The Debate of God.

[confused453]

godnotgod, is there a real world example of people being in a state such as you describe? Can you provide few names so I can search them up online?

 

[godnotgod]

And God is in there...with 'you'?

"The Kingdom of God is within you"
Jesus

That fact that you have thoughts indicates you're on you're own.

There is no "I" that lays claim to them. They're not 'my' thoughts. They're just thoughts that arise and subside. If you identify with them as 'yours' and 'mine', then you think they come from you. Just sit still and watch the stream of thoughts flow past, without attaching yourself to any of them. Can you do that, in the same way you sit by the side of a mountain stream and watch the water flow by?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Genesis...Chapter One...creation.
Genesis...Chapter Two...manipulation.

God in terms of superlatives?...of course.
Almighty is a term...self explanatory.

One fiction book saying it is irrelevant.

Do we observe it? No, you admit yourself we don't.

Therefore, there is only Manipulatism. Any God who says otherwise must be a liar.
Making the suggestion that it happened is not proof; we can play make believe about scads of things.

 

[godnotgod]

So...nothing but dust after your last breath?

What were you before your first breath? Did you exist then?

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod, is there a real world example of people being in a state such as you describe? Can you provide few names so I can search them up online?

That's like asking for a list of people who have tasted strawberries, when you yourself have never done so. Until you yourself taste of them, nothing they can say to you about the taste of strawberries will make any difference to you.

You have to taste for yourself.

Here...watch this and a couple other Alan Watts videos to get a feel for this kind of conscious awareness:

[youtube]v90O2aeW4KA[/youtube]
The Game of Hide and Seek - Alan Watts - YouTube

and maybe......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX8D0yU0pMc&feature=player_detailpage

 

[Thief]

What were you before your first breath? Did you exist then?

I have not ruled out the possibility of reincarnation.
On many occasions I have performed hands on technique as if I've done such things before.
Like building that round bellied string instrument in high school...
I worked til my fingers bled and then kept going...as if possessed.
I have done well in the martial arts and make long blade knives.
My efforts seem to be my own....and the list is lengthy.

But strictly speaking...there's not enough 'proof'.
Details that would confirm a previous life are lacking.
Specific memory of character...simply isn't there.
Apparently I'm just gifted.

So I lean more to this life as the first development...and probably the only development.

We take form...we learn...we die...we stand from the dead form.
The angels come to see what rises form the dust.
They make the judgment call.

You will be allowed to follow....or left behind wherever you fell.

 

[Thief]

One fiction book saying it is irrelevant.

Do we observe it? No, you admit yourself we don't.

Therefore, there is only Manipulatism. Any God who says otherwise must be a liar.
Making the suggestion that it happened is not proof; we can play make believe about scads of things.

Testimony from previous generations may be sparse.
And the info may be difficult to deal with because of the implications.

But he you want to regard the scripture as fiction and go chasing 'scads of of things'...by all means.....go.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Testimony from previous generations may be sparse.
And the info may be difficult to deal with because of the implications.

But he you want to regard the scripture as fiction and go chasing 'scads of of things'...by all means.....go.

I realize its a bit uncomfortable that you shot yourself in the foot with that previous statement.

 

[Thief]

I realize its a bit uncomfortable that you shot yourself in the foot with that previous statement.

I don't believe for comfort.
How about the parable of the wedding feast?
That one ends with weeping and a gnashing of teeth.

Wanna go that way with it?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't believe for comfort.

lol riiiiiiiiight.

So what you are saying is that your 'faith' is actually preference for the idea of not actually dying. In other words, it is all a matter of your psychological comfort, nothing whatsoever to do with experience,reason or evidence.

Fair enough I guess. You'll never know if you were wrong. I can't see that the 'god' you profess faith in would be impressed with that as a motivation, but I guess that doesn't matter to you because you probably know you will be dead, you just prefer not to think that way that while you are alive !

That seems to be the gist of your post.

I am not the only one who observes this. You essentially repeat yourself in every post you make. You do what you do because you fear being judged disobedient; that is the ONLY motivation you've ever stated, and you've stated it so many times in essentially the exact same words, that its proven. You've never spoken nor emphasized being a good man for its own sake, for being good to others because people should be treated with love, nothing. Only your fear of personal consequences and the angels with swords.

I mean how can you even post that with a straight face?

 

[godnotgod]

I have not ruled out the possibility of reincarnation.
On many occasions I have performed hands on technique as if I've done such things before.
Like building that round bellied string instrument in high school...
I worked til my fingers bled and then kept going...as if possessed.
I have done well in the martial arts and make long blade knives.
My efforts seem to be my own....and the list is lengthy.

But strictly speaking...there's not enough 'proof'.
Details that would confirm a previous life are lacking.
Specific memory of character...simply isn't there.
Apparently I'm just gifted.

So I lean more to this life as the first development...and probably the only development.

We take form...we learn...we die...we stand from the dead form.
The angels come to see what rises form the dust.
They make the judgment call.

You will be allowed to follow....or left behind wherever you fell.

And what is the background against which all of this 'existence', whether past or current, takes place?

You seem to have an inclination toward making things, artifacts. Do you imagine there is a creator-God, a 'maker' who 'made' the world, as a potter 'makes' a pot of clay, who 'makes' man out of dust or clay, and who then 'tests' his 'creature' to see if it will obey his will, and if he does, he gets a reward; but if he does not, he gets a punishment?

 

[Thief]

And what is the background against which all of this 'existence', whether past or current, takes place?

Background?....the earth beneath your feet?...the stars above?
The creation of God?

And then the creation of Man....each one of us.

 

[godnotgod]

Background?....the earth beneath your feet?...the stars above?
The creation of God?

And then the creation of Man....each one of us.

I mean the background to everything, as in field and ground, like....

 

[godnotgod]

On many occasions I have performed hands on technique as if I've done such things before.
Like building that round bellied string instrument in high school...
I worked til my fingers bled and then kept going...as if possessed.
I have done well in the martial arts and make long blade knives.

You seem to have an inclination toward making things, artifacts. Do you imagine there is a creator-God, a 'maker' who 'made' the world, as a potter 'makes' a pot of clay, who 'makes' man out of dust or clay, and who then 'tests' his 'creature' to see if it will obey his will, and if he does, he gets a reward; but if he does not, he gets a punishment?

 

[Thief]

You seem to have an inclination toward making things, artifacts. Do you imagine there is a creator-God, a 'maker' who 'made' the world, as a potter 'makes' a pot of clay, who 'makes' man out of dust or clay, and who then 'tests' his 'creature' to see if it will obey his will, and if he does, he gets a reward; but if he does not, he gets a punishment?

All but that last portion.
The garden event was performed to alter the body and spirit of Man.
The 'choice' given.....partake and die....
was only a means to be sure the alteration had taken hold.

Whatever spirit you become....there is consequence.
From another thread I quote myself....

what you expect to see when you get 'there'.

For example....I've heard discussion that no matter what....we go to heaven.

THAT, I find hard to believe.

Picture yourself as Hitler....yes you can.
You make it through the gate and are escorted all around heaven.

Later that evening, you are invited to supper...with 'thirteen' others.
As you dip your bread in the bowl, a Carpenter is doing likewise.
You turn to use another bowl...and Judas is doing so as well.

(note the.... 'look in the eye'.... part)

Sounds like fun!....don't you think so!
(end quote)

To circumvent like the above scenario....
'You' would have to abandon all that you have learned.
Abandon and forsake the person you have become.

If there is any life remaining after that....
'you' would no longer exist beyond being a spiritual vegetable.

Which happens to be a serious possibility...it is written....
'...for a weeping and gnashing of teeth...'

You spoke before about being 'one' with all else.
What if your return to God really does have requirements?

 

[godnotgod]

All but that last portion.
The garden event was performed to alter the body and spirit of Man.
The 'choice' given.....partake and die....
was only a means to be sure the alteration had taken hold.

Yes, but not in the way your indoctrination has taught you.

Whatever spirit you become....there is consequence.
From another thread I quote myself....

what you expect to see when you get 'there'.

Excuse me, but you are describing Cause and Effect, or a system of Reward and Punishment, which is what I had suggested.

For example....I've heard discussion that no matter what....we go to heaven.

THAT, I find hard to believe.

Picture yourself as Hitler....yes you can.
You make it through the gate and are escorted all around heaven.

Later that evening, you are invited to supper...with 'thirteen' others.
As you dip your bread in the bowl, a Carpenter is doing likewise.
You turn to use another bowl...and Judas is doing so as well.

(note the.... 'look in the eye'.... part)

Sounds like fun!....don't you think so!
(end quote)

I'm afraid you are projecting earthly history onto the future, contaminating the future with the past; in fact, it is Jewish history! On top of that, you're projecting your mental concept of heaven outward into some future, non-existent time and place. It's all in your head.

To circumvent like the above scenario....
'You' would have to abandon all that you have learned.
Abandon and forsake the person you have become.

If there is any life remaining after that....
'you' would no longer exist beyond being a spiritual vegetable.

You cannot bring your baggage with you into the spiritual experience anyway. The 'person you have become' is fictional, a character that is the result of your social conditioning. All that must go before you can experience a spiritual transformation, which allows you to see ordinary existence in a new light.

Which happens to be a serious possibility...it is written....
'...for a weeping and gnashing of teeth...'

Again, a system of Reward and Punishment.

You spoke before about being 'one' with all else.
What if your return to God really does have requirements?

There is no 'return' to God; you were never separated in the first place. That you are separate and in need of 'salvation' and deserving of entry into a heavenly realm is your delusion.

Reality is indivisible. Any 'division' occurs only in the mind.

When you create the concepts of 'deserving' and 'undeserving', you are setting up conflict, in which one group triumphs over the other. In this way, the ego asserts itself in a false 'victory', perpetuating itself as a delusional entity into eternity. This idea was, of course, what Hitler used (he was inspired by Wagner's operas and the glorious entry of the gods into Valhalla*) to galvanize the idea of racial superiority over the scapegoat that was the Jewish people, via of the projection of a national Shadow onto them as undeserving untermenschen (sub-humans).

*ie; 'der Ring des Nibelungen'. I suspect HH will jump all over this one, LOL!

"Reward the deserving man, and you plant envy in the hearts of the undeserving"
from 'Tao: The Parting of the Way', Holmes-Welch

 

[godnotgod]

On many occasions I have performed hands on technique as if I've done such things before.
Like building that round bellied string instrument in high school...
I worked til my fingers bled and then kept going...as if possessed.
I have done well in the martial arts and make long blade knives.
My efforts seem to be my own....and the list is lengthy.

(Post is being repeated, as it was never addressed)


You seem to have an inclination toward making things, artifacts. Do you imagine there is a creator-God, a 'maker' who 'made' the world, as a potter 'makes' a pot of clay, who 'makes' man out of dust or clay?

 

[cottage]

There is a huge difference! The belief of a 'next life' is totally unverifiable as it is in the after-death state, while the Absolute is not a belief, and is immediately present. In fact, YOU are it, hiding from yourself, pretending to be a sceptic, and acting coy about it.

That is quite absurd. How can I ‘pretend to be sceptical’ about a mystical belief that is asserted as a truth but held from faith alone? You very plainly cannot verify or demonstrate your asserted beliefs, which in that respect are no different from other religions that assume knowledge. I’ve always had a soft spot for Buddhism and the Eastern religions because of the lack of proselytising and arrogance, together with stated principle of truth seeking. But all we’ve seen here is an obsession that takes the form of adamantly stated assertions, that quickly fizzle out and amount to nothing, and the complete rejection of truth and reason when it conflicts with the dogmatically held view.

I'll state it once again:

"...your...analogy of the 'self' to the 'Self' is...illogical, since the former is merely a concept that is seen as an encapsulated entity, while the latter is non-local and limitless, and so cannot be so encapsulated by the conceptual mind..."


That's my explanation and I'm sticking to it! Your Logic and Reason are so convoluted and tortuous, you become lost yourself in your own maze, whereupon you end up believing in their fallacious conclusions!

Well, I quite understand that you must stick to it. After all, it is the pinnacle upon which your faith system is mounted, but it is an inferential argument that implies selfishness.
Here are some of your previous quotes:
“…progress toward a more enlightened and therefore happier state of being.”

“You cannot develop a genuine concern for others until you are happy.

“The giver is not giving to attain what the recipient needs. He already has that”.

“Haven't you ever given something to someone or done something of benefit for someone with absolutely no expectation of reward, other than the indirect reward of you're becoming happy by making them happy?”

“Expressing our true nature via meditation is what Enlightenment is.”

Every strain of your argument begins and ends with the notion of the self, as it must, for without it you have no case to make. And the capitalized ‘Self’ is simply compounded from the same notion, an identity that belongs to the supposed thing, to which nothing can be attributed, or be caused by it, unless it first exists. And whatever else it is, and whatever it does, must be conditional upon its own prior existence and self-interest, thus it is self-contradictory to describe it as selfless or be ‘involved in an act of unconditional giving’ as you claimed in an earlier post.

But just look at that paragraph above – you’re saying nothing at all, just reacting to criticism, but with no argument or substance. However, you made me chuckle where you said “…your…analogy of the self to the Self is...illogical since the former is mere a concept…that cannot be encapsulated by the conceptual mind”, and then you follow that up by saying that I “believe in their fallacious conclusions.” It seems to have passed you by that you cannot at the same time deny the conceptual mind while wanting to argue to a supposed fallacy.

Well then, you're wrong, because that is NOT what I think, and if that is your definition, then there is no such thing as 'death' because there is no such destruction. You are being fooled!

I gave you my understanding of what is meant by the term. Now perhaps we could have your demonstration?

 

[cottage]

While asleep and dreaming, the dream is real. Once we awaken, we see that the dream is not real.

Oh really! And how do you know you haven’t dreamt that the dream isn’t real?

 

[cottage]

No, the issue is not belief. The issue is that the majority of mankind detects a difference between physical dream-sleep and waking sleep. Whether it is a dream or a belief is not my question. My question has to do with why almost everyone detects this difference. That is all I am trying to get at here. You keep denying there is a difference, but you experience the same thing as billions of others. Whether the difference is a dream itself is not the issue; I simply want to know what that difference, real or imagined, is.

Well of course it is a matter of belief, because the question concerns whether what is believed can in fact be false. If all the people in the universe claim they are able to distinguish between a dreamt and a waking state (Argument from Other Believers), it would fail to settle the question of whether they are dreaming now. If a person believes he knows he is awake because it seems more real, lucid or somehow more vivid, or even if he recalls previous dreams, those reasons are none the less subjective and those self-same sensations and images may be encountered in a dream. So the question of any perceived differences merely presupposes what cannot in fact be established in truth. And further more, if there is some way to conclusively determine that my sitting here typing these words is not a dream then it cannot be said that life is an illusion, which is what you’ve been arguing: “In the case of our ordinary world, I am saying that it is illusory; that we are deceived into believing it to be real, when it is not.”

While it is true that the given instance of two opposites does not imply their existence, the moment you employ the use of one, illusory or not, you have automatically called into play its opposite. The moment you say 'dream' you imply an awakening from the dream. And if what you imply, that the entire scenario is but a dream, then you are implying the waking up from that dream.

That is wholly incorrect. Where a triangle is given it is impossible to conceive of it minus its three angles, on which the triangle is necessarily predicated. But we can suppose every experience as a dream devoid of any notions of assumed reality without contradicting ourselves. If life is all a dream then by definition there is no waking state or polar concept (the given instance of two opposites does not imply their existence). For what is dreaming? It is nothing but imagining. And if every experience is imagined and not real then the idea of going to sleep and waking up is also unreal. The belief that we sleep, dream, and then awake, has no necessary foundation.

Now stop denying the truth! You're just being silly!

The “truth”! Now, forgive me, but the “silliness” is really all on your part. You are the one claiming certainty, and what’s more you are claiming this certitude on the behalf of a thing you have consistently said isn’t true. My argument, if I may remind you, is that there is no way to conclusively state we are not dreaming. Do I believe I’m dreaming now? No of course not! I believe I’m awake, that I’m sitting here typing what you are now reading. But is any of that logically certain? No, it is not. You, however, presume to know what is certain, while absurdly calling upon the uncertainties of the experiential world to make your arguments.