Consciousness

gemcgrew said:

The first thing that I read was "A Message To The Non-Muslims After which they are not Excused by Ignorance".

Where in here has the believer made this claim?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain never. Not many pro muslims in here.

Forgive me if I've missed it but did I say that link was word for word the same as a thread in here?

Unless you stopped reading right after that first thing, you will notice many of the same claims made for Allah are the same as made for god/jesus in here.

I don't want to spoil anything for you, but you may also notice the usernames are not EXACTLY the same as usernames in here either. Just similar claims and assertions.

bullethead said:

I'm pretty certain never. Not many pro muslims in here.

Forgive me if I've missed it but did I say that link was word for word the same as a thread in here?

Unless you stopped reading right after that first thing, you will notice many of the same claims made for Allah are the same as made for god/jesus in here.

I don't want to spoil anything for you, but you may also notice the usernames are not EXACTLY the same as usernames in here either. Just similar claims and assertions.

Click to expand...

You have already moved from "Same old claims" to "Just similar claims" and without much effort on my part.

Israel said:

"Everything is open and laid bare before Him with whom we have to do"

I took the liberty of using that scripture to this end. I don't know that because the man who wrote that told me that. Or even relayed to me I have to believe that. (Although I do esteem highly the things he was moved to write) I don't know that because a religion...which is a mute thing told me that.

I simply know it because I have been made to know it.

There's a consciousness...that knows everything that moves through mine. And all the motions causing them. This I know. My consciousness is observed.


And in that, I reject also the religion of materialism. Do I use stuff? Sure. I was made to.

Click to expand...

My friend, I will add you to the list of those who avoided the question.

gemcgrew said:

You have already moved from "Same old claims" to "Just similar claims" and without much effort on my part.

Click to expand...

Included, not moved.
Same, similar, ...they both fit because of the effort of believers in each forum.

WaltL1 said:

My friend, I will add you to the list of those who avoided the question.

Click to expand...

Do you think because I quoted something from a book that many purport (and most in this area) represents a christian manifesto of sorts that I have (by their equation, and it seems, your own) incurred an indebtedness to a thing called christianity?

Of course your right to see it that way is unassailable.

But, if there be any debt along those lines it is to the Christians (people, not a thing, or things) that have, for me, brought to light matters of truth.

But would it shock you (and I only use this as a stellar example) that Joseph Goebbels has also played a part? (I have already briefly mentioned Oppenheimer.)

Men, like Goebbels (may display the strongest of devotions; caring not to live beyond the impending fall of his Fuehrer) killed himself and his wife (and his children).
So much for "devotion" as a stand alone thing given to represent some sort of moral conviction to a superiority.

I've "lived" there myself...delighting in what I took to myself as signal merit...my devotion. Relishing in myself those things that I believed pointed to a singleness beyond the common. (And God knows what remains of such)

But you may see, or not. In that sense such men who have lived seeking to ingratiate themselves to power (and there have been, and are many), convincing themselves of the rightness of their way by their (to themselves) manifest devotion, have also been invaluable lessons. I am no less indebted for that lesson than any other. (people also crash planes into buildings to show their rightness, and devotion)

So, obviously then (though I cannot deny my once love of it) I cannot stand upon devotion, or even my devotion, as anything at all. And, O! But I have! Yes, I drank it to the dregs.

So, when a man like Paul says "I am debtor (obligated) both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise." There's a part that wants to interject "No, to be a christian one's debt is always and only to Christ!"

But, how will one repay what is given for free, without insult? Do you believe me if I tell you...I have tried? Spent much of my "christian life" in insult?

It's a very odd thing when it is first made clear. But the One who has made this clear (and not christianity as such) has been found and seen in the (once) most unheeded places...just as He has said He would be. Where I do not expect Him, and at a time I do not expect.

“I really only love God as much as the person I love the least.”

Dorothy Day

Israel said:

Do you think because I quoted something from a book that many purport (and most in this area) represents a christian manifesto of sorts that I have (by their equation, and it seems, your own) incurred an indebtedness to a thing called christianity?

Of course your right to see it that way is unassailable.

But, if there be any debt along those lines it is to the Christians (people, not a thing, or things) that have, for me, brought to light matters of truth.

But would it shock you (and I only use this as a stellar example) that Joseph Goebbels has also played a part? (I have already briefly mentioned Oppenheimer.)

Men, like Goebbels (may display the strongest of devotions; caring not to live beyond the impending fall of his Fuehrer) killed himself and his wife (and his children).
So much for "devotion" as a stand alone thing given to represent some sort of moral conviction to a superiority.

I've "lived" there myself...delighting in what I took to myself as signal merit...my devotion. Relishing in myself those things that I believed pointed to a singleness beyond the common. (And God knows what remains of such)

But you may see, or not. In that sense such men who have lived seeking to ingratiate themselves to power (and there have been, and are many), convincing themselves of the rightness of their way by their (to themselves) manifest devotion, have also been invaluable lessons. I am no less indebted for that lesson than any other. (people also crash planes into buildings to show their rightness, and devotion)

So, obviously then (though I cannot deny my once love of it) I cannot stand upon devotion, or even my devotion, as anything at all. And, O! But I have! Yes, I drank it to the dregs.

So, when a man like Paul says "I am debtor (obligated) both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise." There's a part that wants to interject "No, to be a christian one's debt is always and only to Christ!"

But, how will one repay what is given for free, without insult? Do you believe me if I tell you...I have tried? Spent much of my "christian life" in insult?

It's a very odd thing when it is first made clear. But the One who has made this clear (and not christianity as such) has been found and seen in the (once) most unheeded places...just as He has said He would be. Where I do not expect Him, and at a time I do not expect.

“I really only love God as much as the person I love the least.”

Dorothy Day

Click to expand...

Israel,
You made this comment -

Yeah...men make religions. Lots of them.

Click to expand...

That's a confirmation that you agree that men make religions. I'm pretty positive that you DONT believe men made God.
You separate the two. As in, there is NOTHING about God that is dependent on anything that man may say, make, think, surmise, require or any other descriptive word.
I am making the point that as much as you think you are separating the two...... you aren't, you can't.
That's why I ask this question/request -

Tell me exactly what you know about god (in this case God) that can't be traced directly back to religion. Including that a g(G)od even exists

Click to expand...

.
Everything you think you know about God, INCLUDING AND BEGINNING WITH THAT GOD EVEN EXISTS, is rooted in religion (that we seem to agree is made by man).
Now you my expound upon, add your own thoughts, opinions, beliefs, whatever......
But its all rooted in religion.
That we agree that man makes.
Theres just no getting around that.
Believe me, I tried getting around it. I tried every way I could think of to reject "religion" but hang on to "God".
Now of course, just because I couldn't do it doesn't mean it cant be done.
And that's why I ask/request -

Tell me exactly what you know about god (in this case God) that can't be traced directly back to religion. Including that a g(G)od even exists.

Click to expand...

The only way around it is "I believe in some sort of a "Higher Power". I don't have a clue what it is, what it wants, what it requires,......"
And by doing that you have just rejected Christianity or any other name man has given to a certain set of beliefs.

ambush80 said:

Have you ever seen the movie Inception? Good flick.

Click to expand...

I hate that movie - I can't stand movies where you don't know what's real & what isn't.

oldfella1962 said:

I hate that movie - I can't stand movies where you don't know what's real & what isn't.

Click to expand...

I like reality where you don't know what's real & what isn't.

"I don't know how much fun it would be to bungee off the Eiffel Tower for the 10,000th time. Maybe it never gets old." - Ambush 80

oh great thanks for jinxing it!
I was going to try to get in the Guiness Book Of Records
by bungee jumping off the Eiffel Tower the most times.
Lucky for me my airline ticket is refundable!

About keeping a dead person (or at least their brain)alive for 24 hours: if they bring them back to life and they have zero "afterlife" stories & experiences it doesn't mean there isn't life-after-death.

Guarantee some people will say that they didn't go to heaven or Fire Lake because after death our spirit/consciousness remains dormant until Judgement Day - then everyone who ever lived & died will be brought back to life for their eternal reward/punishment.

oldfella1962 said:

About keeping a dead person (or at least their brain)alive for 24 hours: if they bring them back to life and they have zero "afterlife" stories & experiences it doesn't mean there isn't life-after-death.

Guarantee some people will say that they didn't go to heaven or Fire Lake because after death our spirit/consciousness remains dormant until Judgement Day - then everyone who ever lived & died will be brought back to life for their eternal reward/punishment.

Click to expand...

I'll speculate on some reasons that might be given as to why that person din't see Heaven or He11.

- God's plan was for them to be brought back to life so He purposely didn't let them see Heaven or CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored because bleed is he who believes without seeing.

- They weren't REALLY dead. Their eternal soul hadn't left the vessel yet.

- The kingdom of Heaven cannot be comprehended by the material body and mind. Therefore that person can't relate what they saw.

I don't have any scriptural reasons for these answers, but I've seen many cases where people don't either, yet they come up with similar types of explanations.

WaltL1 said:

Israel,
You made this comment -

That's a confirmation that you agree that men make religions. I'm pretty positive that you DONT believe men made God.
You separate the two. As in, there is NOTHING about God that is dependent on anything that man may say, make, think, surmise, require or any other descriptive word.
I am making the point that as much as you think you are separating the two...... you aren't, you can't.
That's why I ask this question/request -
.
Everything you think you know about God, INCLUDING AND BEGINNING WITH THAT GOD EVEN EXISTS, is rooted in religion (that we seem to agree is made by man).
Now you my expound upon, add your own thoughts, opinions, beliefs, whatever......
But its all rooted in religion.
That we agree that man makes.
Theres just no getting around that.
Believe me, I tried getting around it. I tried every way I could think of to reject "religion" but hang on to "God".
Now of course, just because I couldn't do it doesn't mean it cant be done.
And that's why I ask/request -

The only way around it is "I believe in some sort of a "Higher Power". I don't have a clue what it is, what it wants, what it requires,......"
And by doing that you have just rejected Christianity or any other name man has given to a certain set of beliefs.

Click to expand...

I get chided...ribbed, (and these things go both ways, I have not been not without taking a shot) for being long winded.

But for a moment, you go back (so briefly) and re read what is put in (purple) color above of what you have said. Please. And think about it for a while.

I am not in any way implying that your comments have not already shown me you have been in the arena, I have long known you as one who has. You have "opened" a book (though some might say a can of worms) by responding to me in patience.

In trying to be brief I will say no more than this. Whether today, Feb 17, 2018, with all that has passed before, with all the water under the bridge (so to speak) that makes it seem as though no matter where a man might dip his foot in regards to that "higher power", the best search for head waters that you claim can be seen must always lead to a, or some, small religious stream.

If in this (your) scenario where God cannot be found as stand alone but must always yield in concept (as can never be pure) to what is seen as religious contamination, and is therefore (as many purport thereby a falsifiable notion) by such falseness found in the manifold and multitudes of religious practice, we are still left with this conundrum. Such a notion originated somewhere, in someone, as the first "thought" of God, or gods (in keeping with the words of some here). In at least one then ( but arguably many) if it be a notion, this notion was endemic to man. It either started with man,(and therefore only in man) or as some of us hold (in a sense) "came out from the ether".

If, as some purport, it is no more than "man's idea"...well then, I think you see the problem. For all the things that may presently make attempt at refutation (so called science, or materialism, naturalism, or whatever may set itself up in opposition) are precisely no less, "man's idea". If man is manifestly "liar" in one place, upon what can he possibly hope to now say "but here...really, (through these things, no less men's ideas) NOW, I am telling the truth!".

Now, if you want to go with "all men are liars"...

(But watch what spills out...)

Israel said:

I get chided...ribbed, (and these things go both ways, I have not been not without taking a shot) for being long winded.

But for a moment, you go back (so briefly) and re read what is put in (purple) color above of what you have said. Please. And think about it for a while.

I am not in any way implying that your comments have not already shown me you have been in the arena, I have long known you as one who has. You have "opened" a book (though some might say a can of worms) by responding to me in patience.

In trying to be brief I will say no more than this. Whether today, Feb 17, 2018, with all that has passed before, with all the water under the bridge (so to speak) that makes it seem as though no matter where a man might dip his foot in regards to that "higher power", the best search for head waters that you claim can be seen must always lead to a, or some, small religious stream.

If in this (your) scenario where God cannot be found as stand alone but must always yield in concept (as can never be pure) to what is seen as religious contamination, and is therefore (as many purport thereby a falsifiable notion) by such falseness found in the manifold and multitudes of religious practice, we are still left with this conundrum. Such a notion originated somewhere, in someone, as the first "thought" of God, or gods (in keeping with the words of some here). In at least one then ( but arguably many) if it be a notion, this notion was endemic to man. It either started with man,(and therefore only in man) or as some of us hold (in a sense) "came out from the ether".

If, as some purport, it is no more than "man's idea"...well then, I think you see the problem. For all the things that may presently make attempt at refutation (so called science, or materialism, naturalism, or whatever may set itself up in opposition) are precisely no less, "man's idea". If man is manifestly "liar" in one place, upon what can he possibly hope to now say "but here...really, (through these things, no less men's ideas) NOW, I am telling the truth!".

Now, if you want to go with "all men are liars"...

(But watch what spills out...)

Click to expand...

I think Ive mentioned before that we tend to view/communicate things very differently -
I break things down into its simplest form and you are very philosophical so let me address the low hanging fruit and I'll have to think about the rest

I get chided...ribbed, (and these things go both ways, I have not been not without taking a shot) for being long winded.

Click to expand...

You being "long winded" which I personally prefer to call being "philosophical" really doesn't matter to me as long as I can figure out what the heck your point is. Which I admittedly often have trouble with but that's probably more my issue than yours.

we are still left with this conundrum. Such a notion originated somewhere, in someone, as the first "thought" of God, or gods (in keeping with the words of some here). In at least one then ( but arguably many) if it be a notion, this notion was endemic to man. It either started with man,(and therefore only in man) or as some of us hold (in a sense) "came out from the ether".

Click to expand...

Assuming I'm understanding that^ -
Yes for me personally that is a conundrum. I would agree that the notion/thought of a god/higher power had to exist before the notion/thought of "religion" existed.
About as far as I get is that man named that notion/thought as god/God/Allah/Higher Power etc. but that doesn't address the origin or the why of the notion/thought. Ive heard other peoples explanation of the how or why but I'm not personally 100% satisfied with any of the explanations.

For all the things that may presently make attempt at refutation (so called science, or materialism, naturalism, or whatever may set itself up in opposition) are precisely no less, "man's idea".

Click to expand...

I think I'm following you on this ^. In that yes, I would agree all those positions would fall into the category of "man made".
So now I'm left with "connecting the dots".
So let me ask you this -
Is it fair for me/us to view you as/do you label yourself as a Christian?
Because if it is fair and you do label yourself as such then I am right back to "what you believe is rooted in religion, in this case Christianity".
If its not fair and you do not label yourself as such then that changes the whole ball game.

WaltL1 said:

I think Ive mentioned before that we tend to view/communicate things very differently -
I break things down into its simplest form and you are very philosophical so let me address the low hanging fruit and I'll have to think about the rest

You being "long winded" which I personally prefer to call being "philosophical" really doesn't matter to me as long as I can figure out what the heck your point is. Which I admittedly often have trouble with but that's probably more my issue than yours.

Assuming I'm understanding that^ -
Yes for me personally that is a conundrum. I would agree that the notion/thought of a god/higher power had to exist before the notion/thought of "religion" existed.
About as far as I get is that man named that notion/thought as god/God/Allah/Higher Power etc. but that doesn't address the origin or the why of the notion/thought. Ive heard other peoples explanation of the how or why but I'm not personally 100% satisfied with any of the explanations.

I think I'm following you on this ^. In that yes, I would agree all those positions would fall into the category of "man made".
So now I'm left with "connecting the dots".
So let me ask you this -
Is it fair for me/us to view you as/do you label yourself as a Christian?
Because if it is fair and you do label yourself as such then I am right back to "what you believe is rooted in religion, in this case Christianity".
If its not fair and you do not label yourself as such then that changes the whole ball game.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your response.
And I understand (or believe I do) that I leave you with very little except more (or the same ) questions.
I also understand (as I believe you already see) that nothing I have offered deals with the matter to a proof of the existence of God, and much less with the matter of Jesus Christ in particular in relationship to that very matter.

Yes, it would appear that even if a theist of sorts shows up (and by that I mean for our common understanding, one persuaded of a "higher power" but finding himself as like you so aptly described:

The only way around it is "I believe in some sort of a "Higher Power". I don't have a clue what it is, what it wants, what it requires...")

Click to expand...

it is not an unfair question to say "OK, but how is the leap made from "a" God...to Jesus Christ?"

This is not even addressing the quagmire of what is seen as "religions in religion" (if narrowing down to Jesus Christ is viewed as religion) that is, even in "christianity" there appear hundreds of flavors.

Funny, right? If we have any desire, inward compelling, drive (and I am persuaded each of us does) for simplicity, how infuriating it sometimes is that (it seems) by this very drive for simplicity it invites so many...no...precisely too many, complications.

As I said, I am persuaded that inwardly each man wants his compass to always and unfailingly be reliable in "true north". To be settled in, so to speak. And from there...feel "free to live" without having to always face adjustments, questions, to be free of the unremitting pressure inherent in "hoping to make the right choice". Or hoping one has made it. In that we are very peculiar...the thing we seem to desire..."I want to be absolutely free to make my own choices, find my own way..." is so double edged.

Choices may be shown to have a very particular suffering in them. Especially when we discover that one choice that is always and completely out of our own hands, and has never been ours to make (just as we do not have the option of making a "square circle") and that is: "the choice that is without consequence". Yes, we may love it when we have picked the "right" stock, the right horse...but not so much when we say "I went to the wrong doctor". Or, God forbid, chose the wrong one for my child.

Of course we all know this! Who isn't familiar with regret in one form or another? Who hasn't been a victim to his own self? Why blabber on about such apparent things?

Because there is a fundamental matter of the self (and what it perceives as freedom, and in that , freedom to know the truth) that cannot be in any way divorced from this matter of "higher power".

The carrot and stick is unrelentingly horrid. What has been made to show the place where it has had primacy to the end of showing where it has never been, nor will be, is investigated, or not.


I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long

Walt, I don't know if sharing my personal worldview with you could be helpful, as it relates to your question, or not ... but here goes.

There are some people, a lot of them, who see, hear, and understand, to some degree, things that are not of the material world; and there are some people, a lot of them, who do not see, hear, or understand, to any degree, things that are not of the material world.

Neither will convince the other that they are wrong in their seeing, hearing, or understanding because that seeing, hearing, and understanding is as real to one as to the other. Neither is a liar, or dishonest; neither is more deluded than the other; neither is more gullible than the other (although there are certainly social, psychological, and emotional issues that come into play when people of different experience interact, they are ancillary; and show themselves as clearly when the subject is politics, sports, or the weather).

hummerpoo said:

Walt, I don't know if sharing my personal worldview with you could be helpful, as it relates to your question, or not ... but here goes.

There are some people, a lot of them, who see, hear, and understand, to some degree, things that are not of the material world; and there are some people, a lot of them, who do not see, hear, or understand, to any degree, things that are not of the material world.

Neither will convince the other that they are wrong in their seeing, hearing, or understanding because that seeing, hearing, and understanding is as real to one as to the other. Neither is a liar, or dishonest; neither is more deluded than the other; neither is more gullible than the other (although there are certainly social, psychological, and emotional issues that come into play when people of different experience interact, they are ancillary; and show themselves as clearly when the subject is politics, sports, or the weather).

Click to expand...

I can definitely understand and agree with that. There are certainly folks that are "tuned into" things that are others are not.
And that just may have some impact on the whole believer/non believer thing.
But I just cant help but question if ALL these insert religion name here are "tuned in" or just regurgitating what they have been taught.
Particularly when you consider all the different denominations, beliefs etc.
And of course they could all be tuned into "something" and then put their own spin on what that "something" is.
And then there are folks like me. I was a believer and now I'm not.
Was I tuned in and then somebody changed the channel?
Was I never tuned in and just regurgitating what I was taught?
If I was tuned in how could I possibly tune myself out?
I don't know but I do understand what you are saying and acknowledge the possibility of it.

hummerpoo said:

Walt, I don't know if sharing my personal worldview with you could be helpful, as it relates to your question, or not ... but here goes.

There are some people, a lot of them, who see, hear, and understand, to some degree, things that are not of the material world; and there are some people, a lot of them, who do not see, hear, or understand, to any degree, things that are not of the material world.

Neither will convince the other that they are wrong in their seeing, hearing, or understanding because that seeing, hearing, and understanding is as real to one as to the other. Neither is a liar, or dishonest; neither is more deluded than the other; neither is more gullible than the other (although there are certainly social, psychological, and emotional issues that come into play when people of different experience interact, they are ancillary; and show themselves as clearly when the subject is politics, sports, or the weather).

Click to expand...

WaltL1 said:

I can definitely understand and agree with that. There are certainly folks that are "tuned into" things that are others are not.
And that just may have some impact on the whole believer/non believer thing.
But I just cant help but question if ALL these insert religion name here are "tuned in" or just regurgitating what they have been taught.
Particularly when you consider all the different denominations, beliefs etc.
And of course they could all be tuned into "something" and then put their own spin on what that "something" is.
And then there are folks like me. I was a believer and now I'm not.
Was I tuned in and then somebody changed the channel?
Was I never tuned in and just regurgitating what I was taught?
If I was tuned in how could I possibly tune myself out?
I don't know but I do understand what you are saying and acknowledge the possibility of it.

Click to expand...

If I want to hear the trees talk to me I will. Is that real? What happens when the trees instruct me to do things? Should people accept that it's real because I say so and abide by the instructions of the trees?

ambush80 said:

If I want to hear the trees talk to me I will. Is that real? What happens when the trees instruct me to do things? Should people accept that it's real because I say so and abide by the instructions of the trees?

Click to expand...

Exactly.
People seem to tune into things that they need or want to tune into. You will hear the answers you want to hear and dismiss the rest.
Im not pointing fingers.

Take Bigfoot hunters/researchers/"experts". They tell us all about typical bigfoot behaviors. Every tree branch that falls, groan, howl or yip they hear or log that points in an "intelligent" position is the evidence they Need to keep seeing in hearing in order for them to justify their passion. Whether it really is or isnt evidence....it IS to them.
When an alternative explanation is given to them their first responce is that whoever is offering that other possiblity is unable to discern the clear evidence that they Clearly see. In their minds they know ALL about a creature that none of them has not only ever studied or observed but has never even actually seen. And yet they are convinced they are in tune with the creature. They know it. They can feel it in their heart that it exists.

Sounds familiar.

ambush80 said:

If I want to hear the trees talk to me I will. Is that real? What happens when the trees instruct me to do things? Should people accept that it's real because I say so and abide by the instructions of the trees?

Click to expand...

Since you included me in I'm guessing you are questioning my use of "tuned in". So let me clarify using your use of the tree.
Some people look at a tree and see a tree.
Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark.
Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark and in addition notice the striations in the bark.
That might be clear as mud but I'm hoping you will catch my drift.
Now if that tree starts instructing them to do things they were probably smoking some leaves

WaltL1 said:

Since you included me in I'm guessing you are questioning my use of "tuned in". So let me clarify using your use of the tree.
Some people look at a tree and see a tree.
Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark.
Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark and in addition notice the striations in the bark.
That might be clear as mud but I'm hoping you will catch my drift.
Now if that tree starts instructing them to do things they were probably smoking some leaves

Click to expand...

I've taken psychedelic drugs before and I've had experiences where I felt deeply connected to living things even to waterfalls and I felt as if in some way they were "talking" to me, or at least revealing something metaphysical. Now I can induce those kinds of experiences to some degree without the chemicals. Some might say that I'm opening myself up to another dimension. I doubt it. It doesn't diminish at all how powerful those experiences are.