Total posts: 2,869
-->
@Stephen
There was never a talking snake....surprise, surprise! can you believe that everyone? uh ohhh, we're back to figurative again.
The serpent is representative of the forms of temptation mankind faces in this life, this has nothing to do with any snake, it's just being used to form an illustration so the serpent wasn't really a "who" even though the devil and or Satan are often times used to reference the negative forces. And lo and behold Adam and Eve are representative of mankind as a whole. Most of what is being portrayed in Genesis is symbolic, much of it has layered meanings. And yes, that includes the tree of life, the curses and everything else.
Note that temptations are subtle, they begin with thought....they are weighed out in the individuals mind...they take on an emotional grasp, the individual wrestles with that temptation....then, after indulgence they reek havoc on the individuals life. You can say that temptations are the root of all the bad things man does, and because of this temptations are considered a curse above all things. Once they are fulfilled, it's like eating "dust" in that carnal desires are never satisfied. They promise satisfaction to the individual, but they can never fulfill that promise.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I ain't your buddy and would never want be.
Still butthurt from carrying on like a buffoon about something you failed to notice? yeah, you seem like a person on a wires edge. Don't pop Stevie, your PM's will be discarded from now on. Grow up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It's not where I come to vent and lash out at others of opposing beliefs like you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Wow, are you Harikrish from DDO??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
especially outplayz' and etrnl's opinion on dredpirate's idea about sentience needing purpose in order to exist.
I would say the need for purpose in order to exist would be irrelevant. It's more the want for purpose as it exists, it's the nature of the conscious soul to want to express itself. God is also this way which is why God creates and continues to create in so many ways we are unaware of. God exists despite any of that though, God exists whether or not there is ever a purpose. But as God is a Creator, it is the desire to bring things into existence.
I know it may be unorthodox to claim God desires anything but that's the nature of what God is. Even if we were to say "God is love", it's the nature of love to express that in all different ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Having thought more about this as well as what you all have posted, to me the theories of multiple dimensions seems to fit (11 dimensions is the most I have heard of so far)
This definitely is very interesting and I have found there are several religious sources that provide insight into multiple dimensions, or multiverses. And we know in Christianity of at least one other dimension. I hesitate to call them dimensions though, I believe they are actually universes basically like the one we are currently in. Only the physical universe and the physical bodies being the most coarse, limited and carnal level of experience.
So we have pretty much every religion and spiritual source you can think of that confirms of other realities beyond the physical universe experience. Even Buddhism gives rise to many planes of existence same with Hinduism, Eckankar has the created worlds divided between duality and non-duality which I find fascinating....five lower realms where duality exists and five or more pure conscious realms where duality loses its grasp. The five lower realms or universes consist of the physical (senses), astral (emotion), causal (memory), mental (mind) and etheric (intuition) and you have a corresponding "body" for each world. These worlds correspond with each layer or part of the full scope of our perceptions, they are the embodiment of all we experience cast over parallel universes.
This of course lines right up with NDE's and even soul travel, as the conscious soul leaves the physical body they are present in the spirit (astral) body....and so forth.
This also makes perfect sense with an eternal Creator which grants the individual soul with an endless opportunity of experiences, since the soul is also eternal by nature the moment it is created and sent into creation it needs the proper amount of "space" to fully express itself as it matures and progresses. So basically when you leave this form you could be in one of many parts of the created worlds! that could be both good or bad depending on the soul though lol. However it makes things very, very interesting indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Like I have said, your attention to detail will be your down fall.You have posted a PRIVATE MAIL on the open forum at post 57 above, it is STRICTLY PROHIBITED!!!!
Sorry but this forum ain't my life. It's not where I come to vent and lash out at others of opposing beliefs like you do. If you do something stupid I'm going to let you know openly. It's not my attention to detail silly, I've never read the COC because my conduct has never gotten me in trouble lol. I don't care what you think, don't send me stupid PM's creep.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But this is clearly you saying that you and your buddy ethang will have to "work on me"
Ethang is right bud, you're paranoid. He's also right that only you and your odd behavior can get you banned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is our genius spamming your PM too? He's also sending me childish stupidity! Can you believe a person so riled online that he harasses strangers via private messages?
Yep sure is, I hurt his pride after all the fuss he made about my mistype not knowing I had already corrected myself lol. Then sends me a nasty PM lol.
Can you imagine if someone this unstable knew how to find you? Creepy.Don't reply him, he's looking for a way to report you. Just send his mail on the Virt or Ragnar.I really hope you've given him no information by which he can find you IRL.
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt more than they deserve. Lets hope he just got his feelings hurt temporarily due to missing my correction.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Of course you will say that now.
Stevie, I certainly don't want you to get banned assuming you can act like an adult and not get too creepy. I actually get a good laugh watching you make a fool of yourself especially your attempts to find contradictions in the Bible, those are the best lol. At this point it's obvious I've hurt your ego lashing out in unnecessary PM's and now stalking me in other discussions with apparent anger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
The UFC would be hard pressed to delay a title shot for him, Conor fights are the biggest money making fights, whether he "deserves" it or not, often times they go for marketability over fairness. Masdival deserved to be where he is now way too long ago, and is only now getting here. Courmier was at the top of his game long before they started giving him title shots, same with Robbie Lawler.
This is true. In all honesty the way Khabib handled Mcgregor he should have at least two more fights, maybe more to get that shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I feel like most of the fighters in his weight class can wear him down by round 4, we haven't seen conor go the distance very often. Holloway would destroy Mcgregor now too I think, he was still new to the UFC when they first fought.
You might be right, Holloway looked outstanding last year. He made Ortega look like a chump, that was surprising. Yeah I would like to see Holloway get a second chance.
But I definitely would have my money on Masdival on that match up. Conor is kind of like Ronda, if you don't get caught with something in the first round your chances of success increase more and more every round.
I think Conor would have a decent chance though, he's a good striker. Maybe if he didn't come out guns a blazin and paced himself, looked for the shots...it would be a nice fight to watch, two good strikers. I would like to see how Masvidal would handle all the cockiness lol. Better than watching him fight Khabib even though I want to see that too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I'd like to see Conor and Masvidal more than Conor and Khabib. I think it would be more entertaining than watch Conor get mauled on the ground for three rounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I was pretty sure Mcgregor would take em, was surprised at how fast though. Actually those shoulder butts were crazy, I've seen Anderson Silva do that but I didn't know you could get that much force from them. I would like to see Conor vs Fergusson or maybe one fight before Kahbib, let's face it, Conor got beat bad does he really deserve a title fight just yet? I'd like to see it but to be fair I don't think it should be next.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have no intent on getting anyone banned, as for the last loser he bans himself because mentally ill people can't control their behavior...at least for long. But since you mentioned getting banned your behavior in this topic should definitely be considered. I consider it boarder line harassment actually. Your obvious frustration is alarming to say the least, grow up.
Post # 9
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you bring up some thoughts I had as well, if a person had experienced everything, had no challenges, there would be no purpose and would cease to exist.
Well with God this would be irrelevant simply because God cannot choose to cease to exist. Which is in part why I believe God creates worlds. This doesn't just happen one time, God creates again and again and on top of that creation is a multiverse. Meaning basically there are endless experiences, in light of just the physical universe alone it's estimated there are trillions of galaxies, with who knows how many planets within each. Multiverse meaning when you leave this plane of existence you are present within the next one. Call it afterlife or whatever. Since God has access to every channel of awareness God is always observing something new or different.
It's how to conceptualize an intelligence existing which has no or has exhausted all purpose. From my very limited perspective and knowledge, God must still be doing stuff or has ceased to exist for the reasons of either having a purpose or no longer having one. Hope that makes sense.
All but God can't cease to exist, awareness is as energy it's always present. Can't be destroyed and can't be created, however it CAN exist both within form and independent of form. This is one of the reasons I have compassion for God, it's not pleasant thinking about there is no way to cease to exist lol. Fortunately and unfortunately we are of that same nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
look at the bible. do you see error? of course there is. so if God is real, the bible must not be error free.think of all the saints and other sources that were inspired. were any of them perfect? no. so it's the way things are, that there's inspiration and not perfection. only God is perfect. his creation is not.
This is true, so why not make topics that reflect that truth? I think atheists are already dissatisfied with the Bible, no need to rub it in. There is plenty of useful information in the Bible, and there is information that is not useful. I don't know why people make such a big deal about it. There's plenty of things to discuss about God not relevant to the Bible.
I always thought the Bible had a lot of good knowledge, but not perfect of course. But my belief in God is not dependent on that at all, never was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Isn't it fair to say that the rich/poor scenario must have been resultant of God's imprecise creation, rather than of a developed human failing.
Not really. But even if it was, how is it "imprecise"? it makes no real sense either way. If man is given dominion over the earth, makes his own destiny how is it fair to say it's a resultant of God's creation? if it is a resultant of God's creation, how is it imprecise? can you explain either? if it is a result of the creation of God would it not be precise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Don't know why I'm even answering this, perhaps for the "Gentle Reader" lol. When I answer it, you're just going to say "it doesn't say that in the text". That's why you shouldn't even be reading it, you have no clue how to deduce things from the text. That is obvious, whoops, there's that word again...
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24This seem a very bias and hypocritical statement coming from the Christ when we consider that he had surrounded himself with very rich and influential disciples.
"16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
Notice, the conversation BEGINS with one man. Not everybody.
What was wrong with pious rich men entering the kingdom of god?
That was this particular rich mans weakness. Not everybody's .
Why would it be less easier for a rich man than it would for a less well off man to enter the kingdom of god?
"20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?"
Note, the rich man asks what HE lacks, not everybody.
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Note that the rich man went away sorrowful, Jesus perceived HIS weakness. That was the issue at hand.
And what is actually meant by "the kingdom of God"?
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Like you, they knew not that Jesus was speaking about this particular rich mans weakness.
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
The Kingdom of God is without the need for clinging to material possessions where if they become lost one becomes sorrowful and cannot move forward without them, for they go not with the individual when they leave this earth. This passage is again about principle and priorities. Very simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
but also god-like in that we can create any "simulation" we can think of.Imagine you lived in this world. You are immortal, but also have the power to do any simulation you want. What would you do? I'd like to generalize that everyone will just continue to live experiences, but interestingly, i image an immortal would go backwards. An immortal would like to live finite experiences only bc of fun. You can have one experience, die, then have another.
Exactly, especially if it exists as a singular reality. Great point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
and i do like his angle as well although i look at god more as a platform than a single thing... but then again, i don't see why it can't be a single thing either... i simply don't know.
There's a few ways to satisfy the Singularity of the first Source. We can use energy as it exists as a singular reality (within form and independent of form) where it is neither created or destroyed and is omnipresent throughout the universe why? because conscious activity generates energy, that is why energy even exists (this is my theory I know) therefore awareness and energy actually co-exist as a singular force....if they co-exist they are both a singular reality which pervades all of creation and that makes perfect sense. Otherwise energy would be a reality independent of consciousness, and has a property that awareness does not have making it greater than awareness if you were to claim that consciousness has many origins.
We can deduce from quantum physics which exposes the interconnectedness throughout all things which basically means there is a singular binding unity that holds all things together, again we can attach awareness to this because of what this singular binding unity produces (intelligence) ....we can assume religious sources are all correct when they point to a Singular God as the base of creation, out of which all things originate.
Basically it just flat out makes more logical common sense that all things come from a singular Source rather than many and there is no real reason to reject that proposition, it makes a solid foundation which is easy to articulate. If you propose many Sources, you have to explain where many come from.
Since energy itself is an omnipresent singular pervasive force it makes sense that beyond all creation, form and duality there is a singular Reality that all things come from rather than many sources. I propose that energy does not exist alone by itself because the processes that it produces is more in line with intelligence and awareness. If we accept that energy exists alone as it is eternally, then there is no real reason to reject the proposition that awareness exists alone as it is eternally. They work together as a singular reality, creating many realities.
I think the more we pry into the source of existence the more we will find there is a singular reality involved.
God can certainly be a platform as well as a singular Force, a platform would be a foundation and a foundation need be a ground level, underlying backdrop, which supports all things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stop lying.
FFS Stevie, you're making yourself look like an insane babbling geek.
There ere plenty of good questions about your religion, your bible
After all this time you still have no idea about my beliefs lol. Your attention span is about as nonexistent as your intelligence.
yes and not a single shred of evidence to back up a single word that has come spewing out of your wide bible-bashing mouth. FFS!!
I did exactly what was asked of me, grow up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the thread ended up as I thought it would, self absorbed people butting into a conversation just to ruin it, but again that was expected, shame their lives are such that this is normal behavior for them, such is the internet.
Yes I agree, we should elaborate instead of feeding into their obsessions. Let me know if you have any further questions bro, cool topic.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Hey, EtrnlVw, Disgusting has been perma-banned. No more stalking and harassment anymore. Nice huh?
Really?? I may have to continue posting here, I was getting pretty disgusted by all the crazy unintelligent responses...we may have to work on Stevie though, looks like he's starting to pop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
how does that show your attention span to be Stevie??
Much better than yours. it is alert, functioning and sharper too.
Jesus by all accounts was baptised by John the Baptiser (you even say so yourself). Jesus did not baptise himself now did he?
Lol, really?.....and did you read post #11? nice attention span there buddy, I corrected myself it was a mistype. Try again.
"Excuse me correction....Since Jesus WAS baptized by John...."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
But you simply picked your own "categories".
I picked positive and negative, not the contents. Is positive and negative or what is immoral and moral the discussion at hand?
Someone else might pick different categories
Lol what are the other options?
or put different things in the categories you picked. How is this not based on your tastes?
It might be as I admitted I could be wrong. However I don't think it is all that complicated to decide whether or not an action is negative or positive.
Then that must mean that morality doesn't exist!Is there a way to tell a personal taste from a moral truth?
I expressed no personal taste as far as I know. All I did was create two categories. Notice the categories don't say immoral and moral, it's what actions produce a negative or a positive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
But what does God do? Just observe?
Good guess, you could say that God is the Ultimate Observer. Although I hate to use that word now since the repetition of someone's argument.
Since God exists within a singular reality there's not much to do other than to create stuff so maybe you could say that God is the ultimate Creator. That's pretty much the only thing God CAN do, but creation is no joke God is a genius in that arena. God can observe through every single channel of awareness, the comparison would be like not only watching an endless array of movies but also being the actor within them. So there ya have it, God is a movie maker and an actor in It's own movies.
BTW this is the best topic and question I've seen in a long time, good job.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?
Correlation, or better known as the Logical Common Sense Argument (LCSA).
I made it up myself lol.
It basically uses energy as its premise, then correlating intelligent processes observed in the universe with an intelligent Creator.
What are some objections to this argument and how do you deal with them?
One of the objections I get would include "there is no need for a Creator in regards to processes"....
My rebuttal is simple, I just have them answer for the LCSA and ask them why are they satisfied with making the assumption that processes occur all by themselves.
Another objective would be the ol "God of the Gaps argument"....
My response is from common sense. If God fits into the gaps it is because God indeed exists, I mean it speaks for itself and is rather a silly objection.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I wasn't saying you were twisting anything but you obviously are provoking people...so that's not what I meant, read that again, I said there's much more to God than any twisted scriptures, or better put deranged passages. But on the other hand you're obviously being a screw ball. My beliefs are not hinged on the Bible and whether or not it is perfect or imperfect so it has no impact on my beliefs.
God always comes first if that is what you are confident in. Scriptures are good for learning insights and knowledge but some things are not useful, other things are. Books and literature contain imperfections, so you have to use your own wisdom in deciphering ideals. Otherwise you could end up a weirdo like your topics imply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
IDK bro I think the OP might be using the word a different way. The quote was from Dawkins..."“Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
But that's not how faith is used.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Sadly, this is accurate bible. I think for now I’ll have to give God a pass
Lol dang you're easily discouraged, I hope you are kidding. There's much more to God than a few twisted scriptures and someone who is obviously provoking people. You're being sarcastic right? your belief and trust in God should never hinge on any distorted or corrupted ideas even if they are found in scripture.
Created:
Posted in:
start with ip man 1-3
Ip man is excellent but an entirely different artist/actor.
and 'undisputed 2, 3 and 4'.
Those movies are horrible lol, I wouldn't even classify them in the same category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you also find my love of turtlenecks shirts to be invalid?
LMBO! dang bro I haven't wore a turtleneck since the late eighties, love it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
if one has good logical reasons for what they say then that person is still said to have faith
Pretty much, only in spirituality it has a spiritual twist so it's somewhat of an elevated concept. You can't have trust and confidence in something you have no reason or evidence of.
But yeah, it's a universal concept religions just have a way of naming things or principles they observe. For example cause and effect, the Hindus call that Karma (which also has an elevated understanding) but it has the same basic meaning, Christians call it sowing and reaping or you reap what you sow.
Faith is simply trust in God based on experience/evidence. So faith corresponds with one's own confidence which is why Jesus uses the illustration of little faith vs great faith.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm assuming that was for Ludo? think you got my name mixed up...
Created:
Posted in:
Not that this has any relevance to your questions but I find it easier to divide morality into two categories
The self
And
Interaction with others
Then another category
Positive
And
Negative
Given this scenario, is it possible to say why an immoral action is bad?
I believe so. I would say that anything that falls into the negative category could possibly be explained why an action is bad.
the question remains, even if we all agree that the action caused bad, what makes "bad" immoral?
Because it conflicts with a higher standard of living, thinking and acting?
What makes "bad" of lesser value than good?
Hmm, good question. This changes the dynamics a bit...if it is true that there exists a universal law and we reap what we sow I don't know if one has lesser value, in terms of learning from our mistakes. I may have to add another category lol.
So murder is immoral. But exactly why is it immoral? Can there be any reason that is not based on someone's tastes?
Sure, if it falls into one of the categories. I believe the categories are there to separate subjective from objective.
Can your moral code give us an moral action that is empirically "bad"?
According to the categories that would be impossible I would think.
If it cannot, how is your morality different from your personal tastes?
Again, I made the categories to define what is positive and what is negative. So my personal taste would be irrellevant. Is it that simple to define what is positive and negative? are there grey areas? it is possible but I think generally speaking it's pretty easy to tell what action falls into what category....is this going to have a negative impact on myself or another, or is this action going to have a positive impact on myself or another.
When we talk about murder I think it's pretty cut and dry, however when we talk about killing it could be a bit trickier because now we have the dynamic of justification. But even then, I would say that no matter the scenerio, the justification could fall into one of those categories.
All in all I could be wrong about all of this. Just my take on it anyways and something to ponder...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think there is such a thing as the human state of consciousness. States of consciousness are like levels of frequencies, and there are endless levels of these frequencies throughout the created worlds. But as far as the mind goes, we have little individual minds that do come out of the universal mind.
Of course this would mean that the mind and consciousness are not quite the same thing they are distinct from one another, the mind is more mechanical in nature, it is not alive or active, it is just a tool basically. But they come out of what is known as the universal mind, this mind is projected from the Ultimate Observer or the singular conscious Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are among one of the worst people to communicate with, and we have some real winners here in this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
So essentially whatever form or soul is created, consciousness or awareness is confined to perceive through that vessel. This creates another kind of experience or a separate perception. That isolated soul has been reduced down from the Godhead (singular Reality) and is now an individual being.
Created:
Posted in:
Excuse me correction....Since Jesus WAS baptized by John....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
it's kind of like playing video game with a set of restricting rules. The game is no fun if there isnt a challenge.
Well if awareness is omnipresent and like energy with no form, then the point of inhabiting bodies is to reduce and isolate the experience to create contrast. In other words where you only had one Reality, now you have two...three, four and so on.
Without that contrast or isolation within form you're back to a singular Reality, so the fun is to create something more than that one experience. So when our conscious awareness is confined to this body, we see the universe as distinct from ourselves....or we have something to experience outside of a singular Reality or a mono-experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But he didn't baptize him did he? So where was the fkn respect and honor you mention shown there? There isn't any such reason and no such mention of "respect and honor"
It matters not dum dum whether or not he was actually baptized, you asked WHY did John WANT to be baptized, and I answered the question. Here are the verses.
"13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him"
My answer is out of respect and honor for the Messiah.
if we are to take this story at face value and true then why did John the Baptist want Jesus to baptize him?
If you don't want an answer don't ask a question.
One another??? See above sunshine, only one of them was baptized. And giving the same answer to a different question shows your attention span to be nil.
Here were your own questions...
(1) This was no Christian ceremony as both Jesus and John were Jews. So what was the reason for baptism of any one of these Jews. (2) What sins had John the Baptist committed to have his sins washed away? Or what sins had Jesus committed to have his sins washed away?
My answer is that John WANTED to be baptized out of respect and honor of Jesus, that's why he WANTED to be baptized...that is what you asked....how does that show your attention span to be Stevie?? do you even know what you ask others to answer?
Since Jesus WAS baptized by Jesus, my answer is still "Why would they expect others to perform something they had not underwent themselves?"
It doesn't matter that John was not baptized, he wanted to be baptized, so my answers are the same.
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The conscious soul comes out of a conscious Reality, as we were saying awareness could be the backdrop behind all of life aka God. It is the bodies we inhabit that reduce and confine your experience as an isolated entity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
if that is true, then how would a spirit maintain conscious awareness after death?
Because the conscious soul exists independent of the human body, but if it's to have an experience on earth it would need an appropriate conduit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I wonder if our cells in our body have their own awareness.
I think in order that the conscious soul survives within a human body that conduit would also need to be alive and active at some level. In other words a "dead" non-active body couldn't maintain an alive conscious soul.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Hmm, maybe the denser the object the less quality of awareness. Kind of like the human body is much more limited than the subtle body or spirit body.
I wonder if our cells in our body have their own awareness.
Oh without a doubt they do. I mean look what they do...every single bit of the human body is made of cells, yet they maintain distinct shapes forms and operations. That is badazz..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Cool, so do you think there could be an association between say...energy and awareness possibly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
it's hard to say. There is a definite difference between living and dead matter. I have been everywhere from strict materialist to panpsychist. it is probably somewhere in between.
Janesix! you made my day, good to hear from ya my friend.
Do you think if there was a single binding unity between all things the whole of the universe could be considered alive? like an interconnectedness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Let me ask you this simple question, what inherent problem do you have with considering that the universe is one gigantic living organism? considering what you know about energy and what we've discussed so far about awareness.. if energy exists entirely throughout the very fabric of the universe as a single binding unity what stops you from considering it is actual aware? remembering what it produces.
Created: