Some people think of eternity as a line with no beginning and no end. In church, I’ve heard preachers say things like “Way back in eternity past …” It’s as if God were on his own forever until he decided to make the universe. Likewise, we are led to believe that we, as individuals, had a beginning but will not have an end – that we will simply go on collecting experiences forever, both on earth and in heaven. But I think we misunderstand the nature of eternity. It is not a line with no end. We’ve misunderstood the whole nature of time itself. Infinite Consciousness (my preferred term for what you might think of as God) does not experience time in the way that we (that is, our individual egos) do because it knows the end from the beginning. There is no value for Infinite Consciousness in travelling along a never-ending line where it always knows what’s coming.
Infinite Consciousness exists in eternity, which is not a never-ending time-line; it’s a realm of no-time or all-time – a realm where free will, deductive thinking, and decision making do not exist, because all is known, all is complete. Time as we understand it is merely a construct. Infinite Consciousness created time as a means of fragmenting itself, of experiencing incompleteness, for reasons known only to itself. The consciousness within me is Infinite Consciousness. The consciousness within you is Infinite Consciousness. We are the same being. We have simply been placed into an arena where we cannot access the full awareness of what we are. Just beyond my subconscious mind is Infinite Consciousness holding me here – holding itself here. Likewise, just beyond your unconscious mind is Infinite Consciousness holding you here. We are one and the same being; we have simply been forced into a state of amnesia, because that amnesia is the only way to experience what it’s like for there to be something other than you. To be human is to leave eternity and enter time – to deliberately forget what you are and undergo a period of learning filled with thrills and spills, joys and sorrows.
I experienced a sudden moment of clarity recently. It came like a bolt from the blue when I was out cycling one evening, travelling along a route that I had cycled since boyhood. I was reminiscing about what it had felt to be here doing this when I was a teenager, playfully imagining I could ride through a time-warp and suddenly be that person again, re-living those memorable school days. And it suddenly hit me: “There is no time. You are not moving forward through time. You are Infinite Consciousness, and there is only this one eternal moment – the NOW. Time is an illusion that is playing through you. You are standing still. There is only NOW.” I had read these ideas before, but never understood them until this strange moment when the pieces of the jigsaw clicked. I suddenly got a new perspective on the question “What happens to my soul when I die?” Or as Christians would say: “Where will you spend eternity?” I’m not heading for anywhere, heaven or hell. I’m standing still. The events of time move towards me and play through me, and it’s all a construct. It’s like time is a DVD and you’re the laser reading it, standing still in the now while the movie plays through you. If I could tear the veil of time away, the full knowledge of what I am would flood my consciousness – and time would disappear. When I had this moment of clarity, I just started to laugh joyously (good job I was alone). It was a wonderful moment of intuition that added another layer of clarity to the intuitive journey I’ve been on for the past year.
I have heard the analogy that we are like droplets of water and collectively we make up the ocean. It’s a limited analogy, because we’re still inclined to identify ourselves with the droplet (the ego) and not the ocean. The truth is you are the ocean. Yes, little you. You are Infinite Consciousness. The awareness inside you is the awareness of God, if you like. The only reason you don’t already know that is because the experience of human individuality makes you forget it. It’s the only way the human experience can work. If you suddenly awoke to your true magnitude, you couldn’t function here in this place as an individual. Here at this human level we are individuals. We may still be individuals are a higher level. But at the highest level, you and I are the the same being. In simple terms, imagine two people dying at the same time, suddenly realising they are the same person with two sets of memories (the truth is likely more complex than that, but I hope you get the idea). We are only lulled into thinking that we are separate by “ego.”
Some people who embrace this kind of thinking seem to favour the idea of reincarnation. Now, reincarnation might be true on one level, but at the same time, it’s just another part of the time construct, and we have to get beyond that. Even if my indivudal “soul” has lived a hundred lives before now, on a higher level of awareness, my soul and your soul are the same person. Reincarnation strikes me as just another way to perpetuate the human ego into “eternity to come,” when the whole point is the realisation that ego is a construct, and the future is a construct. There is only ONE existing in the NOW.
The whole universe is an expression of Infinite Consciousness undergoing an experience of separation. And humans are only a small part of that. The three-dimensional physical nature of the universe is nothing more than a holographic projection which allows human and animal life to interact via five senses. In its fundamental essence, way beyond the atomic level, it is pure energy. And all of it is a projection of Infinite Consciousness.
Well, that’s what I think. Crazy as it may sound to some ears, this is the view of life that resonates most clearly to me. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that I can’t stand in line with a whole bunch of people and call myself a Christian or an atheist or whatever. The world is full of people patting each other’s backs and assuring each other that they’re on the right track. There is a massive section of the population that believes strongly in something that is in direct opposition to the strong beliefs of another massive section of the population, and only one of them can be right. Or maybe neither! The sheer scale of each opposing herd leads me to put no faith whatsoever in the herd mentality. The truth is not found in following the archetypal belief systems of those around us.
Have you ever noticed how someone can say “I’m an atheist,” or “I’m a Christian,” and no one will laugh. But if you should say, “I am Infinite Consciousness. I am everything that ever was, is, and will be,” the person you are talking to might think you are mentally ill. This is how much we are infected with the herd mentality. It doesn’t matter if one herd says something in complete contradiction to another herd. As long as it’s a herd, we give it respect. But when someone stands up and says something different, the ridicule begins (David Icke, circa 1991, anyone?).
We refer to ourselves as “human beings,” but it might be more accurate to call ourselves “human becomings.” None of us are existing in a state of being. The experience of life in a body is the experience of continual change as we move through time. There is only one that possesses being outside of time: Infinite Consciousness. I intuitively believe that this Infinite Consciousness is the awareness inside every one of us. The experience of being propelled through time is just an illusion, born out of our disconnection from the full awareness of the vast being that we collectively are.
Darryl Sloan 
Great concept.
I believe in universal connection but I still wonder- if time is just an illusion, why do we have memories of the past?
Back from just lurking, hey all.
Maybe time is indeed an illusion, maybe a barrier which stops us from experiencing everything at once. Because our body, or entity that we currently see ourselves as, cannot cope with that.
Maybe when we ‘return to the Infinite Consciousness’ we are in a state of everything at once. Knowing all there is to know, being static. So to make ‘life’ interesting we live…
I don’t know but you definitely got an interesting view on all those Darryl.
Hey, I started following you on YouTube and I added your blog’s RSS Feed to Google Reader. 🙂 (I can’t remember if I told you that already.)
Anyway, I’m pretty familiar with the concepts you’re describing. I wish I’d been cool enough to come to that conclusion myself. 😉 However, I ended up hearing about it through such sources as Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now (Someone’s uploading clips of him reading it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPJUPqmYL7w . . . Listening to it was way more powerful than reading it would have been, I think.) I think Buddhism was also kind of an influence . . . (And now I see the truths of it in Christianity and Physics and Financial Success books/stories 😛 )
Well, it’s actually kinda funny because I could say that you discovered it through yourself and I’ve discovered it through other people. But, when you start to push the fact that people are made of the same stuff, then there isn’t really such a difference? I mean, the conflict between people is also an illusion. When you feel it, it’s more like a projection of conflict within yourself.
It’s strange because you can have the realization, but it takes awhile to absorb it and start living it? Like, slowly and bit by bit I’m moving my attention towards now and enjoying now. Textures, tastes, feeling . . . It makes sense why breath is emphasized in yoga practice and things like that because that does have to do with keeping present.
Heh, I’m not sure why I have this strong urge to comment. It just gets stranger and stranger how things end up more and more harmonious outside of me to match the inside environment. I mean, I find and see SO many things supporting my path now. When I feel good about it and focus on it, I get more of it.
Well, since this comment didn’t really have anywhere to go other than to say, “YAY! I get you!” Let me just say that I really appreciate your blog in addition to your youtube stuff. (Though I might have already expressed that on YouTube and maybe even here, lol.)
I know it’s hard to believe but I’ve actually started watching What the Bleep – Quantum Edition. I thought since I haven’t any real exposure to this sort of thing the longer version would help explain more). I must say it’s very interesting but to be honest it’s hard to get my head round some of the therios.
Reading this latest post it came to me that maybe this is all wrong. Why must we be more that a flesh and blood being, thing or whatever word you want to describe the human being! I know that your views have changed from your days of being a Christian but I still feel that it’s in our human nature to want to believe there must be more. We must be more! We have to belong to something that’s greater than just little old me. Whether it’s believing in Heaven and Hell or that we’re part of some everlasting conscious, when our heart stops beating!
I know we all have had epiphanies about things in our lives and at the time they may well seem like a major breakthrough in understanding. From the smallest thing like, “ That’s how I build this 58 piece wardrobe I just bought from Ikea” or “ Ah the nature of reality is……..”
Ockams Razors basically states,
Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable…
So is it more believable that we are flesh and blood mammals that live a average lifespan and then die and that’s it or that we’re all a part of a single consciousness or we create our own realities or we are all static as time rushes past us or our minds have been conditioned into believing that everything around us is real and when we touch a wall it will feel soild but really we’re all in some sort of halodeck thingy, and so on.
I know we’ve talked about this before Darryl and you believe in more (I’m not going to try and summerise everything you’ve written about reality and after death etc) but again I keep going back to this feeling that there must be something more after I die….Why?
I’m sure we’ll talk more on Sunday about this but even as I finish this off I’m not sure I believe what I’ve just said but if it’s just by sub-conscious mind telling me I am more that just a brief spot on the evolution of the human race to make me feel better, then I’m lost…….
Andy,
“I keep going back to this feeling that there must be something more after I die…Why?”
It takes a sort of paradigm shift to see from my perspective. The shift is this …
Ordinarily, people believe the universe is physically real, because you can see it, touch it, etc. That leads you down the road of conventional science, and usually to the conclusion: big universe, little me. And death is the end.
The other way to look at it is, you are consciousness having an experience. And that experience is only that – an experience, no more physically real than a dream. Consciousness is everything. The universe is one big projection coming from the greater part of you, that hidden part beyond the subconscious.
The question is, which paradigm is the correct one?
I choose the latter, because the first one is already making assumptions, the assumption that the data you receive through your senses is a true reflection of a real reality out there. But all this data is second-hand. You can’t reach the universe, because you’re locked into five-sense awareness, reliant on a body to give information to your consciousness – a body which may be as illusory as the universe itself.
The only thing you can really KNOW is “I exist.” And when you go down that road, I think you tend to end up where I’m at.
Pochp, Ralph, Zaz,
Wow. I say something that I think is even wackier and harder to take than most of the stuff I post on my blog these days. The last thing I expected was agreement from three others. 🙂
Zaz, loved the Eckhart Tolle video! I’m going to chase up his book.
Ralph,
“Maybe when we ‘return to the Infinite Consciousness’ we are in a state of everything at once. Knowing all there is to know, being static. So to make ‘life’ interesting we live…”
When I ask myself, “Why are we in the hologram?” (which is my way of asking “What’s the meaning of life?”), all I can think/intuit in response is, “That’s what consciousness does: experience.” Which is exactly what you are saying.
My friend Grace recently brought up how boring in sounds to be this static all-knowing consciousness, and maybe that is a hint of why life as we know it happens.
I just found your site today. My thoughts are similar to yours but I personally like to have more supporting evidence before I come to any sort of conclusion. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, but I feel like some things here are only “plausible” but I’m not totally convinced.
Time – I agree that there cannot be a beginning or ending to time, because whatever “created” time must be static. Anything that exists outside of time cannot change and therefore cannot create a beginning or ending to anything. Trying to imagine infinity as a singular object – a timeline with no start or finish – is in some ways too overwhelming for the human brain to comprehend. It makes more sense to me that time itself is really only an ever-changing present.
I’m a very logical and grounded person. Personally, I believe that the matter around us and are bodies and consciousnesses are real and separate. How we perceive things and how MUCH we perceive may vary greatly to what IS real, but I have at least some faith in our known science. I think our failing is that all our science is based on the material spectrum of the universe. Its likely there’s many more dimensions to the universe than what is made out of matter.
My theory (so far) is that whatever forces that exist outside of time “blend” together to create our known universe. It’s kind of like mixing three colors of paint on a canvas and ending up with a kaleidoscope of color. Space-time itself would be a result of this blending. Consider the force of gravity… it exists everywhere and nobody knows where it comes from. We THINK it comes from gravitons, but we’ve never found one. Even then, where does the energy come from that would allow a graviton to function? It seems to exist everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and if you get enough of its influence in one place, time and space itself no longer exist (in theory – the center of a black hole). No matter what force you’re talking about, when you break it down enough you get to a wall where nobody knows where the energy comes from.
Of course by this theory, randomness itself would have to derive from one or some of these forces or the entire universe would be uniform throughout.
I think your ideas on a single consciousness is plausible, but I’m unconvinced on that point. What does seem apparent to me is that there is probably more to us than our physical bodies. I have a hard time believing that my entire consciousness is simply a bunch of electrochemical signals being transmitted between neurons. I would venture to say that there is some kind of energy tied to our bodies (like how gravity is tied to matter) and probably to every form of life that exists. After all, our bodies themselves are really just a huge colony of single-celled organisms working together. And even more than that, those cells function by way of various chemical reactions within the atomic particles that compose them. Lifeless particles.
Either way you look at it, what “you” are is not a physical body. Your consciousness is energy, and ultimately where that energy comes from, COULD be from one infinite consciousness. I have a hard time understanding how any consciousness could exist outside of time, since any form of thinking or feeling I can imagine has sequence. But if it is true, it is outside of my understanding.
After a bit of consideration, what you’re saying about consciousness does go a long way in explaining things in my life that I have not been able to explain for a long time. I still don’t buy into it completely, but I definitely would at least consider it to be strong supporting evidence.
Hi, Dean.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Over the past year, very gradually, the whole philosophical picture has gotten clearer and clearer to me, and I can now see how what I’ve come to believe transcends typical ways of thinking. I’ll try to summarise how this all fits together logically …
The only absolute truth that you can get hold of is this: you are consciousness having an experience. In terms of absolute knowable truth, the physical universe is information being received by your consciousness – nothing more. That information is interpreted through your senses before it reaches your consciousness, so there is no way to know what the actuality of the universe is. We claim that it is three-dimensionally solid – that physics is the absolute reality and there is no wider picture – only because we trust what our senses tell us. The wider picture is when you take away that assumption. The universe is nothing more or less than information. It is something your consciousness is tuned into. That’s all you can say with absolute certainty about it. People who believe the universe is solid are taking it on trust, but few will admit that. What they are actually doing is making an unprovable claim that the physical universe is all there is. That claim is based on nothing more than the conditioning of life’s experience and western science.
The one thing you can be sure of is that you (as consciousness) exist, because your self-awareness is the only thing that you know that lies outside the realm of perceptions. “I exist” is the most fundamental truth of everything.
Now, this casts a very different light on the “big universe, little me” paradigm of western science. Western science claims to be the realm grounding truth about the universe, when really it’s just a layer – a layer called “physics.”
There is outer realm of perceptions, which we learn about through critical thinking and evidence seeking. But there is also an inner realm of consciousness which lies beyond the reach of the empirical, because it lies before the realm of perceptions. This inner realm is where the real fundamental truths lie. And you can get to those truths through intuition.
It’s at this point that some will richochet back to the old “Where’s the evidence?” claim, not understanding that physics is just a layer of reality, and claiming that physics is the only reality when that claim relies on a totally subjective assumption about the nature of reality.
Intuition is where the idea of “one consciousness” comes from. And I would urge you not to disregard intuition out of hand. It is an extremely important topic to think about, and quite real in life’s experience when you look for it.
Food for thought.
Based on everything else you’ve said, consciousness, then, is something you cannot be sure of either because if all that’s “out there” is just information being relayed to your consciousness (though being aware and interpreting smells, tastes, etc. are different things but that’s a whole other discussion), then how do you know your own awareness is not just another interpretation, something which falls into your category of “unknowables.” Even the idea of “I am here” is based on interpretation, that is, whatever signals you are receiving from around you based on your five senses. Even if you couldn’t see, hear, taste, smell or touch, you still have a brain that’s functioning based on its knowledge that you’re breathing or whatnot, that it can think, etc.
Hope that makes sense.
I guess I should add that what I mean is your brain is somehow perceiving its/your own awareness otherwise you wouldn’t be able to even think such a thing. So the thought or idea “I am aware” kind of loses its place because that, too, is based on a signal going to your brain.
Hi, A.P.
Glad you’re still around. Dean, Paul (GodIsWearingBlack) and I thrashed this question out recently in the comments of the following post, you you want to check it out:
In short, you’re essentially reducing everything about being human to the level of a machine. The body certainly is a machine, and the brain like a computer. Every organism can be broken down into smaller organisms working to a common goal. However …
Here’s a brief snippet from the comments:
“I can see that a computer isn’t conscious, even though it thinks, because there is no centre to it. You can always break it down to something smaller. It’s just an unconscious organism with parts that work together, right down to programmed microchips, made of silicon, made of molecules, made of atoms.
And yet inside me is a centre, something much more significant than a single cell, some kind of singularity that I recognise as self-awareness.”
You are really defining consciousness as a feedback loop. That’s certainly what computer consciousness is. But inside us is something far greater and we all know it intuitively.
A.P. I’m trying clarify more what you’re trying to say. It sounds to me like you’re saying our consciousnesses could be just an illusion that comes from the complex net of signals in our brains. This is basically what we are referring to as the “mind” on this site. Yes we definitely have that aspect of “mental consciousness” to our existence. That is what most atheists believe they are, and nothing more. I think what you’re getting at is – how do you know you have a consciousness deeper than this illusionary mental state.
Is that what you mean?
Cuz I don’t know how to do italics and stuff here (or is it just basic HTML?)–
“It sounds to me like you’re saying our consciousnesses could be just an illusion that comes from the complex net of signals in our brains … I think what you’re getting at is – how do you know you have a consciousness deeper than this illusionary mental state.”
Yes, that’s what I mean. Your brain needs to have some sort of link to this awareness–a “hidden wire,” for lack of a better term–in order to acknowledge this awareness in the first place to even come to the conclusion you are aware. So that said, how would you know if that perception is even accurate considering everything else is suspect? This is why I say, as per the reasoning here, you cannot then be sure you are aware because you need your brain to tell you that, even if not in words or a release of chemicals to produce a feeling. Even the “sense” you are aware is still linked to your brain but, again, if you can’t trust your senses (unless you’re just limiting yourself to the basic five), then even knowing you are aware could just be an illusion, too. What a web, eh?
It seems Darryl and you are trying to acknowledge/identify something deeper, like a person’s spirit, the “isness” of them, the thing that lurks beneath these bags of bones and flesh and what one truly is. Sure, I’m with you there though I definitely don’t buy into the New Age stuff being touted here. Not because I’m close-minded or anything, but, as a Christian myself and one with empirical evidence to back it up, all these other thoughts and “what ifs” and philosophy appear as just excuses for one to be in control and live according to one’s own standards instead of Someone else’s.
This probably opened up a can of worms, but that’s okay.
Take care.
Maybe we can discuss the topic without inculcating religion into this. Just suggesting.
Hi, A.P.
I don’t think self-awareness/consciousness is a sensory perception done by the brain. It certainly isn’t arriving at consciousness via the five senses. It is more a knowing (intuition) than a thinking. Maybe it seems like I’m just attempting to cheat.
Here’s the thing: from a purely physical point of view consciousness can be nothing more than a single atom (maybe even just single sub-atomic particle), because every organism is made up of smaller organisms. So, what do you make of your inner sense of conscious completeness (what you might call soul) in light of the fact that it must be a single sub-atomic particle?
That’s the difference between perception and awareness. We’re perceiving everything outside of consciousness. But consciousness itself is.
“I definitely don’t buy into the New Age stuff being touted here.”
Well, I’m no New Ager. Some of what I believe might fit New Age beliefs, but the cornerstone of my approach has been independent thinking. Once I start identifying myself with the dogma of an established religion, it’s time to re-assess.
“Not because I’m close-minded or anything, but, as a Christian myself and one with empirical evidence to back it up, all these other thoughts and “what ifs” and philosophy appear as just excuses for one to be in control and live according to one’s own standards instead of Someone else’s.”
As an ex-Christian who has done some research, the empirical evidence is extremely elusive and hard to pin down. There’s a chapter called “Religion Unmasked” in the book I’m writing that I think you will find challenging, if you’re up for it.
As for morality, there’s nothing to fear by living according to one’s own standards. You live with the understanding that you have a sinful nature and need guidance from outside of yourself in order to be good. This is simply not true. When you step out of that box and realise that it’s all up to you, that’s when you start taking full responsibililty for your actions and their consequences for others. If I mess up, I only have myself to blame.
On the flipside, you have the ultimate “Get Out of Jail Free” card, with God’s promise of forgiveness, which allows you to fail anytime you want. And from personal experience, this definitely promoted irresponsibility in me.
“Maybe we can discuss the topic without inculcating religion into this. Just suggesting.”
I want people to feel free to raise anything. Ultimately, the subject of consciousness is going to raise religious issues, as it relates to “soul.”
I thought the topic was ‘time’.
Everything – even the pure traditional scientific approach – is a “what if” at this point. To say “what if there is more to it” is no more logical than saying “there is nothing more to it”. There is so much that is unexplained, even to say that these “paranormal” happenings are somehow resulting from things we already understand is no more or less absurd than believing there is a cottage cheese monster in control of the universe. Its like trying to understand what lies in the darkness and white dots of the night sky before the invention of the telescope. There is too much we don’t know. All we have is our imagination and our “what if’s”.
I’m going to attempt to quote others using HTML. Apologies if it shows up screwy.
Here’s the thing: from a purely physical point of view consciousness can be nothing more than a single atom (maybe even just single sub-atomic particle), because every organism is made up of smaller organisms. So, what do you make of your inner sense of conscious completeness (what you might call soul) in light of the fact that it must be a single sub-atomic particle?
Do you have proof or is this more just an “idea”? If the latter, then, of course, it cannot be counted as reliable as anything can be a “what if.”
As an ex-Christian who has done some research, the empirical evidence is extremely elusive and hard to pin down. There’s a chapter called “Religion Unmasked” in the book I’m writing that I think you will find challenging, if you’re up for it.
I’m all up for reading. I also extend the offer–as I’m not sure if you originally read my testimony or not way back when–as it does recount some supernatural experiences. It was written in 2006 (I think), and several occurrences have happened since as well, all of which line up Biblically. If interested, anyone here can shoot me an email via my website and I’ll email it to them. It’s too long to post here.
As for morality, there’s nothing to fear by living according to one’s own standards. You live with the understanding that you have a sinful nature and need guidance from outside of yourself in order to be good. This is simply not true. When you step out of that box and realise that it’s all up to you, that’s when you start taking full responsibililty for your actions and their consequences for others. If I mess up, I only have myself to blame.
My question is then: if one does not need outside guidance, it would mean that all would automatically be “good” (though no one is truly; maybe good some or most of the time, but not all the time), that it would automatically be built into everyone to be good because to even choose wrong, well, would be wrong, right? (And we have to include everyone and relying on everyone’s standards because we’re trying to establish the truth of one’s own standards being enough.)
Because if you mess up, then you’re not good. So, yes, it is up to you to make choices, but again, if one was truly good–unless I read your post wrong–then wrong wouldn’t even be an option.
I also kindly disagree I’m in a box as I do know it’s up to me (free will).
On the flipside, you have the ultimate “Get Out of Jail Free” card, with God’s promise of forgiveness, which allows you to fail anytime you want.
This part comes down to the heart. Was the mess up intentional or not? This is where repentance comes in. A repentant person who screws up either accidentally or intentionally now and then, is far different than one who abuses grace and uses it as an excuse to mess up. In fact, the latter aren’t even a changed person to begin with.
Your above statement actually proves Scripture true because man has a real hard time grasping this idea of “Really? Me? Forgiven? No strings attached? No punishment? No community service or going to my room? Wow.”
Peace. TV time for me. Night.
On a side note: I’ve clicked on the follow-up email option every time I’ve posted but have not been notified of a reply. Glitch? Fixable?
“Do you have proof or is this more just an “idea”? If the latter, then, of course, it cannot be counted as reliable as anything can be a “what if.””
It’s not proof; it’s a rational deduction. How can you have physical proof of something that transcends physics, i.e. consciousness/soul, or God for that matter?
The kind of “always choose the negative unless you have proof” reasoning is a direct route to atheism. But I know you believe there’s more to life than physics, don’t you? 😉
“I also extend the offer–as I’m not sure if you originally read my testimony or not way back when–as it does recount some supernatural experiences.”
Yes, send me that.
“Because if you mess up, then you’re not good. So, yes, it is up to you to make choices, but again, if one was truly good–unless I read your post wrong–then wrong wouldn’t even be an option.
I’m confused. 🙂 For me, in the absence of a set of rules handed down from On High, morality is all about action and consequence. We tend to label actions that have helpful and positive outcomes as “good” and actions which have negative and destructive outcomes as “evil.” But they are just labels. What matters is the consideration of consequences.
The words good and evil become even more meaningless when there is no judgement. And a concept of good and evil that is enforced by making you afraid of judgement is weaker than one which is based on genuine consideration of consequence. And let’s face it, the Bible is littered with “If you do this, such-and-such will befall you” type statements. That’s not ethics; it’s coercion.
“A repentant person who screws up either accidentally or intentionally now and then, is far different than one who abuses grace and uses it as an excuse to mess up.”
My only point was that the promise of forgiveness creates extra temptation that is absent when you know it’s all up to you. As a Christian, I have a lot of memories of failing morally because I knew there was no consequences, then feeling depressed because I had let God down, and having that depression urge me to even more sin.
It’s so much easier to live up to my ideals without all that religious baggage holding me back.
“On a side note: I’ve clicked on the follow-up email option every time I’ve posted but have not been notified of a reply. Glitch? Fixable?”
Must be a problem with WordPress. Not something I can fix, I’m afraid.
Thanks for your thoughts, A.P. Do continue. I hope I haven’t come across as aggressive. But we’re all passionate about our personal convictions.
Have to agree with Darryl on this one. Morality and ideas of right and wrong change daily, due to new information, etc.
In fact this is quite apparent in Christianity. Old Testament to New Testament. And even on issues like young girls being married off and having sex at very early ages, which is now frowned upon by pretty much all churches.
Regardless of the beliefs people follow, and regardless of the country of origin, as a race we tend to follow very similar rules and morals. Murder is bad. Most of our efforts are putting into ensuring the survival of our young, as they will go on to make the next generation. So we’re more heartbroken over the loss of a child than the loss of an adult. Things like incest are frowned upon, because it causes genetic weaknesses.
The rules that we live by, which are most effective, are where we understand why we follow them, rather than just doing so through fear.
For example: knowing you’ll go to jail for stealing your neighbour’s car, usually isn’t enough to put people off. They think they’ll get off with it, if they’re smart enough to avoid detection.
But, if that person realises that if everyone was to steal, in society, he himself would risk losing all of his belongings. Which then brings empathy, the understanding that he wouldn’t like it if someone else stole his car.
I would say there’s not much choice though, in the fear stick. A lot of people don’t have the understanding of why sins/crimes are bad, they’re caught up in the short-term benefits and rewards. So these people need to be put off in other ways. Some will be put off knowing they’ll spend time in jail, or with the threat of Hell. It’s a beter-than-nothing solution.
Unfortunately solutions like this will always be needed, for those that don’t care, don’t understand.
The follow-up thing is working fine for me.
I was raised pentecostal, but one of the things that turned me off to christianity was when I realized how horrible and spiteful god was in the old testament, and then jesus comes along and starts telling everyone how loving and forgiving god is. When I allowed myself to step out of the box and question things, I began noticing how F’d up the whole thing was. I have plenty of specific examples, but I doubt you guys feel like hearing them all.
But really, how is it that people still believe something that was concocted from the same people who thought the earth was the center of the universe and rats arose spontaneously from grain? Every time science contradicts what the bible says, they eventually just change the interpretation of the words in the bible to fit the truth. That was just a little mini-rant, anyway 😛 . Not that you shouldn’t be allowed to believe in it, but christianity in some ways seems like a trap that some people are “stuck” in because they feel it is a sin to question it. That part bothers me.
I think a large reason for this is because people feel better having that faith. The world is easier to live in, knowing there’s a God that loves you and is there for you, than a world where he isn’t real. People also need some order, so they like the idea that the rules are made by God, it saves them having to work it out for themselves.
Also, the way science is going, it’s no more realistic than religion. Evolution isn’t a perfect theory, there’s many holes in it, and there has to be leaps of faith to make it work. I personally believe in it, but I know that it’s only because it seems most likely.
Quantum physics is based in pretty much 90% theory, with little to no evidence for most of the theories. Yet it forms most of the ideas of how many scientists (non-religious scientists anyway) believe the universe started.
Yeah, science seems to have hit a wall in a sense where some scientists are accepting theory and assumptions as fact just because they’ve got nothing better to go on. They’ve even built this expensive huge ass hadron collider to try to prove some of these theories. Well, I hope they figure something out cause its getting pretty ridiculous.
It’s not proof; it’s a rational deduction. How can you have physical proof of something that transcends physics, i.e. consciousness/soul, or God for that matter?
I’ll send you my testimony.
The kind of “always choose the negative unless you have proof” reasoning is a direct route to atheism. But I know you believe there’s more to life than physics, don’t you?
Yes, more to life than what we see.
Yes, send me that.
Will send after this.
I’m confused.
Let’s start over, using what you say here as a springboard.
For me, in the absence of a set of rules handed down from On High, morality is all about action and consequence. We tend to label actions that have helpful and positive outcomes as “good” and actions which have negative and destructive outcomes as “evil.” But they are just labels. What matters is the consideration of consequences.
I disagree, if consideration is all that matters. e.g. one who murders with intent has obviously considered the consequences of their actions and choose to do it regardless of consequence. The rest of the world sees that 99.9% would agree it was the wrong thing to do based on the negative results it produced.
Which is interest, regarding results, as everything Jesus says not to do is bad for you anyway.
As a Christian, I have a lot of memories of failing morally because I knew there was no consequences, then feeling depressed because I had let God down, and having that depression urge me to even more sin.
Then you must have misunderstood Him because there’s always consequences for sinning no matter what it is or who’s around.
And you feeling bad about–I’m not you so don’t know–what it feeling bad for letting God down or feeling bad you let yourself down? Or both? There is such a thing as holy remorse over sin.
I should also point out that a person who has been regenerated spiritually through Christ moves away from sin. Of course, not all at once. A person couldn’t handle that because we’re sinful by nature. But slow but sure things are shed till, ultimately, we get as perfect as we can be in a human state.
It’s so much easier to live up to my ideals without all that religious baggage holding me back.
If it held you down, then, yeah, it was religious baggage and not life as it was intended from God, even. He’s anti-religion. The Bible backs this up. Even all that OT stuff–all of it was a foreshadow to Christ. Once Christ came did what He had to do, religion was abolished. Unfortunately, humanity has this sad need for it because we must always be in control. Always us, us, us.
The words good and evil become even more meaningless when there is no judgement. And a concept of good and evil that is enforced by making you afraid of judgement is weaker than one which is based on genuine consideration of consequence.
Two points:
– obedience to anyone (God or otherwise) should be done out of love, not fear
– the no judgment bit. This is what it ultimately boils down to when one rejects God: no accountability. If a person is responsible to no one, then there is no fear of consequence. Even consequences of our actions are 99% of the time temporal. Our options are limited on the stuff that’ll change our lives 100% until we die.
Belief in God is never an intellectual problem. It’s a moral one.
Most folks (and I’ve been in other discussions like this one) would have no trouble believing in a higher power if that higher power couldn’t care less about what they did or didn’t do. The second you introduce a higher power that does, people freak. Why? Pride. Rebellion.
And let’s face it, the Bible is littered with “If you do this, such-and-such will befall you” type statements. That’s not ethics; it’s coercion.
I agree that’s there and I’ll readily admit some of the stuff God did I just don’t get. But at the same time, I have no trouble not questioning it because, frankly, who am I to even question Him? Nobody.
But let’s also admit that the warnings God gave to–since we’re obviously talking the OT–the Israelites were for their own well-being and not to get mixed up with their neighbours or enemies who would ultimately seek to harm them. And let’s also not forget that God had their eternity in mind and, ultimately, that’s what He cares about most because everyone’s life is temporal. Big picture thinking, a lot of that was.
Hi, A.P.
Your view of morality relies on being told what’s right from wrong from an outside source instead of from looking within. If personal inner feelings (humanity) doesn’t apply, then all your God has to is say, “Do this,” and you do it. So … “Go and slaughter all the men, women, children, infants and animals of Amalek” (1 Samuel 15). And you obey, because God must be right and your natural sense of empathy wrong.
You believe the scam of Original Sin, that we’re wicked and evil on the inside and need saved from ourselves. It’s a lie.
We need saved from mind-controlling belief systems and abusive parents and soul-destroying jobs and all the destructive things in society that promote self-hate and worthlessness.
This is just another scam you’re believing in though, Darryl. The scam that you can blame God or the religions for brainwashing or controlling, rather than them just being options in the first place. Which people then choose to follow or not, based on what they want, need, believe.
There are many Christians who don’t agree with or follow the teachings of the old testament. There are many Christians who try and find ways of looking past it, or explaining it off.
In fact, the bible itself contains stories of mere mortals disagreeing with god and making him change his mind. The names escape me right now.
Mind-controlling belief systems, is the call of the new-ager, just as original sin is the call of the Christian. It’s all about blaming the past beliefs for the world’s problems and proclaiming the new belief (what they follow now) to be the saviour.
The only way to push a belief on people is to first downplay what they believed in beforehand.
The bible tells us that the ways of the world are corrupt and evil, that Jesus came and set us free. New-age tells us that the ways of religion were crippling and evil, free-thinking will set us free.
The problem is, free-thinking isn’t possible, because as can be seen in those proclaiming free-thinking to be the answer, they’re merely following the teachings of Buddhism, with a few new twists and turns thrown in, to make it sexier. And rather than follow the teachings of the bible, they follow charismatic speakers like David Icke, and the writings and videos of many people on the internet.
As The Who once sang:
#Meet the new boss
#Same as the old boss
You’ve proven it yourself on a few discussions we’ve had Darryl, when i’ve suggested certain things, like us being mere computers, or the like. And your answer was that you couldn’t accept that, because it didn’t bring hope and didn’t feel right to you. It’s exactly the same as a Christian saying the big bang doesn’t ring true for them, because that would make it random and pointless, instead of the wonderful creation of something special. Both answers are limited by want/need/desire.
“free-thinking isn’t possible”
I will never understand why you always choose to play the victim card – to see every step towards truth as a running around in circles.
It’s far from being a victim, I don’t see it as a bad thing at all. I really don’t mind not knowing the answers, it makes things interesting and gives me plenty to think about. I still think there might be an answer out there, i just don’t know where it is, and why it is.
In fact, I see your argument as playing the victim. Blaming religion, blaming the masters that locked your mind, tied your wrists, and made you be what you didn’t want to be. While you run into the arms of another master, seeing it as the new messiah.
Strike a nerve, did I? Paul, every time I see you sing this “nobody’s ever going to know anything for sure” tune, I’m going to call it for what it is.
Free-thinking isn’t possible? Why do you even bother to think, then? What’s the point in having lots of things to think about if you won’t take it somewhere and draw any conclusions?
Of course i’ll draw conclusions, and of course I can still think. Why would that be stopped by not being 100% free thinking? Did you stop thinking when you were a Christian, and supposedly locked in the closed-minded way?
My argument is that we are all affected by what we already know, what we read, what we see around us.
Your argument is that religion is the father of all evils, because it makes people closed-minded, and you use that argument because it then helps you to promote your new faith. You can’t promote one faith, without first knocking down another. It’s how it works.
Why have you struck a nerve exactly though? We’ve had this same discussion many times, it’s not like i’ve said anything i haven’t said before? Or do you mean because I returned your “victim card” remark back on you?
I prefer to see that religions, faiths, beliefs are inanimate objects, moulded, used, enjoyed, hated, by people. And people are what control the world.
As I’ve said many times, the bible says that men lying with other men is a sin. It’s up to the Christians how they use that knowledge. Some see it as a normal sin, much like lying, stealing, etc. Others see it as disgusting, in the face of god, worthy of torture and murder. The bible only says that it’s wrong. It’s people that then go on to make judgement on that and take actions on it.
And in that same argument, these people who are anti-gay, on the back of religion: a lot of them like a few drinks, even though the bible is against drunkenness too. But people choose to see one thing, not see another. Again it’s people who are at fault.
I really don’t like the hypocrisy that exists surrounding religion. And that’s exactly what it is. Fair enough if someone wants to put down the wrongs of another person’s faith, but they have to also be honest and admit that they have some of those same traits, within what they believe themselves.
As David Icke himself once said, in order to fool the masses, you first of all have to present a common problem. Then, in order to get them on your side and thinking the way you want them to, you have to assure them that you have an answer that will save them from the common problem.
For example the US Government present a problem of terrorism, then when everyone is afraid of that problem, they jump in with new laws, things to make them feel safe, and they forget about the fact those laws will take away some of their freedom and rights.
He didn’t follow that reasoning through though:
The problem is religion. It stifles the minds of the people, locks them in closed-minded thinking. Keeps them in check and stops them from seeing the real truth of the world around them. The saving grace is free-thinking. Free-thinking based around single-consciousness, of course, otherwise you haven’t followed the right path, or opened your mind enough, or shaken off the shackles, or accepted the truth. A lot like Christianity really, where you shake off the sins of the fathers, shake off the old and selfish ways of thinking, shake off the flesh, and accept the new truth/faith.
And indeed you’ve used a lot of this yourself. You’ve spoke about the fear of sin, hell, consequences in not following Christ, or God, or whatever. But then you go on to use the same tricks to further your own beliefs. Many times you’ve talked about people needing to open their minds, which infers that they haven’t already, because they haven’t come to the same conclusions as you.
If someone doesn’t believe what you do, they must not be open minded, they must be afraid to search for the real truth, they must be trapped in the net of religion, unable to think for themselves or fathom the complexities of existence and consciousness.
This is exactly what religious people do. Anyone who doesn’t see things their way, or agree that Jesus is Lord, must be blinded by the Devil, or not opening their heart, or just plain afraid of the truth. It’s exactly the same game.
“My argument is that we are all affected by what we already know, what we read, what we see around us.”
You see, right there I already totally disagree with you. But we’ve been over this ground before.
All it takes for a person to conquer what you just asserted is for them to consciously question everything they’ve been conditioned to believe, and start over. That’s precisely why I’m calling the book Reality Check.
I don’t personally care if someone ends up with a different conclusion about life than I hold. What I care about is breaking the conditioned beliefs so they can start making fully conscious individual choices about what to believe.
“If someone doesn’t believe what you do, they must not be open minded, they must be afraid to search for the real truth,”
Think what you like about me. I know what you just described isn’t me.
I agree that we are affected by what we already know. Everything I believe is based on what I know, although the conclusions I draw based on what I know could turn out to be completely original. So you’re both right.
I don’t think Darryl is trying to push his beliefs, but he is trying to push the idea that you should question your beliefs. If he’s guilty of anything, it would be overquestioning :p . The problem with christianity is that you are not allowed to question what the church tells you to believe. There is nothing wrong with following the teachings of the church. Its just a sin to question it once you’re in. That’s the only part I have a problem with. Everyone who has a faith is going to believe everyone else is wrong. That’s just how faith works. Christians think they are doing the right thing by forcing their religion because they believe they are saving souls. It seems wrong from the outside, but to them it is the right thing – so where do you place the blame? That’s just one of life’s many complications.
Your view of morality relies on being told what’s right from wrong from an outside source instead of from looking within. If personal inner feelings (humanity) doesn’t apply, then all your God has to is say, “Do this,” and you do it. So … “Go and slaughter all the men, women, children, infants and animals of Amalek” (1 Samuel 15). And you obey, because God must be right and your natural sense of empathy wrong.
The thing about looking within is that it cannot be trusted to be the right thing. If it was, every choice I or you made would be the right one because we’d automatically be in tune with doing the right thing. We couldn’t even choose wrong because we know it’d be wrong, know the consequences would be wrong and any intelligent person wouldn’t intentionally do the wrong thing unless a part of themselves couldn’t help it.
I have no trouble admitting that I really don’t understand 100% why God did those things. But as Creator of all things, He had every right to. It was His call. He sees and knows things we don’t. That’s just how it is. Growing up, your parents didn’t things you didn’t get but you let them do it because they were your parents and you knew they knew something you didn’t even though you didn’t quite understand what that thing might be.
Some might call that living in fear or blind faith or any other type of “mind-controlling” thought, but I also know my place and God’s God and I’m me and again I ask: who am I to question Him? Really, who am I? What would qualify me? Nothing. By my saying I’m nothing, does that mean I think I’m worthless? No. But what I am saying is I know my place.
You believe the scam of Original Sin, that we’re wicked and evil on the inside and need saved from ourselves. It’s a lie.
What’s the “scam” part of it? What am I being duped on? Surely it’s not mind-control or being confined by a rigorous belief system or whatever. It can’t be. Any Christian will tell you that actually obeying what God says is the most liberating thing possible. If anything, I look back on my pre-Christian days and think, “Man…was I hindered or what? The burden was unbearable. Really was.” I could never go back to that. Seriously. That’s the beauty of Christ restoring a person. We go through the process of being transformed back to the way we were originally intended. Truly liberating.
But let’s just suppose you’re right. Let’s just suppose there is no God or devil or afterlife or anything like that. How did we get here? Who/what created who/what?
Hi, A.P.
Your whole view of morality is different to mine. You need a specific right and a specific wrong that you can attach labels to. For me, it’s all about behaviour and consequence. I can behave in all sorts of ways that help or harm those around me. But what do I choose and why? That’s the important question. What motivates me to choose to help? Why am I not pursuing all manner of harm/sin/evil now that I’ve abandoned the book that tells me right from wrong?
Is it just that I’ve been conditioned by Western society and Christianity for so long that I cannot revert to the full extent of this thing called Original Sin that I’m supposed to possess? Strange that the whole direction of my life for the past year has been to expose and dispell any conditioning in my life, and yet I still wish to be a positive, helpful, loving person. Stranger still that the abandonment of religion cleared my mind of baggage that was actually preventing me from living up to my moral aspirations.
One of the best things about abandoning Christianity was that it allowed me to study hypnosis without fear that there was anything occultish about it. Through that study I gained an understanding of the subconscious which allowed me to see so clearly how my mind ticks and why I’ve had some of the moral problems in life that I’ve had, and to fix them. I go into this in some detail in the book.
No need for the Holy Spirit; no need for a never-ending cycle of failure and repentance. All I needed was to understand myself properly.
When a person abandons Christianity and it turns him into a better person, something is seriously wrong somewhere.
I realise you’ve had a different experience that me, but all each of us can do is talk from our experience.
“But let’s just suppose you’re right. Let’s just suppose there is no God or devil or afterlife or anything like that. How did we get here? Who/what created who/what?”
A.P., do you think I’m an atheist? You haven’t been reading my blog posts. Clearly there is an intelligence behind the universe. But it’s a big leap to say that this intelligence is the Judeo-Christian God by default.
Our minds have a tendency to play snap-to-grid. As soon as we realise there is a God, we immediately seek to align ourselves with a religion.
How about God without an imposed religion? How about accepting the reality of God, then moving carefully forward with our thinking, taking care not to jump to wrong conclusions. That’s my approach.
I disagree Dean. It’s easy to question the beliefs of the bible/Christianity. We all do it/did it. There are many people within Christianity who believe part of the bible, but don’t like other bits. Darryl has pointed this out himself a few times, like with the genocide bits, etc. People don’t like facing that, they try and explain it away, it doesn’t add up with their idea of God.
There are many different levels of Christianity. Some believe the bible is nothing more than a story book, with good morals and ideas, others believe every single word, no matter how many translations there are of those words.
For example, when i was a born again Christian (speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, casting out demons. The lot), i was reading books by Von Daniken, thinking some of what he said had merit. As i moved on in my Christian walk, i lost my faith bit by bit. My thinking and ideas changed a bit, as i replaced what i once believed with other things.
I believe we all evolve mentally. Every minute of every day, our thinking changes just a little bit. Sometimes it gets stronger in what we believe, reinforced by what we’ve seen, heard, been told. At other times it weakens and looks elsewhere for answers, again based on these same things.
I do believe as human beings we can have total changes of mind. But they usually come because of a great need. We get a terminal illness, lose a loved one, etc. Something big enough to really make us need something special to comfort us.
It’s easier to change from being atheist to Christian, when you find out you have three months to live. Or it’s easy to find believe in mediums when we lose a loved one and can’t cope because we need to know they’re OK.
But these things aren’t free-thinking. They’re need-based. Although, at the time, when I turned from atheism to Christianity, I thought i’d found freedom. Shaken off the sins of the flesh and found truth and freedom through Christ. Which is what everyone feels when they find that new faith. And of course, as part of that, they then push the idea that every other faith is a lie. Every other faith will trap them, destroy them, put them in harm’s way.
Actually, Dean, I sort of agree with you, when I think about it. I think what i’m saying is similar to what you just said, only we’re saying it in different ways. We react to things around us, what we see, what we know, what we hear, what we learn. But sometimes, because of extreme events, we do think in totally original ways. Hence the big leap from one faith to another. But i don’t really think that’s free-thinking. I think that’s just thinking what’s needed to get out of a situation.
It’s evolution. We believe what we need to believe to survive. We all find comfort in different things, and see the truth in different things. But at the end of the day, we’re all doing exactly the same thing. We’re judging the world around us based on what we already know, and learning a little more every day, which then slightly changes our thinking.
But to claim that a Christian is locked within their belief, because they might go to hell if they question things, is just wrong. If a Christian questions those beliefs, and comes to different conclusions they aren’t Christian anymore, once they get to a certain place, and at that point they don’t believe in hell anymore so it’s not a good enough reason to stop in their tracks.
The proof is Darryl and myself, who were both Christians, and questioned things and ended up not believing. Sure there was some fear of hell, and the worry of being wrong. But it’s no different than peer pressure, fear of losing the comfort of another faith, or fear of being alone when your partner is mistreating you and you want to end the relationship.
We all judge things accordingly. We know if we do this, or do that, it’ll mean this or that. As I’ve said before on this site: I don’t see the harm of warning of hell. It’s just like a parent warning their child that if they touch a socket they’ll get hurt, or put their hands in a fire they’ll get burned. It’s up to us whether we want to believe that or not, or indeed if we NEED to believe it or not.
The ideas/theories that I have come up with as I try to understand the world have never been TOLD to me. They are based on my personal knowledge and experiences, but in the end are a result of free thought, because I have never heard of these ideas before. There is no 100% free thought because every thought is rooted in what you know, but that doesn’t mean people can’t think freely at all. You don’t have to jump from one pre-existing idea to another. New ideas come from free thought, but free thought is based on pre-existing knowledge.
Look at our technology… from the beginning of human thought, every idea came from somewhere. Someone saw a round object roll and thought it would be a good idea to make a wheel. But that same person who invented the wheel could have never fathomed the internet because there was nothing to give rise to the idea. And yet we have the internet NOW. It was based on an idea that was based on another idea and so forth. But the fact that a person invented something that could never have existed a thousand years ago is proof that people can think more freely than it sounds like you’re suggesting.
Original knowledge doesn’t just spring from nowhere, but even though the free thought that leads to that new knowledge is based on things we already knew, the process of free thought itself is still there. It sounds like you’re speaking of free thought more as a noun or a “thing” and I’m speaking of it as a process.
Darryl, this guy seems to agree with what you’ve been saying.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mindfreak419666
Any thoughts on this guy or his videos?
I think GodIsWearingBlack’s issue with free thinking is that if we make a decision about what to believe and we build more knowledge on that original decision, we’re not necessary heading towards the truth, only down an avenue that makes sense in light of our original decision. But if the original decision was wrong, the conclusions down the road are wrong, too, even though they’ll seem right.
Take me, for instance. I believe we’re all one consciosuness. That leads me to deduce certain things where you guys won’t follow. But if I’m wrong about the first step; I’m wrong about the rest.
The solution, however, is not to lament this predicament. It’s simply to consciously choose to have a belief system that is always open to change. When we learn things that challenge our belief structure, we need to change the belief structure, not try to squeeze the new information to fit where it won’t. This is what allows for real revolutions in thinking and it’s how I was able to make the move away from Christianity so suddenly.
That’s what I would call free thinking.
Dean,
Yeah, I’m familiar with mindfreak. I enjoyed his latest video particularly – his little mini-documentary on telekinesis and the nature of reality, where he goes into the quantum stuff.
My favourite video of all on telekinesis (psionics in general) is this one:
Your whole view of morality is different to mine. You need a specific right and a specific wrong that you can attach labels to. For me, it’s all about behaviour and consequence.
But, dude, everything the Bible says don’t do is the same as the stuff you look at within regarding behavior and consequence. The Law’s written on our hearts. It’s called a conscience. Just up to us if we want to numb it or not. Makes exceptions or not. Go against it or not, etc.
And all the stuff it says to do? That’s where life is.
But please understand that it’s not a question of one taking their finger over it and saying, “‘Kay, did this? Check. Did this? Check. Didn’t do this? Nuts.” It goes beyond that. Even if I didn’t have a Bible, I’d be fine regarding the “dos” and “don’ts”. Why? No different than the early church. They had the Holy Spirit. They had maybe a few epistles and a couple of Jewish scrolls. The Spirit was their guide.
How about God without an imposed religion? How about accepting the reality of God, then moving carefully forward with our thinking, taking care not to jump to wrong conclusions. That’s my approach.
The thing that is strange about that is there’s no proof of one, that is, the one that you describe. It’s just an “idea.”
When a person abandons Christianity and it turns him into a better person, something is seriously wrong somewhere.
Like I mentioned before, all the devil wants is for you to reject Christ. Who cares how you good you are in this life when it comes to the time when you will have to give your account. All your good works won’t help you because there are past things you’ll need to answer for. They’re nice and I applaud them and encourage them, of course, but they won’t help.
You’ve heard the analogy before, I’m sure: John Smith was the nicest and most caring guy you could ever meet. Took care of his family. Was never sick for work. Drove his friend who didn’t have a car to the office. Gave money to charity. But one day he lost his job. Couldn’t find work. Benefits ran out. So he robs a convenience store. Gets caught. Stands before the judge. Tells the judge about how nice a guy he is. Even his friends, family and former co-workers back him up. Even the charities he gave to show his name on the receipts. But, of course, none of that stuff or his being good 99% of his life helps him. The law needs to be satisfied so he has to go to jail. His only hope of walking free is if someone pays a six-figure fine. He doesn’t have the money. Even his friends can’t help (they can’t even afford a car). Then a stranger walks in and hands the judge a briefcase for what’s owing. John has a choice. Take the kindness or pay the fine himself.
We’ll all need to give an account, my friend. We won’t just drift off after we die into some cosmic soup only to show up in another form somewhere else or as someone else. Too many accounts of the other side go against that.
In fact, a friend of the family’s brother-in-law had a heart attack. He died in the ambulance. While the medics were trying to revive him here, he was experiencing something far worse. He was falling into darkness, one so thick he couldn’t see anything. Everything was closing in. Then he hit something hard. He was on the ground, he was sure, but couldn’t see where specifically other than the iron bars in front of him. He felt alone. Rejected. Helpless and hopeless. Then he was sucked back upward and awoke in the ambulance. He told the story to our friend who’s a pastor. The pastor told him he was at the gates of Hell but God was giving him a second chance. Asked his brother-in-law if he would accept Christ. The guy said no. Wanted to do things his own way. Not long after, the guy had another heart attack. Died again. Same thing happened. Descended into the dark, alone. Was clinically dead. Again, managed to be revived. Told the pastor what happened. So once more the invitation was offered. To everyone’s shock, the guy still said he’d rather do life his own way.
Last I checked, they haven’t heard from that fellow in a while and it’s a haunting thing to wonder what will happen to him or even what might have happened already.
Don’t be that guy.
You also need to account for the supernatural events that take place in this world and more specifically those which are trigger and/or excuted in Christ’s name, that is, using His name for miracles, confronting evil spirits (my sister, for example, went down this road). I mean, if the god you think might be behind all this is not the God, then why would he/she/it use Christ’s name as a means of power?
I’ve seen far too much and experienced far too much on the supernatural front to discount Jesus is who He said He is.
There’s also the prophetic aspect of Christianity, the many, many things the Bible foretold and foretells that have come true and are coming true even today.
Like I said privately, and will mention here, Christiantiy isn’t a belief or a religion. It’s a meeting. That’s why true Christians can’t walk away even when the going gets tough or even when they wonder why God does some of the things He does. It’s like me being faced with the choice that the wife I’ve been married to for the past 4 years doesn’t exist even though I’ve met her, shared a home with her, had kids, had experiences with, etc. I just can’t say it was something other than what it is or that she never was with me to begin with. This is why Christians worldwide are more than willing to be the brunt of jokes, get tortured or killed (in some countries), lose family members or jobs or friends, be the target of insults because of what they know. It’s a knowing rather than a thinking or believing.
In the end, what I’m reading here is you viewed Christianity as a burden (physical, mental, spiritual and emotional) and chose to go your own way, relying on yourself in different ways to find truth. We can sugar coat it all we want or give it nice fluffy labels, but that’s called pride when one thinks they know better or want to do things their way or bust.
You’re in my prayers.
Hi, A.P.
Man, how do I even begin to answer all that?
First, your points on morality. We began this discussion (if I remember correctly) with your insistence that morals have to be dictated from a higher source to be meaningful. Now you’re admitting that they also exists within us: “The Law’s written on our hearts,” in your words. Exactly. You just cancelled your original argument. I rest my case.
Next, all the fear-mongering you indulged in. Look, A.P., I’m a reasonable man. It’s as simple as this: If Christianity is true, I want it. If it isn’t true, I don’t want it. No need for threats of judgement. My research has led me to conclude that it isn’t true. Nothing to do with sin, or rebellion, or pride. You can read my research soon in the chapter “Religion Unmasked” un my forthcoming book.
As for the supernatural stuff you talk about, I would have to be in your shoes. Many people have claimed many things. For instance, I was talking recently to a girl who recounted having her fortune told. She was convinced it was real, until I pointed out many instances where the cold-reading technique was used. All I’m saying is, your personal testimony of supernatural experience is not enought to convince me of Christianity.
Also, you’re friend’s near-death experience is at odds with the NDE research I have read, which talks about death bringing on a massive expansion of consciousness.
Pray for me all you like, A.P. You can think that I’m full of pride, that the devil’s got me by the balls, or whatever. All I am is a guy who’s trying his best to do what he thinks is right.
A little off subject, but I’ve always wondered in christianity what happens to people who die without hearing the word of god. Nobody has ever given me a straight answer on that one. What seems the obvious answer is they go to hell, since they never got to accept christ. A pastor once told me that everyone gets a chance but we all know that isn’t true, unless god tells you himself – but we know that doesn’t happen either. And if they all go to hell, well that’s just not right to be sent to hell because of where and when you were born. Nobody seems to be able to answer that one.
Dean,
Christianity is “eternity by postcode.” You have to be lucky enough to be born somewhere where the Gospel gets a hearing before you’ve got any chance at all.
I would add to your question the issue of what happens to a child who dies. At what point does a child become responsible for its own eternal destiny? Because there has to be a specific point where a child (who let’s say has never heard the Gospel) goes from being heaven-bound to hell-bound – unless of course all little kids go to hell by default.
At the root of any “message of salvation” is something that doesn’t play fair for the human race as a whole, because it always depends on factors that never apply to everybody.
First, your points on morality. We began this discussion (if I remember correctly) with your insistence that morals have to be dictated from a higher source to be meaningful. Now you’re admitting that they also exists within us: “The Law’s written on our hearts,” in your words. Exactly. You just cancelled your original argument. I rest my case.
It doesn’t cancel my original argument because it was/is that higher source that put the Law on your heart to begin with.
Another supernatural tale, this time not near-death, my own testimony (which I hope you read) aside.
I had a friend I grew up with whose dad was a deacon at the church I attended. One day this deacon and some other church officials were meeting to discuss some tense issues. The whole morning no conclusion was reached and things were unfortunately reaching a boiling point. At lunchtime, my friend’s dad went off to a side room and prayed for smooth proceedings in the afternoon and for whatever was causing the issue to go away. Lunch was over, he went back. As they sat down at the table and were about to go over things again, he looked up and lo and behold standing in the room was man shining bright, wearing a golden robe, holding an enormous sword.
He saw an angel.
Everything went fine that afternoon and the issue was solved.
This was the story the deacon told my father who in turn told me.
A little off subject, but I’ve always wondered in christianity what happens to people who die without hearing the word of god. Nobody has ever given me a straight answer on that one.
Using Scripture as a whole (because you have to use the whole thing, not bits and pieces), come time of judgment, man will be without excuse because nature itself declares the existence of God. No one in their right mind could believe this was all some sort of fluke, especially given the billions of layers of complexity to all life.
Second, if a person understands this and seeks to discover who created this with their whole (keyword) heart, God promises that whoever earnestly seeks Him will find Him.
He doesn’t want anyone to perish. Period.
To be honest, I don’t know how things work in that tribe in a secret island off the coast of nowhere where no man has set foot save for its inhabitants who have been there who knows how long. No one does. But God does and, for all we know, He could be sending His own supernatural messengers there to share the gospel. We don’t know. But that’s okay. There’s just some things we have to settle the issue on in terms of how God works. It’s not intellectual suicide to do so, as some might argue, either. It’s the opposite because it’s letting God be God. There is no way a person could ever understand Him 100% anyway. If we did, we’d be God, wouldn’t we?
Meh. I have strong arguments against just about every sentence of that response but I’m going to let it go 😛
“Using Scripture as a whole (because you have to use the whole thing, not bits and pieces), come time of judgment, man will be without excuse because nature itself declares the existence of God.”
I totally get the creationist argument, and I think it rests on firm ground philosophically. I understand that there must be an eternally existing “creator” of some kind.
But how can you take this concept and make this dramatic leap into specifically the Christian belief system? I could equally say, “I know that God is real. I’m going to join Islam.”
The beauty and wonder of the universe communicates absolutely nothing about God as a religious archetype: lawgiver, judge, saviour, etc. We jump to the religious archetype only because we’ve been indoctrinated with it.
I watch Ray Comfort http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ blur this line all the time. He’ll present a philosophical argument for God and then, wham, it’s straight in with the fear-mongering – is if the mere existence of God makes Christianity true by default, without any consideration of evidence. All he sees is that there are two options – Christianity or atheism – when the fact is the world is chocablock with belief systems and different ways of viewing “God.”
God, the Source, the Whole, Infinite Consciousness, whatever name you want to give to whatever is behind the universe, is quite real to me. I’m sold on the idea. Now … if you want to sell Christianity to me, you need a case for that on its own terms. Baseless threats of judgement don’t cut it.
Sorry, haven’t been on here in a few days, and boy have i missed some posts!
First of all, Darryl:
You’ve explained exactly where I stand. And in the sense you described there:
—————–The solution, however, is not to lament this predicament. It’s simply to consciously choose to have a belief system that is always open to change. When we learn things that challenge our belief structure, we need to change the belief structure, not try to squeeze the new information to fit where it won’t. This is what allows for real revolutions in thinking and it’s how I was able to make the move away from Christianity so suddenly.
That’s what I would call free thinking.—————–
I can’t really argue with that. Obviously sometimes the issues are minor and they can be squeezed, or at least worked with to fit, but yeah, sometimes the glitches are too big, and you just have to move on to something else. I totally think that happens.
I think where we really disagree is you like to call Christianity (or indeed all religion) one thing, and refer to your new belief as something completely different. Where I don’t.
You seem to think of your new beliefs as free and open, even though your beliefs are based on the readings of David Icke et al, and if you go back far enough, are very much based in Buddhism. Yet you refer to Christians as closed-minded and trapped, because they follow the teachings and readings of whoever wrote the bible, or the many religious authors, and follow something which has its roots in Judaism and Christianity.
My argument is, either they’re both free thinking, or neither are.
Everything you’ve argued as to why new-ageism (for want of a better word for your belief) is free thinking, is possible within Christianity, and indeed has been done within Christianity by myself, on many counts, as well as many other people.
Dean says:
A little off subject, but I’ve always wondered in christianity what happens to people who die without hearing the word of god. —————-
It was always my understanding that getting into heaven was making a right or wrong decision. I did question this when i was Christian myself, and i got some quite good answers, but i really can’t remember what they were! In general, the idea was that like a baby goes to heaven, because it isn’t capable of choosing for itself. And likewise, someone who has never heard the gospel, or had the chance to know about Jesus, would get into heaven.
There were some scriptures to back it up, I remember that much. It was something to do with knowledge, like with Adam & Eve (although not actually based on this event or this part of the bible), where they were corrupted by knowledge, the knowing that something was right or wrong, and choosing wrong. Even though God had told them not to.
Of course, there is the stuff in the bible about the sins of the fathers. So really, it can be argued both ways. That’s the annoying thing about the bible.
I have to disagree strongly with you A P Fuchs. Nature itself isn’t good enough, for people to know God exists and that by not choosing him without any prior knowledge of him, they are just as guilty. That’s just not fair at all.
If someone is born in a field, with no other people around, no language and no idea of right and wrong, they might well look at the world around them and decide that there must be a creator. But how are they to know who that creator is? Also, how are they to know what is right and what is wrong? They look around and see the animals of the field (the animals God created), killing other animals for food, the males raping the females (which happens in various species’), male animals having sex with other male animals (and the same with female), which does happen in nature, animals eating various berries and fauna which intoxicate them (again, this happens in nature), with not a word of Jesus, who by the way is the only key to heaven, according to the bible.
How can a person know that any of these things aren’t the right way to live? How can this person accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour, if they don’t even know who he is/was?
There were many islands that never heard of God until this century, their people were cannibals, rapists, murderers, by the standards of the bible, and they never knew to search for God, because they never knew a god existed. It’s not a logical jump for everyone.
It’s true that pretty much all people search for something, but left to our own devices we try and make sense of the world depending on our surroundings. So a feral child that grows up with wolves learns from wolves, and does what wolves do. Likewise a child who grows up within one religion, is less likely to move to another religion, because as long as that religion works out well for them, they won’t feel the need to look for another god.
The bible itself shows that most people who turn to religion do so in times of need. Not counting those that Jesus came into contact with. And a night spent in any church in the land, listening to testimonies will back this up too. Most people turn to God, or turn to whatever they turn to, when they need it most.
And the same is true for conversion. Most people who turn from one faith to another, do so in a time of crisis, whether it be that they’ve lost faith in the current belief, and feel empty and void, or that the current faith isn’t fulfilling their prayers/needs and they turn elsewhere for that shoulder to cry on.
But if someone grows up with nothing else to compare to, they don’t know:
A/ that there is other faiths out there.
B/ that life should be any better than it is.
There really are so many holes in that idea (that it’s up to us to seek God out on our own, or be judged accordingly). I’ve only argued it on a few small points.
I just thought of this, which i should have included in the last post :D…
And Tommy doesn’t know what day it is.
Doesn’t know who Jesus was or what praying is.
How can he be saved?
From the eternal grave.
Gotta love The Who. 😀
“And likewise, someone who has never heard the gospel, or had the chance to know about Jesus, would get into heaven. ”
That would be the most wrong and unfair statement ever made in the history of mankind if there actually was a heaven. If that’s the case then you’d actually be saving souls by not spreading the gospel. I personally would have no respect for a god who would accept people into heaven on that premise, while perfectly good people go to hell because whoever tried to share the word with them wasn’t convincing enough.
I personally would have no respect for a god who would accept people into heaven on that premise, while perfectly good people go to hell because whoever tried to share the word with them wasn’t convincing enough.
There’s no such thing as perfectly good people (myself included), so I’ll disagree with you there.
But a person trying not being good and/or convincing enough? I’ll agree with that. Sure, because it’s not up to me in and of myself to convince you. Biblically speaking, my only responsibility is to tell you. In terms of someone having a revelation based on what I said, that’s the Holy Spirit’s job. Secondly, it also depends if that person is willing to take it to heart or not. It depends on whether they will accept it or not, or will chose to close their mind and heart to it.
ature itself isn’t good enough, for people to know God exists and that by not choosing him without any prior knowledge of him, they are just as guilty.
Romans 1: 18-20 – 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Makes sense to me.
Darryl,
There’s plenty of evidence to support the Bible’s claims. Historical, archaeological, prophetic, supernatural and so on.
Also, when it comes to Jesus, history outside the Bible backs it up. But also understand that Christianity hinges on one thing and one thing only: Christ’s resurrection. If He suffered for the sins of the world, died and stayed dead, Christianity wouldn’t exist and, frankly, would be meaningless. It’s the resurrection aspect that proves the sacrifice paid by Him to be acceptable. Interestingly, no one has come forth to disprove the resurrection.
So either Christ existed or didn’t exist, because they have yet to produce a body or tomb.
That history outside of Christianity that backs up the existence of Jesus is a bit weak to say the least. I used to believe it when i was a Christian, but a lot of it merely mentions a holy man, or someone speaking against this and that.
Also, if no-one coming along to disprove the resurrection makes it real, then no-one has come along to disprove the existence of single-consciousness, or the core beliefs of Scientology. Does that make them factual too?
There are many missing bodies from history, and tombs, does that make all of these people the Messiah?
When it comes to things of this nature, it can’t be proven or disproven. It’s all a matter of faith.
This is why — as Dean says — it would be so unfair that people who haven’t heard the Gospel would get into heaven, but those who heard it and didn’t believe it, don’t.
The truth isn’t clear. There are a few little tidbits as to the reality of Jesus as a man, but very little, if any at all, information on him being the Son of God, outside of Christianity itself. Certainly not enough information either way, to convince someone to convert.
As I’ve stated before, very few people turn to religion on a purely logical basis, in fact very few people turn to any belief system on logic alone. Usually a person makes this stand when they are in need. And the actual belief system we choose has more to do with luck, what our needs are, and a bit more luck.
GodIsWearingBlack,
“You seem to think of your new beliefs as free and open, even though your beliefs are based on the readings of David Icke et al, and if you go back far enough, are very much based in Buddhism. Yet you refer to Christians as closed-minded and trapped, […] My argument is, either they’re both free thinking, or neither are.”
One relies on childhood indoctrination and the herd mentality. The other relies on stripping yourself of those things.
One relies on dictating what you should believe by rote, the other is build on independent thinking.
One relies on keeping you in with threats of damnation, family expectation, emotional blackmail, promoting the view that doubt is something defective. The other keeps you in charge of your beliefs, to amend them without fear when challenging information arises.
I think your tendency to see Christianity and my views as one and the same mindset is based on your positive experience of Christianity, where you made a free choice to join it. For me, I’m now far too aware of how I was being played by a manipulative and destructive belief system.
A.P.,
“There’s plenty of evidence to support the Bible’s claims. Historical, archaeological, prophetic, supernatural and so on. […] So either Christ existed or didn’t exist, because they have yet to produce a body or tomb.”
Here’s a detailed Wikipedia article that’s well worth studying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_history
Pay particular attention to the fact that Christianity’s first three centuries were rife with division and disinformation. Basically, it was in a real mess for 300 years!
The thing that unified it was Emperor Constantine of Rome, who had the royal clout to get decisions made and to declare “This is how it’s gonna be!” Christianity became what it is today as a result decisions made by bishops on the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, headed by a purely political (not divine) authority. And to this day we call it the Roman Catholic Church. What we have today is not Christianity; it’s a Roman invention from 300 years after the alleged events took place!
Now, you can talk all you want about Protestantism righting all the wrongs of Roman Catholicism and restoring Christianity to what it should be. But Protestantism was formed in the 1600s. Christianity is, and always has been, Roman Catholicism. To deny this is to say that Christianity didn’t exist from the 4th century to the 16th. That’s a long time for God to be without a Church.
A.P., when we drop the fear-mongering, and the claims of supernatural stuff and questionable fulfillment of prophecy, and when we really cut to the chase and do the straightforward research, the information is not on your side.
Furthermore, I think there’s a case for Christianity being a purely astrological myth. The movie Zeitgeist http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ was a real eye-opener in this regard – pointing out massive areas of overlap between the story of Jesus and other saviour figures of myth such as Horus, Mithra, Krishna, etc. The story of Jesus even has massive parallels with Old Testament stories, like Joseph:
Joseph: miraculous birth (barren womb)
Jesus: miraculous birth (virgin birth)
Joseph: one of 12 brothers
Jesus: had 12 disciples (12 months of year)
Joseph: betrayed by brother Judah
Jesus: betrayed by brother Judas
Joseph: began his work at 30
Jesus: began his work at 30
Joseph: became a saviour (of Egypt and beyond from famine)
Jesus: became a saviour (of the world from sin)
The parallels go on and on:
http://shepherdsoutreach.blogspot.com/2007/12/parallels-between-joseph-and-jesus.html
For a comparison of Jesus and Krishna:
http://www.bobkwebsite.com/krishnajesusmyths.html
There is a strong case to be considered for the view that Jesus was never a real person, but the same solar deity of many prior myths.
You’re judging all of religion by your experience of it though. It’s not true of all religious experiences.
It’s funny, for someone who reportedly only follows the data, you seem to discount any data that doesn’t align with your own.
I’ve stated quite a few times, that my religious experiences weren’t like that. I had the ability to think for myself, to question everything around me, to see certain things in the bible as unfair, etc. All while I was still Christian.
There have been other people on this very blog who have had similar experiences to mine, or at least experiences that were different to yours.
Would you consider it closed-minded to stick with your own idea of religion, in spite of data which shows a different idea of religion? 😀
Religion might well be indoctrinated, and it may well be followed by a lot of people in herd-like mentality, but it’s not the case for everyone.
And again, I’ll argue, that just because someone is indoctrinated from a child, doesn’t mean religion is at fault for it, or that it’s a bad thing.
We indoctrinate all sorts of things to our children: we tell them not to touch fire, not to play with electricity, to be nice to each other, to be good, etc. Are these things closed-minded?
What about our ideas of morality? Is it wrong for us to push our idea of morality on someone else, even if that person’s actions will hurt someone else?
For me Darryl, it doesn’t look like you were open-minded at all. You hated agnosticism and atheism, you didn’t like the fact that they didn’t offer answers, and that they were so bleak and hopeless. You had a few problems with Christianity, but liked the idea of order, of right and wrong, of a God.
But within that, you had the incident with your mother, and not knowing whether she was saved or not.
Your solution to this was to believe in a God that didn’t ask for salvation.
In fact you went one better than that, you chose a god that was You. That way you could control the rules, you could control the outcomes and control what is right and wrong, without fear of questioning or judgement, either by another God or by people.
After all, you’re free-thinking, they’re closed-minded, what do they know?
To me, looking in, you had a need, the faith you followed didn’t meet it, because it meant your mother might not be in Heaven. You couldn’t continue with that knowledge. You also couldn’t live in a world without order, without hope, without meaning. So when you read David Icke, what we was offering made sense, it gave you the out you needed.
This is one of the fundamental reasons why religion and faith exists around the world. And it’s the number one reason why people turn to religion. The loss of a loved one and a need to know they are ok and we’ll see them again one day. It’s why mediums are so popular now, almost becoming the new religion. For the same reason: it offers hope and joy, without the need for salvation.
Is this really free-thinking? Or evolution of what we already believe?
This is why I can’t commit to a faith/belief. It’s too easy for us, as human beings, to turn to something just because we need it, and justify it and rationalise it in every way imaginable. Especially because the times we make these decisions are usually times of turmoil. And who of us are logical in times of turmoil?
Don’t you find it interesting that the faith you chose, lambasts religion and its teachings of hell, salvation, sin, etc., while at the same time forwarding the idea of us all being one, but temporarily separated within this world?
These are the exact needs you had. The idea that you would get to see your mother again, while not having to worry about whether she went to heaven or not, and at the same time keeping the order of a God (with the transference of morality from God to You, because you ARE God now). With the added bonus of an argument against religion and the things you’d feared/disliked about it.
I should point out, btw, I’m arguing this on a purely discussional level.
I actually think it’s good to have a faith, and I think people who have a faith are usually happier than those who don’t. So I would actually prefer a world where everyone had a faith, including myself.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any that have the answers or stand up to reasonable debate. Which is why I’m staying non-commital for now.
GodIsWearingBlack,
You never listen to any attempt I make to correct your view of me. I’ve talked to you at length about how I’m not ruled by my emotional needs, but it just goes in one ear and out the other.
You’re not describing me. You’re describing a fantasy me that you’ve concocted by using things I’ve said and taking massive imaginative leaps about what’s motivating me.
I’m not hurt or offended, or anything like that. But I’m realising there is just no point in me trying to show you a different picture about me. You’re determined to see me your way.
And maybe the same is true of how I’ve psychoanalysed you. I don’t know.
But I do give up.
I’d imagine that’s what a Christian (or anyone within religion) would say, when faced with your ideas of what/who they are. 😀
This is the problem. From outside of that faith, people look in and see something completely different than the person experiencing it. No matter how real and fantastic it appears to the experiencer, there’ll be someone else explaining it away logically, calling it evil, outright denying it, etc.
The world would be a better place if we all concentrated on what WE BELIEVE, rather than deconstructing and setting out to destroy what others believe. But it’s a human trait. It’s what we do. Putting down someone else/their beliefs to build up ourselves/our beliefs, is how it’s always been.
Religion is certainly guilty of it, but the non-religious are just as guilty.
We can obviously go in circles and re-tread the same ground a zillion times.
I thought it fitting to conclude (though with an open door should someone wish to talk further) by pointing out that my arguments were founded on Scripture used them where I could.
But please note I used them because I believe in them 100% and there is good reason aside from my own experiences.
Darryl, you called that which was prophetic “questionable fulfillment.”
I disagree.
To discount the Bible’s unique prophetic ability, would be to deny the following, all of which were prophesied:
– the repeated exile and/or captivity and restoration of Israel throughout history
– the rise and fall of Alexander the Great
– Israel ratified in one day (specifically one day) in 1948
– the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 1967
– the fact that in today’s Middle East problems, the powers that be don’t know what to do with that city and how they could use it to make everyone happy
– our present economic climate
– the existence of the European Union
– our present-day push for global governance and a new world order
– the increase in blog posts like yours denying Christianity
– the increase of man placing himself above God
– and on and on and on
You can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, that would, of course, be an unintellectual and unreasonable thing to do. But to deny the Bible for what it is would mean you would have to deny the list above. Can’t have it both ways.
Some food for thought.
Hope everyone is having a good weekend.
Peace to you all.
Hi , Darryn , I ‘m Tony from Youtube . I ‘ m interested in your telekinesis and the philosophy point of view .
Yeah if there is God , and we re just different people / soul created by him , then his job must be pretty boring , for example : people may ask : why he created universe? there ‘ll be a time when the earth explode / die , will He create another one and repeat that process milion/ bilion/infinite times ? It less likely to be true for me.
And your point is : God (Infinite Consciousness) actually take part in what he created . This God is pretty interesting , he play with himself , like to kill/ destroy himseft (tsunami/earth quake , people killing each other ) , make love to himseft..v..v.. Seem that he don’t care about that .
It likely to be true for me too , since time doesn’t exist , there can’t be another soul/God.
But that also mean that . When you ‘re dead . You ‘re vanish . Cause you re nothing but part of Infinite Consciousness . Thus Infinite Consciousness wouldn’t allow part of himseft wander in universe for nothing . Base on this theory , Infinite Consciousness only got his power back when all creatures die .
This theory ‘s believable but it have something contrast with my experience . I have met the person that can contact ghost . There ‘re evidence that she can do so , she can talk with ghost thus she can find their corpse (lost in the war) for their family . And she did that thousand of time succeedfully. That ‘s what make i belive in life after death .But in your theory there should be no ghost.
So there must be something wrong with this Infinite Consciousness theory ? I mean , we actually say bye bye when we die?
Execuse me if there ‘re something wrong in my English .
Hi, Tony.
I’ve often thought about the whole question of the soul continuing in a disembodied state. I do think our individuality continues beyond death. Whether this actually contradicts the “one consciousness” view is up for debate. Just because our ego transcends death doesn’t mean that our ego will be perpetuated forever. It’s very hard to penetrate what lies beyond. A study into near-death experiences would probably be fruitful. I’ve read people explain about a massive expansion of awareness, which goes some way to reinforcing the one consciousness view.
Remember that we’re not talking about absorption. Your consciousness is not an aspect of Infinite Consciousness. It’s the whole thing. Don’t confuse consciousness with mind. A single consciousness is having multiple experiences of mind.
I feel I’ve got a lot of this worked out in a way that holds together very logically, but it’s hard to explain big concepts in a few words, especially when the whole view is at odds with what most people think. 🙂
I mean, it all ties in with the view that there’s no time – no actual past, no actual future, just a single never-ending moment called the present. When you start to wrap your head around that, the question of what happens after death takes on a whole new perspective. But it’s hard. It takes a lot of head-scratching and contemplation. The jigsaw clicks together eventually.
Hi Darryl , sorry for miss spell your name last time .
In your opinion , we re death and still not vanished .Well if that the case , it make it very hard for me to image we ‘re One Infinite Consciousness . Because you must go somewhere when that time come, but it seem like there ‘re no where. All you would do is sit down , and wait for the time to became One Infinite Consciousness ,you and me only , others don’t know what going on 🙂
Another case is we become One immediately after we die , it even harder for me to image . Can i able to create black hole at that time ? I should able to do that And my body is what ?… A sphere(or whatever) . Thus all i would do is watching and causing some Tsunamis to my people on Earth .
Because of that , i thought if we just vanish after death , is good . Clear and simple . The last one die and he realize himself a Infinite Consciousness .And then he can choose continue to play or what . But the ghost thing just ruin that theory . And i don’t understand why we remain ghost after death . Unless there re interesting ghost world which Infinite Consciousness already created .
Judging by what you said, there’s a couple of coordinates that I think you’re missing:
1. You’re talking about Infinite Consciousness as something you return to. Not so. It’s something that you are.
2. You’re identifying your self-awareness as your thinking brain/mind and a set of memories unique to you.
Wrapping your head around this involves understanding time as a single moment, mind and consciousness as two distinct things. Not easy. Only comes with time and contemplation. You’ll start having those “Ah-ha!” moments as you go.
Ok , maybe i understand . But that not answer much question though .
Who create the universal? The universal itseft would die sometimes though.The Infinite Consciousness , it will exist forever , if it ‘s not God so there is no God (because there is only one Infinite Consciousness ) and in that case , universal never active again .
Also , there no God so what caused Bigbang?
Infinite Consciousness didn’t cause this . So …. what?
If there no mind/soul affect it ,physical material never active ( from un-active form) and stay still forever . Thus , no Bigbang .
So there much be something relate from us to what we call : God?
Maybe in the human form we don’t realize that ?
I know , these question can’t be answer . But it pretty much relate to your theory and i can’t help to think , we actually somehow related to God .
“If there no mind/soul affect it ,physical material never active ( from un-active form) and stay still forever . Thus , no Bigbang .”
By understanding that concept, at least you’re on the right path.
All we know about the universe is just the material state of it. Beyond matter and some of the forces that affect it we don’t know what else there is. The universe as we know it is always subject to change, which could be considered as birth and death, but the forces BEHIND the universe that cause it to be what it is are what we consider to be infinite because they lie outside of what we call “time”. Darryl’s idea of infinite consciousness would also lie outside of time so it would be our source but not our being. If there was a big bang, it wasn’t the beginning of “the universe”. It was the beginning of the current state of the universe as we understand it.