to be frank, should help you understand what is going on.
The entire axiom of your argument has not been justified
Have I had the chance to justify it in a y way? first things first right?
and therefore the rest of it is bunk anyway
Lol wow, hasty hasty....is that how you handle new information?
I must ask, would you like them privately addressed in PM, or discussed here in the forum?
I addressed your topic here, you can reply to whatever it is you wish to. But please, don't blow me off as if you know what I'm saying has no merit, that reduces your topic to nothing worth commenting on. Especially in a debate forum, where I would hope you evaluate and respond to information based on its insights and not reject it because of your own biases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is going to be somewhat unorthodox and I'm sure some might find this very strange but I don't really mind that, I'm just warning you before I say anything lol. Unfortunately your profile says you are an atheist so I can't really ask if you are into spiritual stuff. But TBH if you were open to it, it could help you understand much of the controversy surrounding the topic. And not that this is particularly relevant but it also could help shed light on why individuals have homosexual tendencies.
Due to the nature of this phenomenon the physicality of it are too overly emphasized which is why there seems to be no clear cut answers. Because in reality the immediate physicality is somewhat irrelevant so it doesn't really get to the core of what people experience.
I'll say/ask this first, did you know the actual soul of an individual is non-gender? and only when a soul enters a physical body it takes on a male or female role?
Did you know the soul can have several experiences within creation once the soul leaves its Creator? I know in this culture the idea of reincarnation and past lives is shunned but follow me here. Not getting caught up in any particular fundamentalist ideas of religion, you should give this some thought.
Believe this or not, but a soul can gravitate towards either or, a combination of, or a specific role or "gender" type despite the physical body it was given. Most of the time a souls perceptions are subjugated or influenced by the upbringing role it took on at birth but not always. You might assume that a created soul was created male or female but that's actually not true because it is not possible, because the soul has no gender, male or female parts that is only relevant to physical embodiments when the soul enters creation to any given location. This is also true of the Creator as well, believe it or not God has no male or female parts and because of that no particular gender....those are only created things as God saw it useful for whatever means. Mainly for reproduction.
But as you left the Creator as a soul you too had no physical parts, and as the soul becomes intertwined within the physical body it inhabits it begins to identify primarily to that gender psychologically but not truly inwardly. Meaning the reality that the soul is genderless never dissipates, the soul just begins to think and act according to its perceptions of that body (most of the time). As a matter of spiritual fact you could have had several other experiences before this one as either male or female "roles", and even though you are inhabiting a certain physical body you may not feel connected to that role or relate to that role, but more towards another or even a mixture of both as in not really accepting either or.
This is true for homosexuals as well, a "man" may possess a male physique but feel attracted to males instead of women or maybe both. A person could have lived a previous life as a male or female role, then was killed in an accident and sent back into another body of a different gender and begin to feel as if it relates more to that previous role for whatever reason, or more attracted to a certain gender despite its own gender. Or as I said, may not fully embrace either or.
This is surprisingly simplistic, since the soul itself is non-gender it doesn't have to conform to any particular role, but at the same time can gravitate to whatever role it is attracted to. Attributes of the soul is what usually pushes a soul to accept what it becomes. This is true of the Creator as well, God has attributes but not a gender, no physical parts that make God either or. Generally it is accepted or asserted that God is male, but that's primarily because God is depicted as a provider, leader role or of strong disposition. So most revere God as a "He", ironically God has all aspects/expressions of Itself not just only a male or female expression. Again those are only roles and qualities that are derived from created forms in terms of reducing oneself to one or the other.
You may ask then what is God if not a male or a female? well God is not a who, rather God is simply consciousness, or conscious awareness. Consciousness (soul) of itself has no gender or male/female roles. God is basically a conscious Being with no embodiment, no location within creation rather all of creation is within God. God can incarnate, as to take on a particular role/embodiment but the Creator Itself is purely awareness, you can say intelligence without a physical body. Of course a physical body would exempt God from being what God is and how God is defined.
Anyways before I write anything else I'll see if you are interested in any of that. I know atheists generally scoff at spiritual concepts and Theistic propositions lol, so I hope this is not confusing or offensive to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The theory doesn't contain any fact that indicates anything other than materialistic causes. So it doesn't have to be an assumption if every fact indicates that material causes are driving the processes of evolution.
The theory wouldn't contain any other fact other than what the process is and does which is why I gave the analogy of a recipe, that's why it's a neutral study. It doesn't make any claims for or against a Creator, this is simple to understand. In other words you don't get to make the call that no God was required without making that positive assertion. That's where you added content. You can assume or believe that materials are driving the processes of evolution but as I laid it out, it's a silly proposition.
It's simply the case that there isn't any indication that supernatural intervention is needed to describe the processes of evolution. That doesn't require assumption, as it's a statement of fact.
Well I appreciate your assertion and opinion about it, but it does nothing for your case to assert that. It is just your own opinion.
God isn't an explanation of anything in the universe
All except for the processes that take place within our universe lol, that IS an explanation for why intelligent processes occur at all. What are you not seeing there?
unless you can describe the mechanism by which he intervenes in whatever he intervenes in in the universe. Otherwise, there is no reason to assume a superfluous agent in otherwise accurate descriptions of reality.
The mechanism by which God intervenes is the very function of energy itself, at which point things begin to happen, it is the manipulation of energy and element. Of course we haven't gotten to that point yet and how that works we are getting there though. First we need to recognize that you don't just get to assert that a God is not required for processes to take place and claim that is some default position. My argument is that it is not a default position, science is not making claims one way or another, so you don't get to claim scientific theories as a means to assert yourself into a more "reasonable" position. Both positions/interpretations can be reasonable but of course I would argue my position is the more reasonable one.
Nope, there are degrees of atheism.
Yep, once you assert that God is NOT required you made a positive claim, sorry that's how it works. If it is true that science is a neutral study, and we know that it is....science simply gives us the formulas in any given process, whether or not there was a maker is up for grabs. You choose to believe that recipes do not require a maker to create that process as a means to produce something.
Some assert that there is no god and that they can prove it, but i don't align with them.
For starters that is an unprovable claim. Needless to say. Either way, when you embrace atheism or materialism you have embraced a worldview, science is not an ideology it is a study of things that occur.
I am simply relaying my thought process. Suppose I told you there was a magical elf that always stood behind you when you tried to look at him. Would you believe that without reservation, or would you reserve belief in the elf until some fact indicates its possible?
Lets stay on track and not insult each others intelligence, how about that?
These inanimate objects listed do not possess the quality of being reproductive organisms. There are established mechanisms of evolution that describe how populations diversify. So why "interpret" agency onto otherwise material processes?
Because material processes can't generate anything on their own will, that requires thought and mind and I gave you an analogy of productions and a producer. You're missing the point though, I'm not saying the materials or the processes themselves are animate, I'm saying there is a user of those processes. This becomes obvious when you observe what they create within our universe.
I define evidence as a body of facts that positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with, one conclusion above all others.
Lets get a more whole understanding of what constitutes evidence
Evidence-
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
an outward sign : INDICATION
one who bears witness
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion, because evident things are undoubted.
There are two kinds of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs)
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof
Testimony (spiritual evidence)
evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something
firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE
evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
So here, I'm using two types of evidence to show you the evidence is strong for a Creator. I'm using a good indicator through correlation and I'm using testimonial experience, which is first hand evidence that supports the truth of something. Both qualify as evidence.
The point is that it isn't. Every argument for god I have ever encountered has had critical flaws.
Except for the one I'm making now, you haven't shown any critical flaws as of yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"God is Dead" is a widely quoted statement made by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Which really doesn't mean much. If God is alive Gods very Being pulses through every single organism and product of energy.
Nietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God.
And I would have to say that doesn't make much sense.
If God is alive, how come he doesn't go on the Jim Bakker Show and speak to the world from a burning bush?
God is not distinct from fire, a bush or the Jim Baker show, that's the irony. Why would God speak to the world just to speak to Itself through many veils and layers of conscious awareness? God already knows It exists, the embodiments serve the purpose of hiding that truth, that's what makes the game fun. It's only temporary until the soul either wakes up or leaves this world. There is no real reason for God to rush the journey of any given soul. This physical world and planet wouldn't be what it is if we all knew the full scope of what exists, there's other places of existence where that is an ordinary reality but not here.
Having said that, the soul that's traveling/navigating through creation in embodiments is veiled from the full truth of its origins at one level for a reason, and because of this it is through the process of spirituality that the soul at some point uncovers the truth a bit at a time. This is not a collective observation or process it is an individual process. It's not incumbent that the world be unveiled from the Ultimate Reality at one time in one moment.
God is alive within you, in a sense you are not distinct or separated from God it is only the immediate physical sense perception that you believe that. But at the core, you are one with God and can be nothing else. That's also the irony lol, you are the very thing you seek to find and uncover. The fun part is the process that will occur as you unravel that truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Evolutionary theory is a model that describes how life diversifies. That's not an "interpretation", that's just a description of reality.
What I mean is that the theory does not necessarily suppose materialism or atheism, thought I made that pretty clear. I know what the model describes.
Actually my friend, that's simply a statement of fact.
Not so, it's an assumption. You know the difference correct?
Nothing about what we know about the universe actually indicates there is a god.
That's an opinion, I gave you the alternative interpretation.
I argue that reserving belief in such things is more reasonable than belief without reservation. So atheism occurs naturally when one is being reasonable.
No, atheism is not a neutral position nor is it any more reasonable than a theistic interpretation. Atheism is an interpretation and one that requires a positive assertion. This is why I made the argument I made.
There has simply never been a demonstrated event of supernatural intervention, so why assume it's so?
The very products of what the universe produces through processes is the demonstration, or better put interpretation. It's commonsense really, even though it's an interpretation because we know from our own observations that inanimate materials don't construct things on their accord. Bricks don't build houses, logs don't build cabins, metal and electrical components don't build automobiles ect ect...there is always a constructor for a construction, a builder for buildings, a producer for productions, a manufacturer for manufacturing ect ect..
where ever we find processes it's associated with agency. We extend that same premise to the processes of the universe. For there to be an intelligent process there must be a mind to know how that needs to work, what materials, what arrangements, what recipes, what purpose ect ect....
The correlation is just a correlation, not causation.
Correlation is indication, which precedes evidence.
These spiritual observations, how are they evidence of a god?
You have to be aware of how evidence is defined and what constitutes evidence.
You are reading intelligence into processes
That's how an interpretation works.
so you can draw the false analogy to god creating things intelligently.
It's not a false analogy with the possibility I'm correct, but it is my interpretation.
How is the existence of intelligence and things created by intelligence evidence of a god?
I'll let you think on that for a bit lol.
Created:
-->
@Juice
Oh yes of course. Yes yes, except for when you ignore archaeologists fossil discoveries which disapprove of the history of animals displayed by the bible. And of course you shut your eyes and cover your eyes when confronted with scientific papers stating the earth is older than ten thousand years old. What about lights detected from millions of years away? Of course, they don't count. Darwinism? Arguably one of the most important discoveries in the history of human evolution?
Again you never asked you just assumed. Looks like this will be all about what you assume and not what I told you.
Just ignore that as well to protect your little slave encouraging, jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak who is a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Not useful content. No argument here.
Science is not atheism,
Bingo, now we are getting at the truth.
but atheism uses science.
You mean interprets science.
Theism and science are perfectly compatible!? Hahaha, unless you count it when you back bending folks use ad hoc after ad hoc to defend your precious delusion. Fossil's show that man did not walk with dinosaurs? No problem, just say that dinosaurs were slow and stupid. What's that? That's not enough? Sure thing, we'll just say that God clicked his fingers and killed every single organism. Ad hoc after ad hoc after ad hoc. It is quite the circus show.
No argument here either, more assumptions about MY beliefs lol.
Besides a bunch of BS? Nope. Is this a good way of escaping a question? Yup.
Perhaps you could quote that BS I told you.
This is not a debate so I did not provide any sources, but very well, if you want to humiliate yourself...
The only battle between science, the theory of evolution is the assumption that God is omitted from the processes of the universe not that they never happened. This goes back to what I'm saying about atheism, atheists have their interpretations but they are only opinions. It's not a battle between science and theism, it's an argument between theism and materialism/atheism.
I'm not going to link anything else here as I can already predict what you will do. Ignore, deflect and lie.
Sounds like you're paranoid. Once you stop assuming things we can make some headway.
Except for Richard Dawkins. Except for Charles Darwins. Except for Christopher Hitchens. Except for Sam Harris. Except for Stephen Hawking. Except for Michel Houellebecq. Except for Peter Singer.
Those men stand for their own beliefs not science and they don't represent science they represent atheism, they are philosophers not scientists lol. More over they are atheists who decided to hijack the researches of scientific works twisting them into works of materialism. Read below again....
Evolution and the processes of our universe are intelligently produced and accomplished. Processes are associated with intelligence, intelligence with agency therefore the processes that take place within the universe are compatible with a Creator, creation is a process. Inanimate forces cannot generate processes and know how something should unfold to work, that requires thought and mind.
Now, it's funny how you mock religious thinkers because they gain insights from "books" and follow other religious thinkers yet here you are pandering to works of atheists and gullibly following them like a lost little sheep lol.
Clearly you are not well acquainted with science to say that essentially say something can come from nothing.
Never said that.
Your thinking is very limited.
That would be the poster who keeps making wild assumptions before asking his opponent about his beliefs and what they are, how they came about. Also the guy that learns to think from extreme atheist writers.
You act like nature cares about you. Yes creation is a process,
Sounds like we have one good starting point here, lets see where you go with it.
but it isn't the process which created the universe. Your whole theory hypocritical and contradictory.
What? seems like you are capable of writing and making clear of your assumptions but when trying to make a counter point that is relevant you fail miserably. Try that again.
When scientists say the universe came from nothing, you say that isn't possible. When atheist asks who created God, you say "don't worry about man, God is different". It is quite embarrassing that you use the logic that you deny to support you theory.
You never asked me anything, lets try that first but you actually have to ask lol. Do you know what the term assumption means, you are fluent in the art of assumptions son.
I am not the arbiter of truth.
Agreed, now remember that as we continue.
I do not emit truth. I am simply attracted to truth and therefore stand by truth where ever it may be.
You say you do not claim God does not exist, or at least don't know. If you do not know for a fact your whole foundation could be false if God does exist. Therefore you have no reason to claim you stand for truth wherever it may be. You have accepted atheism, not knowing whether of not God exists, then you make the claim you stand for truth. Now that is a contradiction.
Personally, I'm not one who's interested in fiction, but no matters. Tell me why you believe in your delusions despite all the evidence I have listed. Tell me why you ignore archaeologists, astronomers, geologists, biologists and politicians who string it all together.
You can ask me a question without being rude and insulting. And without making assumptions. This is what that would look like below....
Question number one.....Tell me why you believe what you do?
Question number two....Do you ignore archaeologists, astronomers, geologists, biologists and politicians who string it all together?
Are those your questions?
You talk big about me making assumptions, but really, am I wrong?
100%
You believe in a man who was born of a virgin mother, stabbed to death, buried and then bought back to life by his father who is also himself. Sounds like a joke.
No
I am. I am the superior thinker. That is exactly what I am. You know why?
LOL, yes I know why you've assumed that.
Because I don't ignore millions of years worth of evolutionary science. Because I am not blind to facts. Because I believe scientific papers which have been examined endlessly. Because I believe astronomers with their billion dollar telescopes. Because I believe things which can and have been testified. While you believe in a musty old book written by peasants. Here are some versus for you to mutter in your morning pray.
No content here, just more silly assumptions.
I particularly likes this one as God comes in and saves the poor girl from what would be an unimaginably horrific experience. I love how God loves this girl. I love how God taught these men a lesson. I love how God protected this girl at a time of darkness.Please, just please. Stop. Stop this. Put the bible down.
Yet you're the one who quoted it, wow.
Created: