Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I am someone who believes that this life will serve our next state. That after out death, we won't simply stop existing. More specifically, since energy cannot be destroyed we'll simply pass into another existence, very possibly influenced by the negative or positive energy we build up during our time here. I've got plenty of other stuff that could go into it, but those are as near to certainties as anything for me now.

Anyway, I'm curious what others might think, what you all believe happens after we pass. My view is no more valid than anyone elses' so leave a post in what you believe.

Originally posted by Damborgson
More specifically, since energy cannot be destroyed we'll simply pass into another existence Energy doesn't need to be destroyed for the personality built up in a brain to cease existence.

When you die you Go to heaven if you believed in his son Jesus.

If you did not..God will judge you on judgement day and you will be judged by Justice Iteself on what your fate will be for all eternity..its really that simple.

Originally posted by Supra
When you die you Go to heaven if you believed in his son Jesus.

If you did not..God will judge you on judgement day and you will be judged by Justice Iteself on what your fate will be for all eternity..its really that simple.

That's not really simple though. That's amazingly complex. And raises endless points of questions and contradictions.

You are always here. There is no after life. You are the flower that blooms and then fads, but the tree lives on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not really simple though. That's amazingly complex. And raises endless points of questions and contradictions.

But God is God I dont question my creator I just do as he asks

Originally posted by Supra
But God is God I dont question my creator I just do as he asks
Not questioning things does not come easy to me.

It's true, the first question that comes to mind is if sex is allowed in heaven, and if it's not, is it really heaven?

Originally posted by BackFire
It's true, the first question that comes to mind is if sex is allowed in heaven, and if it's not, is it really heaven?

Good sex is heaven.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's true, the first question that comes to mind is if sex is allowed in heaven, and if it's not, is it really heaven?

You forgot 'consensual'.

Originally posted by Supra
When you die you Go to heaven if you believed in his son Jesus.

If you did not..God will judge you on judgement day and you will be judged by Justice Iteself on what your fate will be for all eternity..its really that simple.

What about obscure island people who have never heard of Jesus. Do they just go to Hell? Or the Void/Abyss/Purgatory?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You forgot 'consensual'.

I'm really not picky about that.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Energy doesn't need to be destroyed for the personality built up in a brain to cease existence.

It would for the soul to cease existing though. Which is what I was referring to.

Originally posted by Supra
When you die you Go to heaven if you believed in his son Jesus.

If you did not..God will judge you on judgement day and you will be judged by Justice Iteself on what your fate will be for all eternity..its really that simple.

I don't think so. If that's a road to get to a nirvana of some sort, well fine, but I find it hard to believe that the God of love that is described, will just as easily torch your ass by throwing you into a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't believe in him because....why again?

Even if you believe that we're essentially well polished shit that needs to be saved, wouldn't that make our God the greatest of failures?

Think about a time before you were born. The sights, the smells, really dig into your thoughts to unearth those early memories before you were even a protein chain in your father's ballsack.

Pretty much that, imo.

srug

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm really not picky about that.

So what if heaven is like the Shawshank Redemption?

Originally posted by Digi
Think about a time before you were born. The sights, the smells, really dig into your thoughts to unearth those early memories before you were even a protein chain in your father's ballsack.

Pretty much that, imo.

srug

Good thing none of my senses were developed back then.

Originally posted by Damborgson
I don't think so. If that's a road to get to a nirvana of some sort, well fine, but I find it hard to believe that the God of love that is described, will just as easily torch your ass by throwing you into a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't believe in him because....why again?

Even if you believe that we're essentially well polished shit that needs to be saved, wouldn't that make our God the greatest of failures?

It's described differently. A close inspection of most Biblical sects, and Bibles themselves for that matter, will reveal a God that ISN'T entirely about love. The "God is Love" movement is a fairly recent invention, historically.

In other interpretations, it's not God that judges you but you yourself that decides to be exiled due to being unworthy. Others will tell you that all or most end up in Heaven, but that sin is still an abomination.

The Lake of Fire is also Dante, if memory serves. What Hell actually is like is a bit ambiguous, scripturally speaking.

And the polished shit thing is attributable to free will. If God created us perfect and infallible, it would be tantamount to creating a bunch of wind up dolls. By giving us free will, evil is introduced, but it's still preferable and allows us to choose good instead of being good by default. Never mind that Christian free will is incompatible with a causal universe, but that's the justification usually.

Originally posted by Damborgson
It would for the soul to cease existing though. Which is what I was referring to. Is the soul made of energy though?

Originally posted by Digi
It's described differently. A close inspection of most Biblical sects, and Bibles themselves for that matter, will reveal a God that ISN'T entirely about love. The "God is Love" movement is a fairly recent invention, historically.

In other interpretations, it's not God that judges you but you yourself that decides to be exiled due to being unworthy. Others will tell you that all or most end up in Heaven, but that sin is still an abomination.

The Lake of Fire is also Dante, if memory serves. What Hell actually is like is a bit ambiguous, scripturally speaking.

And the polished shit thing is attributable to free will. If God created us perfect and infallible, it would be tantamount to creating a bunch of wind up dolls. By giving us free will, evil is introduced, but it's still preferable and allows us to choose good instead of being good by default. Never mind that Christian free will is incompatible with a causal universe, but that's the justification usually.

Dante had pits of fire, but the lowest level of hell was wretched ice. I think brimstone predates Dante, IIRC.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Dante had pits of fire, but the lowest level of hell was wretched ice. I think brimstone predates Dante, IIRC.

Right, right. I do know it's not really described in the Bible. Maybe we adopted the lake from some earlier or contemporary myths. I didn't want to pin it on Dante specifically without remembering for sure, but the overall point of that paragraph stands.

A lot of conventional ideas about heaven, hell, and angels are relatively new, or Middle Ages inventions. Angels having wings is a big one. Devils looking like Pan is another. Then you have the co-opting of foreign deities and monsters as demons in the early days and true Christianity is pretty much anyone's guess.

Actually...

It might have been an interpretation of Gehenna:

Isaiah 30:33
King James Version (KJV)
33 For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.

Early versions of the Bible differentiated Gehenna with its brimstone action from Hades/Hell which was something else entirely, and those names are largely borrowed to represent She'ol, which was a kind of void or death realm that everyone went to after life.

Originally posted by Supra

If you did not..God will judge you on judgement day and you will be judged by Justice Iteself on what your fate will be for all eternity..its really that simple.


So in the grand scheme of things, our mortal lives is but a speck in time....20 years to us may be but a second's passing to God.

And yet our fate will be judged & we will pay for all eternity???

Is it really that simple or are you really that gullible?

More accurate to say he's that simple.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Is the soul made of energy though?

A form of it I would think.

We are in the end, energy. Energy that needs to be returned to the eventual but can be built differently from our actions or lack of actions. Thats what makes sense to me at the Moment anyway.

Originally posted by Digi
It's described differently. A close inspection of most Biblical sects, and Bibles themselves for that matter, will reveal a God that ISN'T entirely about love. The "God is Love" movement is a fairly recent invention, historically.

In other interpretations, it's not God that judges you but you yourself that decides to be exiled due to being unworthy. Others will tell you that all or most end up in Heaven, but that sin is still an abomination.

The Lake of Fire is also Dante, if memory serves. What Hell actually is like is a bit ambiguous, scripturally speaking.

And the polished shit thing is attributable to free will. If God created us perfect and infallible, it would be tantamount to creating a bunch of wind up dolls. By giving us free will, evil is introduced, but it's still preferable and allows us to choose good instead of being good by default. Never mind that Christian free will is incompatible with a causal universe, but that's the justification usually.

Well he can't be strictly speaking by scripture. He Himself contradicts that .


I'd like to know how they come To the conclusion that most end up in heaven, though I do like To hear that, the bible does hammer home the point that in order To be saved, It can only be though faith. Something a large amount of humans don't get the chance to experience.

There is a lake of fire in Dantes hell if memory serves, but this one I recall from scripture. I'll have To Look it up again To be sure though.

Yes, I can agree that it'd be pointless for us to be Perfect without haVing the choice To do so, that makes sense to me. Unfortunately, and I mean it when I say it, the bible feels essentially set up for humans to fail than as a guide for life.

Originally posted by Damborgson
A form of it I would think.

We are in the end, energy. Energy that needs to be returned to the eventual but can be built differently from our actions or lack of actions. Thats what makes sense to me at the Moment anyway. Energy and matter are one and the same, and neither can be destroyed... but the problem is concluding that the soul is made of energy. Or at least that it's the same energy we know of. The incorporeal/intangible nature of the soul makes it impossible to understand any attributes of it. Even if it exists, it may consist of something far more mysterious and exotic than the hum-drum energy we all speak of. And that material may not be something that gets recycled.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Energy and matter are one and the same, and neither can be destroyed... but the problem is concluding that the soul is made of energy. Or at least that it's the same energy we know of. The incorporeal/intangible nature of the soul makes it impossible to understand any attributes of it. Even if it exists, it may consist of something far more mysterious and exotic than the hum-drum energy we all speak of. And that material may not be something that gets recycled.

I don't believe in a soul. I do believe in patterns. They exist everywhere in nature. I am the result of a pattern of DNA. Everywhere that pattern exists, there I am.

That leads to one small problem; sense my DNA is almost exactly the same as yours, then you and I are the same person. How can I be you and me at the same time, and be different? I think twins are the answer to that question, but more I do not know.

However, the up side is that if I am really you and you are really me, then we should treat each other better.

Wait, aren't you a Buddhist? Don't you believe in reincarnated souls?

We share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but I'm not gonna go so far as to say I'm half banana. The .1% difference in DNA is enough to differentiate every single one of the approx. 108 billion humans who have ever lived. Combine that with an impossible-to-imagine, innumerable amount of seemingly insignificant environmental factors accumulated over a lifetime, every minute of every hour etc. etc., and you've got a damn good recipe for a massive host of individual personalities and minds.


I don't think souls are actually a thing (or spirit, or "life force/essence" w/e), but minds are. And they're ultimately composed of tangible, corporeal things that shift and change shape constantly. Death will be the last thing a mind experiences before its constituent materials change form, and the personality is destroyed.

Originally posted by Damborgson
A form of it I would think.

We are in the end, energy. Energy that needs to be returned to the eventual but can be built differently from our actions or lack of actions. Thats what makes sense to me at the Moment anyway.

This would require some form of justification to be plausible, imo. What is your reasoning for believing there's a soul? And, further, that it's a type of energy?

Originally posted by Damborgson
Well he can't be strictly speaking by scripture. He Himself contradicts that .

Who's he? The earlier poster? If so, agreed. It doesn't sound like his position accounts for much nuance, though.

Originally posted by Damborgson
I'd like to know how they come To the conclusion that most end up in heaven, though I do like To hear that, the bible does hammer home the point that in order To be saved, It can only be though faith. Something a large amount of humans don't get the chance to experience.

There are caveats in most religions for those who aren't exposed to their beliefs. Are they damning African tribes for being insulated? Or ancient people for not knowing about Jesus? Of course not. These aren't new considerations, not have they been left untreated by those in religious power.

Originally posted by Damborgson
There is a lake of fire in Dantes hell if memory serves, but this one I recall from scripture. I'll have To Look it up again To be sure though.

The Bible is noticeably lacking in concrete descriptions of Hell. I'd be interested to read it if you find such a passage.

Originally posted by Damborgson
Yes, I can agree that it'd be pointless for us to be Perfect without haVing the choice To do so, that makes sense to me. Unfortunately, and I mean it when I say it, the bible feels essentially set up for humans to fail than as a guide for life.

Well, it was created BY humans, in an archaic and scientifically illiterate culture. That alone should speak volumes.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Wait, aren't you a Buddhist? Don't you believe in reincarnated souls?

We share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but I'm not gonna go so far as to say I'm half banana. The .1% difference in DNA is enough to differentiate every single one of the approx. 108 billion humans who have ever lived. Combine that with an impossible-to-imagine, innumerable amount of seemingly insignificant environmental factors accumulated over a lifetime, every minute of every hour etc. etc., and you've got a damn good recipe for a massive host of individual personalities and minds.


I don't think souls are actually a thing (or spirit, or "life force/essence" w/e), but minds are. And they're ultimately composed of tangible, corporeal things that shift and change shape constantly. Death will be the last thing a mind experiences before its constituent materials change form, and the personality is destroyed.

Yes, I am a Buddhist, and no, reincarnation is not a part of Nichiren Buddhism. Sure people can believe what every they wish about what happens after you are dead, but in my religion, when we talk about death, we talk about how to cope with the death of a loved one. We only talk about life, and a better way to live.

That aside. You are related to a bananas, albeit distantly. All life on Earth is related. I am part of the life on this planet, and so are you.

Yes, related. But not the same. And certainly not the same person.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I am a Buddhist, and no, reincarnation is not a part of Nichiren Buddhism. Sure people can believe what every they wish about what happens after you are dead, but in my religion, when we talk about death, we talk about how to cope with the death of a loved one. We only talk about life, and a better way to live.

That aside. You are related to a bananas, albeit distantly. All life on Earth is related. I am part of the life on this planet, and so are you.

Technically, that may not be the case with ALL life, in an evolutionary sense. But I don't know enough to say for sure. It's probably possible, though, that two or three different pools of primordial muck gave rise to life, not just one. If you're speaking in a general "we're all children of Earth" way, though, then sure.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yes, related. But not the same. And certainly not the same person.

How do you know?

Twins are not the same person, but they seem to have a connection that science has not been able to fully understand. What I am saying is that the real "I" is that connection. The body is just an animal that is born, lives for a time and dies. The connection lives on. That is as close to a soul as I can get, in my personal way of believing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know? Because no evidence has ever been discovered that show us to be. Our thoughts, musings, and posturings on the soul, mind etc., aren't enough to conclude that the personalities within every human are essentially the same. Individuality is axiomatic. The opposite is not. It would be an extraordinary claim, and I've not seen nor heard of even a shred of mundane proof, never mind the necessary extraordinary kind. Whatever incorporeal connection we may hope there to be still requires demonstration. And there's a sharp difference between people who are alike in mind, and minds that are one-in-the-same.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because no evidence has ever been discovered that show us to be. Our thoughts, musings, and posturings on the soul, mind etc., aren't enough to conclude that the personalities within every human are essentially the same. Individuality is axiomatic. The opposite is not. It would be an extraordinary claim, and I've not seen nor heard of even a shred of mundane proof, never mind the necessary extraordinary kind. Whatever incorporeal connection we may hope there to be still requires demonstration. And there's a sharp difference between people who are alike in mind, and minds that are one-in-the-same.

Then you are not looking. The reason psychology works is because humans are basically the same. Could you imagine a world were every human was uniquely different? Evolution would never work. We all started off as a single celled organism that evolved over time.

We are the same and different at the same time. You and I are the flowers on the tree, not the tree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are not looking. The reason psychology works is because humans are basically the same. Could you imagine a world were every human was uniquely different? Evolution would never work. We all started off as a single celled organism that evolved over time.

We are the same and different at the same time. You and I are the flowers on the tree, not the tree. All of that is why we're similar. Why we're related. But not, as you said earlier, why we're "the same person". My DNA is almost identical to yours. Even if it was identical--even if we were clones, the mind that inhabits the body is different. Even the body itself is different--it's two separate bundles of matter. Even if the mind is similar, nearly indistinguishable, it's still separate. You're making "similarity" synonymous with "sameness". It's not.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
All of that is why we're similar. Why we're related. But not, as you said earlier, why we're "the same person". My DNA is almost identical to yours. Even if it was identical--even if we were clones, the mind that inhabits the body is different. Even the body itself is different--it's two separate bundles of matter. Even if the mind is similar, nearly indistinguishable, it's still separate. You're making "similarity" synonymous with "sameness". It's not.

You seem to be repeating what I said already? Why is that? Maybe you didn't understand me. I'm sure it is my fault.

I am NOT saying that "similarity" is synonymous with "sameness". I am saying that there is a connection that makes us part of the same entity. In other words, we are all human; we are all Earthlings; we are all life.

This is as close to a soul as I can get. That is why I do not believe in a soul. However, if you say "dead is dead, then I must point out the big picture. You are not the center of anything, not even your own life.

Originally posted by Digi
This would require some form of justification to be plausible, imo. What is your reasoning for believing there's a soul? And, further, that it's a type of energy?



Who's he? The earlier poster? If so, agreed. It doesn't sound like his position accounts for much nuance, though.



There are caveats in most religions for those who aren't exposed to their beliefs. Are they damning African tribes for being insulated? Or ancient people for not knowing about Jesus? Of course not. These aren't new considerations, not have they been left untreated by those in religious power.



The Bible is noticeably lacking in concrete descriptions of Hell. I'd be interested to read it if you find such a passage.



Well, it was created BY humans, in an archaic and scientifically illiterate culture. That alone should speak volumes.


Because it's what makes existence, meaningful.

It's far too shallow thinking imo to believe that a rough several decades of life is all their is to existence. That at the end of the day, nothing really matters, all forms behavior will be rewarded with the same end, absolute nothingness. From the noblest child to the most perverse criminal.

Lines of thinking like Karma and that jazz, make sense in that they believe that your actions affect the energy that is yourself.

I use the word "energy" freely, but as Lucien stated, it could be some other ethereal source of who knows what that makes up the soul.

Well yeah, of course not. I'm hardly egotistical enough to think that any conclusion I've made about biblical scripture hasn't been investigated by older and wiser men than me. That's not what I was getting at. But if you have and source that indicates that humans, who according to scripture are sinful or bound to commit sin, and are not exposed to the one way they can be saved, from the one, true, God as is described in the bible, are somehow still saved, I'm all ears.

I found several actually:

Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet , and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


Matthew 25:41 - Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:14-15 - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.

Yes, but those humans were guided when they wrote the book. Guided by the Holy Spirit, and scripture is recognized by God himself as something that should never be tampered with unless you have the most foul of sins committed.

Originally posted by Damborgson
Because it's what makes existence, meaningful.

No, it's one way existence can be meaningful. Just because you can't perceive meaning outside of this doesn't mean that others can't.

This also isn't evidence or logic/reason to believe in the existence of a soul. That you can't perceive meaning outside of a soul's existence means nothing. It's hope; blind faith. It's an emotional, perhaps psychological reason to believe, but not an empirical or rational reason.

Originally posted by Damborgson
It's far too shallow thinking imo to believe that a rough several decades of life is all their is to existence. That at the end of the day, nothing really matters, all forms behavior will be rewarded with the same end, absolute nothingness. From the noblest child to the most perverse criminal.

The potential meaninglessness of life is not contingent upon an afterlife. Again, this is a narrow view of existence in which only one form of "meaning" is accepted.

But what you're talking about is again hope. Hope that there is more. But it's not a reason to believe that there is more.

It surprises some when I tell them I hope there's an afterlife too. I hope I'm wrong. Of course, it could be one of an infinite number of terrible afterlives as well, but I'd take my chances. But I also hope I become rich tomorrow. That alone isn't sufficient to justify a belief that I'll become rich tomorrow. I hope Mjolnir falls to Earth in my yard and I become the Asgardian protector of Earth. But - the fact that I'm probably not Worthy aside - I think we can agree it's not going to happen. But that's the same hope in the unjustified divine; it's just less socially accepted.

Originally posted by Damborgson
Lines of thinking like Karma and that jazz, make sense in that they believe that your actions affect the energy that is yourself.

"Affect the energy" is meaningless to me. How does an action affect a karmic energy? What is karma in the first place? Not in a textbook sense, but can you actually point to is existence in the world?

Basically, what I'm getting at is, how does the universe operate in a way that cannot simply be described by deterministic physics. My contention is that this alone is sufficient to describe our actions.

Originally posted by Damborgson
Well yeah, of course not. I'm hardly egotistical enough to think that any conclusion I've made about biblical scripture hasn't been investigated by older and wiser men than me. That's not what I was getting at. But if you have and source that indicates that humans, who according to scripture are sinful or bound to commit sin, and are not exposed to the one way they can be saved, from the one, true, God as is described in the bible, are somehow still saved, I'm all ears.

In Scripture, probably not. But talk to a priest, ask him where the souls of insulated African tribes are headed. Or even well-meaning individuals who are exposed to Christ but don't accept Him. Chances are, his answer will be "Heaven."

Originally posted by Damborgson
I found several actually:

Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet , and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Matthew 25:41 - Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:14-15 - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.

Nice finds.

Originally posted by Damborgson
Yes, but those humans were guided when they wrote the book.

How could we possibly know that?

Originally posted by Damborgson
Guided by the Holy Spirit, and scripture is recognized by God himself as something that should never be tampered with

"Recognized by God himself..." seems like a problematic train of thought to me. How is it recognized? Through the Bible? It's circular reasoning.

"Why is the Bible divinely inspired?"
"Because the Bible says so."

Am I not grasping your meaning here?

________________

As it comes down to with many religious topics, it's the difference between possible and plausible. Lots of ideas - including religious ones - are possible. And from a subjective experience, which is all we have, we can't deny any possibility in an absolute sense. But "plausible" is a much tougher sell, one that nearly any justification for a soul falls short of imo.

Nice chatting though Damborg. I don't see you 'round this forum too often. Hope I'm not coming on too strong.

Originally posted by Digi


In Scripture, probably not. But talk to a priest, ask him where the souls of insulated African tribes are headed. Or even well-meaning individuals who are exposed to Christ but don't accept Him. Chances are, his answer will be "Heaven."



I put that same question to my step-father once.
And in true Born Again Christian mode, he said, "Don't worry about them."

That's what Jesus said

Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
Some Dude: "What about kids in Africa"
Jesus: "**** 'em"

Originally posted by Damborgson
I am someone who believes that this life will serve our next state. That after out death, we won't simply stop existing. More specifically, since energy cannot be destroyed we'll simply pass into another existence, very possibly influenced by the negative or positive energy we build up during our time here. I've got plenty of other stuff that could go into it, but those are as near to certainties as anything for me now.

Anyway, I'm curious what others might think, what you all believe happens after we pass. My view is no more valid than anyone elses' so leave a post in what you believe.

We have the same curious mind set.

Look at your next home my friend. It may looks a lot like that clip of the earths magnetic field. Now let's not forget that this is all speculation, but if I am correct, that is the home of our/a cosmic consciousness. What you call what will serve our next state.

http://vimeo.com/26318064

Science is always 20 years behind me but they are catching up.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Supra
When you die you Go to heaven if you believed in his son Jesus.

If you did not..God will judge you on judgement day and you will be judged by Justice Iteself on what your fate will be for all eternity..its really that simple.

It, "Justice Iteself", cannot judge. It is not qualified. It is not human.

Get a him or a her judge and then you have a real judge that can be questioned.

Think of secular law and the Latin, mens rea, and you will get the idea as to why it must be a human judge.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
No, it's one way existence can be meaningful. Just because you can't perceive meaning outside of this doesn't mean that others can't.

This also isn't evidence or logic/reason to believe in the existence of a soul. That you can't perceive meaning outside of a soul's existence means nothing. It's hope; blind faith. It's an emotional, perhaps psychological reason to believe, but not an empirical or rational reason.



The potential meaninglessness of life is not contingent upon an afterlife. Again, this is a narrow view of existence in which only one form of "meaning" is accepted.

But what you're talking about is again hope. Hope that there is more. But it's not a reason to believe that there is more.

It surprises some when I tell them I hope there's an afterlife too. I hope I'm wrong. Of course, it could be one of an infinite number of terrible afterlives as well, but I'd take my chances. But I also hope I become rich tomorrow. That alone isn't sufficient to justify a belief that I'll become rich tomorrow. I hope Mjolnir falls to Earth in my yard and I become the Asgardian protector of Earth. But - the fact that I'm probably not Worthy aside - I think we can agree it's not going to happen. But that's the same hope in the unjustified divine; it's just less socially accepted.



"Affect the energy" is meaningless to me. How does an action affect a karmic energy? What is karma in the first place? Not in a textbook sense, but can you actually point to is existence in the world?

Basically, what I'm getting at is, how does the universe operate in a way that cannot simply be described by deterministic physics. My contention is that this alone is sufficient to describe our actions.



In Scripture, probably not. But talk to a priest, ask him where the souls of insulated African tribes are headed. Or even well-meaning individuals who are exposed to Christ but don't accept Him. Chances are, his answer will be "Heaven."



Nice finds.



How could we possibly know that?



"Recognized by God himself..." seems like a problematic train of thought to me. How is it recognized? Through the Bible? It's circular reasoning.

"Why is the Bible divinely inspired?"
"Because the Bible says so."

Am I not grasping your meaning here?

________________

As it comes down to with many religious topics, it's the difference between possible and plausible. Lots of ideas - including religious ones - are possible. And from a subjective experience, which is all we have, we can't deny any possibility in an absolute sense. But "plausible" is a much tougher sell, one that nearly any justification for a soul falls short of imo.

Nice chatting though Damborg. I don't see you 'round this forum too often. Hope I'm not coming on too strong.

Hey Digi Sorry its been so long. Life's been up and down and sideways all the same, barely had time to be on the VS forum at all.

anywho, here goes:

You're more than free to back up the meaning behind something that has no impact whatsoever. This is the place for it. My ability to find meaning however, can't be properly judged off simple posts in this thread

It's up to you to believe it or not dude. If I know anything in life, it's that no one is necessarily right. Some just seem to be more so than others. I'm hardly putting this out as the end all be all explanation for eternity. To me, it's utterly ridiculous to think we disappear when we die completely as, even at our most base form, atoms, we are energy. The soul as its often described, can be considered the energy we return to as when we die. The soul's been the object of obsession for humanity for as long as we've been on Earth. Yet it's not scientific tests that can call out to the supernatural, asking for rational evidence of something that goes beyond the norm we're used to, is a rather...interesting request.

Looking beyond this existence...is a narrow form of existence? But the belief that we turn to dust and that's that is open minded?

Well that's the thing. My belief isn't based on faith. It's what I believe in sure, but my faith in it is hardly relevant, nor is my hope relevant. So the scenarios you put out, being rich and getting Mjolnir, are just hope. My belief is apart from that. It's not my hope that shapes the workings of the afterlife, it's just how it was intended to be by a being far greater than you or me or anyone else. *shrug*

I don't see where the surprise comes from. You're just a man, one who like me, probably has the hope that we will continue after this life. It just doesn't make sense to you is all. That's something you'll have to figure out on your own, or not since belief doesn't have much to do with it in my opinion.

It's affected by the negative and positive actions we do in this life. Energy, or our soul, is filled with what we put in it. Negative actions don't lead to anything good, but can be balanced out through good, just like the universe always seeks to balance itself, so do we.

Asking for firm evidence of karmic existence though is like me asking you to please confirm that we cease to exist after death. It's beyond our mortal selves.

What priests have you talked to? That's a rather moderate and friendly answer. I was told I was going to hell since I was in 4th grade. That I needed saving just like the murderers, rapists and other scum of the world. Because we are essentially bad people in the Christian belief, that are saved only through faith. This is fact for that religion.

Thanks, it had been a while since I'd searched bible verses.

We can't. And no, either you're not grasping it or I did a poor job of describing what I meant. The point was to describe how poor that line of reasoning was, not that I believe it.

---------------------------

No, no, of course not we're just expressing our thoughts. Wouldn't be any fun if we were pushovers about it ha.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
We have the same curious mind set.

Look at your next home my friend. It may looks a lot like that clip of the earths magnetic field. Now let's not forget that this is all speculation, but if I am correct, that is the home of our/a cosmic consciousness. What you call what will serve our next state.

http://vimeo.com/26318064

Science is always 20 years behind me but they are catching up.

Regards
DL

Interesting stuff. Guess we'll have to wait and see

Extraordinary claims extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Extraordinary claims extraordinary proof.

Absolutely. That is why Gnostic Christians will view all Gods and what is said of them as myth, unless pushed to belief by apotheosis.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Only then will we say we hold a belief thanks to the extra ordinary information given by what most call God.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Damborgson
Anyway, I'm curious what others might think, what you all believe happens after we pass.The drop returns to the ocean, though it never really left.

Originally posted by Damborgson
I am someone who believes that this life will serve our next state. That after out death, we won't simply stop existing. More specifically, since energy cannot be destroyed we'll simply pass into another existence, very possibly influenced by the negative or positive energy we build up during our time here. I've got plenty of other stuff that could go into it, but those are as near to certainties as anything for me now.

Anyway, I'm curious what others might think, what you all believe happens after we pass. My view is no more valid than anyone elses' so leave a post in what you believe. Well I can only speak for myself because I only know the negative forces that have suppressed my natural purpose.

After I die I will awaken 10 years younger at a paramount point in my life, where my decisions can allow me to succeed, whereas the schemers fail - as opposed to what will happen in this life if I die the way it's most likely I'm going to die, where everybody loses despite unfathomable karma in my favor to stack against the odds that have somehow been axed by thousands of years of unnatural machinations.

Perhaps I'll succeed in this life, and they'll not have intervened in the next, if I can make anything happen. It depends on what's inside me, on who I am. When discover myself, I will know whether or not I have what it takes to make anything possible. Whether or not that karma is as strong as I believe it is.

Originally posted by Mindship
The drop returns to the ocean.

I love the wave analogy. A wave is on the surface of the ocean. It exists for a time then it is gone. Where did it go? Back into the ocean where it has always been.

BUT I AM A UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE. I DON'T WANNA GO BACK TO THE COLLECTIVIST COMMIE HELL THAT YOU IMPLY.

Also, valkyries. Just saying.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
BUT I AM A UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE. I DON'T WANNA GO BACK TO THE COLLECTIVIST COMMIE HELL THAT YOU IMPLY.

Also, valkyries. Just saying.

Whiner!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
BUT I AM A UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE. I DON'T WANNA GO BACK TO THE COLLECTIVIST COMMIE HELL THAT YOU IMPLY.

Also, valkyries. Just saying.

You have heard of the Borg Collective of Star Trek?

The cosmic consciousness or Godhead is like that and you keep your individuality while enjoying the benefits of the collective.

Regards
DL

But how can it be harmonious? Also, how can we claim knowledge of anything we have not empirically verified?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
You have heard of the Borg Collective of Star Trek?

The cosmic consciousness or Godhead is like that and you keep your individuality while enjoying the benefits of the collective.

Regards
DL

Please explain to me how that works. For example, the Borg are connected with a type of carrier wave. It is fiction, but there is an attempt to make it real world. How do you make your idea "real world"?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please explain to me how that works. For example, the Borg are connected with a type of carrier wave. It is fiction, but there is an attempt to make it real world. How do you make your idea "real world"? Stop asking perfectly logical questions.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But how can it be harmonious?

S M

I guess that evolution, since it always creates for the best possible end, must somehow create the conditions where life likes to be alive otherwise it would tend to end itself.


Also, how can we claim knowledge of anything we have not empirically verified?

We can claim knowledge. We just also have to admit that we have no proof for others. That is a part of the nature of apotheosis.

S M

I never push people to believe in my apotheosis and only offer it as an anecdotal rendering.

If they have a spiritual itch pushing them, they will not need my poor words to eventually get their reward. Or curse depending on my day.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Stop asking perfectly logical questions.

Sorry!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please explain to me how that works. For example, the Borg are connected with a type of carrier wave. It is fiction, but there is an attempt to make it real world. How do you make your idea "real world"?

The way I see things is that thoughts and our consciousness are made up of sub atomic particles. They are their own carrier wave, so to speak, and meld as they choose to within the Godhead. This theory of thoughts creating paticles came from Noetic Sciences. I offer this as a possibility and speculation only.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The way I see things is that thoughts and our consciousness are made up of sub atomic particles. They are their own carrier wave, so to speak, and meld as they choose to within the Godhead. This theory of thoughts creating paticles came from Noetic Sciences. I offer this as a possibility and speculation only.

Regards
DL

So, are the thoughts of other animals included? Like is my cat part of this consciousness?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The way I see things is that thoughts and our consciousness are made up of sub atomic particles. They are their own carrier wave, so to speak, and meld as they choose to within the Godhead. This theory of thoughts creating paticles came from Noetic Sciences. I offer this as a possibility and speculation only.

Regards
DL In this theory, where do the rest of the other, non-thinking lifeforms come in to play? And are these subatomic particles found throughout the universe--regardless of the presence of consciousness--or are they of a type that's only created when thought and consciousnesses occurs? And if it's the latter, what is the impetus for thought and consciousnesses?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
We can claim knowledge. We just also have to admit that we have no proof for others. That is a part of the nature of apotheosis.

S M

I never push people to believe in my apotheosis and only offer it as an anecdotal rendering.

If they have a spiritual itch pushing them, they will not need my poor words to eventually get their reward. Or curse depending on my day.

Regards
DL

I'm skeptical, which goes without saying. Any time someone is absolutely certain of something, I am usually skeptical.

1. Define 'apotheosis' for us, in the context you're using it. I'm not sure I can agree to this term having validity without it being defined properly first.

2. Knowledge requires both belief that X is X and logical proof that such is the case. You must be able to justify it using reason, and furthermore it should be true by virtue of the reasoning, not just potentially true. The idea that perhaps there are buried microbes in Antarctica isn't true until microbes are actually verified to be in Antarctica.

I find it extremely troubling that someone would take an epiphany leading to Gnosticism as valid while being unable to render the reasoning that lead to such event to others. The general rule of thumb is if you can't describe something concisely, you may not actually understand it well enough to verify it in any way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are the thoughts of other animals included? Like is my cat part of this consciousness?

I don't know. Perhaps since we cannot breed with them here, it is more likely that we cannot meld mentally in the afterlife either.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
In this theory, where do the rest of the other, non-thinking lifeforms come in to play? And are these subatomic particles found throughout the universe--regardless of the presence of consciousness--or are they of a type that's only created when thought and consciousnesses occurs? And if it's the latter, what is the impetus for thought and consciousnesses?

I think all life forms think so I do not accept your tern of non-thinking life forms. Even a nerve cell has an on and off position.

I know nothing of the sub-atomic particles, --- perhaps Noetic Science would be a good source for you, --- but I would think that it is their position and not their composition that carries the thought information. Just like radio waves.

The impetus for thought and consciousness seems to be life.

Regards
dl

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm skeptical, which goes without saying. Any time someone is absolutely certain of something, I am usually skeptical.

1. Define 'apotheosis' for us, in the context you're using it. I'm not sure I can agree to this term having validity without it being defined properly first.

2. Knowledge requires both belief that X is X and logical proof that such is the case. You must be able to justify it using reason, and furthermore it should be true by virtue of the reasoning, not just potentially true. The idea that perhaps there are buried microbes in Antarctica isn't true until microbes are actually verified to be in Antarctica.

I find it extremely troubling that someone would take an epiphany leading to Gnosticism as valid while being unable to render the reasoning that lead to such event to others. The general rule of thumb is if you can't describe something concisely, you may not actually understand it well enough to verify it in any way.

The best analogy to the word apotheosis is in the esoteric rendering of Jacob's ladder. Apotheosis is like finding it and beginning to climb. The stages or levels of God, so to speak, are to be climbed.

Please meet me here to further this.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=589430

Regards
DL

I've already read the other thread. My question still stands. An "esoteric rendering of Jacob's ladder" is clear as mud. I'm asking you to present your definition clearly and concisely. Otherwise, you've not shown the reasoning to support your stance.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I think all life forms think so I do not accept your tern of non-thinking life forms. Proof?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I don't know. Perhaps since we cannot breed with them here, it is more likely that we cannot meld mentally in the afterlife either.

Regards
DL

Perhaps? We are animals; we are part of the animal kingdom. Perhaps each animal has its own consciousness?

Moose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_Ladder

Explains the "analogy of Jacob's Ladder" through Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I've used wikipedia for trying to understand the more cloudthought things described here - helps me understand Shaky much better, too!

ETA : I THINK GIA is talking about this part : "In the 3rd century, Origen explains that there are two ladders in the life of a Christian, the ascetic ladder that the soul climbs on the earth, by way of—and resulting in—an increase in virtue, and the soul's travel after death, climbing up the heavens towards the light of God."

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I've already read the other thread. My question still stands. An "esoteric rendering of Jacob's ladder" is clear as mud. I'm asking you to present your definition clearly and concisely. Otherwise, you've not shown the reasoning to support your stance.

Apotheosis is described as becoming God-like of being elevated to God-like status. that is exactly what it is but most think it is an instantaneous event. It is not.

The old Kabbalists, which is where most esoteric thinking comes from, thought that to ascend to being God-like it was a ten step process. Learning these steps was all important to them. Jacob's ladder has those 10 steps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob's_Ladder

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361883/jewish/The-Ladder.htm

The thing to remember is that these are just concepts to help you know what is going on within your own mind and thinking.

It is all myth until your own apotheosis guides you to a belief.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Proof?

I have no proof to offer but biology has much.

If you want to start a study then the basic nerve, as I said, has rudimentary thinking. I would start there.

BTW, did you have a sample of a non-thinking life form?

That would mean no electrical activity in it al all. Right?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps? We are animals; we are part of the animal kingdom. Perhaps each animal has its own consciousness?

Yes. Even if we could somehow read the minds of an animal, we might not be able to understand what we are (reading).

Somewhat like SETI and the radio signal they look for. They do not expect to understand the signal but only think they can recognize that it is a signal.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Moose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_Ladder

Explains the "analogy of Jacob's Ladder" through Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I've used wikipedia for trying to understand the more cloudthought things described here - helps me understand Shaky much better, too!

ETA : I THINK GIA is talking about this part : "In the 3rd century, Origen explains that there are two ladders in the life of a Christian, the ascetic ladder that the soul climbs on the earth, by way of—and resulting in—an increase in virtue, and the soul's travel after death, climbing up the heavens towards the light of God."

The concept of Jacob's ladder is way older than Christianity and the Kabbalist ladder or usual form to their blimb toward God is better written.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
BTW, did you have a sample of a non-thinking life form?

That would mean no electrical activity in it al all. Right? Bio-electrical activity is not the definition of thought. As far as we can empirically observe, only lifeforms with an advanced central nervous system--a brain, specifically human--can think. The grass in your front lawn can't think. The fungus between your floorboards has no thoughts. If you're operating under some sophist definition of "thought-producing lifeform" then there's no point going further.

Regarding matter, life and consciousness, I've always liked this analogy...

mass:gravity::complexity: consciousness.

Just as we can not detect the gravitational field of a dust mote, neither can we detect its degree of consciousness. But both are present. And just as we can not feel gravity until we are dealing with significant masses (eg, a planet), neither can we note consciousness until we are dealing with significant complexity (eg, life).

Please note that 'consciousness' is being used here in the broadest sense of the term.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bio-electrical activity is not the definition of thought. As far as we can empirically observe, only lifeforms with an advanced central nervous system--a brain, specifically human--can think. The grass in your front lawn can't think. The fungus between your floorboards has no thoughts. If you're operating under some sophist definition of "thought-producing lifeform" then there's no point going further.

I guess that our medical systems are wrong then to determine if a man is alive or not by his brain's electrical activity.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Mindship
Regarding matter, life and consciousness, I've always liked this analogy...

mass:gravity::complexity: consciousness.

Just as we can not detect the gravitational field of a dust mote, neither can we detect its degree of consciousness. But both are present. And just as we can not feel gravity until we are dealing with significant masses (eg, a planet), neither can we note consciousness until we are dealing with significant complexity (eg, life).

Please note that 'consciousness' is being used here in the broadest sense of the term.

If consciousness includes electrical activity, then even the emissions of a dust mote, if it emits any, can be detected.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If consciousness includes electrical activity, then even the emissions of a dust mote, if it emits any, can be detected.

Regards
DL It would include it, but not be limited to it.

I prefer a holistic-transcendent paradigm, as per the perennial philosophy, where Consciousness is the fundamental reality, not matter. Thus, electrical activity is involved but is hardly the final say, imo.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If consciousness includes electrical activity, then even the emissions of a dust mote, if it emits any, can be detected.

Regards
DL So then... electrical activity=consciousness? Essentially anything that interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum is a conscious, thinking thing?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I guess that our medical systems are wrong then to determine if a man is alive or not by his brain's electrical activity.

Regards
DL EDIT: I missed this.


No, they're right. Apparently you didn't read my post, since you kinda confirmed it's point: human brains show sign of consciousness through electrical activity. Lifeforms and non-living things (like you mote of dust example) have no brains. So how then would they have consciousness and thought?

Originally posted by Mindship
It would include it, but not be limited to it.


What else do you think comes out?


I prefer a holistic-transcendent paradigm, as per the perennial philosophy, where Consciousness is the fundamental reality, not matter. Thus, electrical activity is involved but is hardly the final say, imo.

Holistics are nice but as far as we know, a complicated consciousness cannot exist without a mind. Single cells can react but that does not quite mean conscious reaction.

We should stay in the real before invoking anything of a spirit world.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So then... electrical activity=consciousness? Essentially anything that interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum is a conscious, thinking thing?

EDIT: I missed this.


No, they're right. Apparently you didn't read my post, since you kinda confirmed it's point: human brains show sign of consciousness through electrical activity. Lifeforms and non-living things (like you mote of dust example) have no brains. So how then would they have consciousness and thought?

We have no idea how much consciousness can be held in a given electrical field and so cannot answer all questions.

We also do not know how much brain is required, if any, for consciousness.

How big is the consciousness your brain creates? You cannot know nor can you know how small it can be before being compromised.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
We have no idea how much consciousness can be held in a given electrical field and so cannot answer all questions.

We also do not know how much brain is required, if any, for consciousness.

How big is the consciousness your brain creates? You cannot know nor can you know how small it can be before being compromised.

Regards
DL

Please define consciousness scientifically.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
We have no idea how much consciousness can be held in a given electrical field and so cannot answer all questions.

We also do not know how much brain is required, if any, for consciousness.

How big is the consciousness your brain creates? You cannot know nor can you know how small it can be before being compromised.

Regards
DL In regards to your first sentence, it's better written as "we have no evidence that consciousness can be held in a given electrical field." The brain produces electrical output--but to equate that with being one and the same thing as consciousness itself is fallacious. There's a correlation, but not a proven causation. I think you're too impressed with the concept of a "field" of electro-consciousness, or whatever you think of it as.

In regards to the rest, for someone who admits to not knowing much about any of this, you seem to have an oddly resilient (if strangely structured) belief in it. Can you not forsake your beliefs in favor of resigned ignorance, at least until further scientific evidence either confirms or denies something?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Moose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_Ladder

Explains the "analogy of Jacob's Ladder" through Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I've used wikipedia for trying to understand the more cloudthought things described here - helps me understand Shaky much better, too!

ETA : I THINK GIA is talking about this part : "In the 3rd century, Origen explains that there are two ladders in the life of a Christian, the ascetic ladder that the soul climbs on the earth, by way of—and resulting in—an increase in virtue, and the soul's travel after death, climbing up the heavens towards the light of God."

I tried looking at that too, but there's a lot of purple prose and conflicting viewpoints on it. If GIA couldn't define it in terms I could understand enough to verify, it stands to reason he hasn't examined his beliefs thoroughly enough. After all, would you trust a mechanic who can't describe to you the layman what is wrong with your vehicle?

GIA, I find all this Kabbalist esoteric nonsense to be impossible to scrutinize as it is presented. And this is not necessarily due to my ignorance of Gnosticism but a communication issue we seem to be having here. You are saying your Atkin's ten step program helps you magically understand and verify religious or spiritual belief suddenly through no particular cause but just out of thin air some day. Then there's some addendum about being God-like, etc. etc.

Things lilke "godhead", "esoteric" and "apotheosis" are like corporate buzzwords here. They may seem upon superficial glance to be profound, but the truth is they have no substance. You've admitted to having zero proof and furthermore been unable to render any reasoning for your conversion. I see no reason in turn to give it any more consideration than I do JIA's born-again rhetoric.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Holistics are nice but as far as we know, a complicated consciousness cannot exist without a mind. Single cells can react but that does not quite mean conscious reaction.This is why I said, "'consciousness' is being used here in the broadest sense of the term." Mind and consciousness are not synonymous.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
We should stay in the real before invoking anything of a spirit world.It would do you good to become familiar with the perennial philosophy. Without realizing it, it is, in essence, what draws you. But somewhere down the line, you got sidetracked into manufacturing a perspective which reduces the transcendent to the physical. This is classic category error being committed, imho, in the attempt to give your approach equal status with the dominant, reductive-materialist paradigm. If so, good luck.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please define consciousness scientifically.

The seat of our own awareness is my closest guess, --- because science is not yet able to define it accurately.

Other than that, I do not want or need to re-write the dictionary.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
In regards to your first sentence, it's better written as "we have no evidence that consciousness can be held in a given electrical field." The brain produces electrical output--but to equate that with being one and the same thing as consciousness itself is fallacious. There's a correlation, but not a proven causation. I think you're too impressed with the concept of a "field" of electro-consciousness, or whatever you think of it as.

In regards to the rest, for someone who admits to not knowing much about any of this, you seem to have an oddly resilient (if strangely structured) belief in it. Can you not forsake your beliefs in favor of resigned ignorance, at least until further scientific evidence either confirms or denies something?

I am quite ready to accept anything new in these areas.

Are you?

Try this.

http://vimeo.com/26318064

I think this scientist has found where my apotheosis took me.

Regards
DL

Oops.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I tried looking at that too, but there's a lot of purple prose and conflicting viewpoints on it. If GIA couldn't define it in terms I could understand enough to verify, it stands to reason he hasn't examined his beliefs thoroughly enough. After all, would you trust a mechanic who can't describe to you the layman what is wrong with your vehicle?

GIA, I find all this Kabbalist esoteric nonsense to be impossible to scrutinize as it is presented. And this is not necessarily due to my ignorance of Gnosticism but a communication issue we seem to be having here. You are saying your Atkin's ten step program helps you magically understand and verify religious or spiritual belief suddenly through no particular cause but just out of thin air some day. Then there's some addendum about being God-like, etc. etc.

Things lilke "godhead", "esoteric" and "apotheosis" are like corporate buzzwords here. They may seem upon superficial glance to be profound, but the truth is they have no substance. You've admitted to having zero proof and furthermore been unable to render any reasoning for your conversion. I see no reason in turn to give it any more consideration than I do JIA's born-again rhetoric.

If you do not have a spiritual side to scratch, then I cannot give you anything to ease the itch.

Nothing I say is particularly new.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Mindship
This is why I said, "'consciousness' is being used here in the broadest sense of the term." Mind and consciousness are not synonymous.

It would do you good to become familiar with the perennial philosophy. Without realizing it, it is, in essence, what draws you. But somewhere down the line, you got sidetracked into manufacturing a perspective which reduces the transcendent to the physical. This is classic category error being committed, imho, in the attempt to give your approach equal status with the dominant, reductive-materialist paradigm. If so, good luck.

I report what I found.

My experience fit's well to what some of the ancients have said so I do give that real experience some veracity.

It is of the natural and not the supernatural and is definitely tied to the physical.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you do not have a spiritual side to scratch, then I cannot give you anything to ease the itch.

Nothing I say is particularly new.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Regards
DL

You've still failed to satisfy the most elemental method of sharing your viewpoint with others. If you want to write me off as 'non-spiritual', dodge the hard questions I posed you, and link me to a Youtube video I won't so much as waste my time with, then here's what I have to say:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5175/5536695127_4303b4540b_z.jpg

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You've still failed to satisfy the most elemental method of sharing your viewpoint with others. If you want to write me off as 'non-spiritual', dodge the hard questions I posed you, and link me to a Youtube video I won't so much as waste my time with, then here's what I have to say:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5175/5536695127_4303b4540b_z.jpg

If words alone could do it, Jesus would have won years ago.

The answers we all seek are within us in God's kingdom where Gnostic Jesus and even the bible Jesus said answers are.

If you want a magic bullet you have to dig it up yourself.

Jesus said to seek God. Not for you go just piggy back on someone else's.

Regards
DL

You failed to even basically relate your point without using buzzwords and relying on secondary sources. This implies you don't understand what you are preaching.

Regards
SM

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I am quite ready to accept anything new in these areas.

Are you?

Try this.

http://vimeo.com/26318064

I think this scientist has found where my apotheosis took me.

Regards
DL Riveting response. So rich in substance and candor.

Thanks gents.

Regards
DL

Wow! Is this the END?!

Time will tell.

Or a decent re-write of whatever questions are left to speak to.

Regards
DL

When you're ready.

Sputter, sputter...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sputter, sputter... ...foil and flutter.