Sunmaster

Damn....just when I thought you found your way back to rationality...

That's a good start. So, integrity, honesty, kindness, respect, compassion, but also a sense of justice, altruism, humility and forgiveness. And above all that, love. What would the world look like if we could make these values the foundations of our society, free from religious dogma, cultural straight jackets and political ideologies. And more importantly, what can we personally do to make such a world possible?

The Bible is a repository of knowledge at its basic function. Interpretations vary and depend on the personal development of the reader in my opinion. The pastor simply warns that people without sufficient development and faculty of understanding more complex knowledge can misinterpret it and should limit themselves to read those parts of the Bible that are appropriate to their mental faculties. A practical example, a person who interprets it literally will extract a very superficial, shallow knowledge. This person will believe all sorts of things that are meant to be allegories and metaphors. On the other hand, a person who is able to grasp deeper truths and see wider connections will interpret it very differently and I think more in line with the core truths in the Bible. I think it's fair to criticise the Bible as a source of spiritual information. There are much clearer and more precise sources out there that don't cover the truths in heavy coats of stories and are much better suited to the modern man. So, while there is and there should be a place for the Bible and religion in modern society, the main focus should be on the core teachings that unite all religions. Universal values that unite all people, religious and atheist alike, should be taught at schools and observed by all. What would such universal values be in your opinion?

Mate, I stopped reading after the first "rule". One man's prayer may not get rid of all the diseases in the world, but it has been proven to affect the wellbeing of the individual who prays. To deduct that "God" doesn't exist based on the assumption that we should be able to eradicate cancer worldwide with a simple prayer is the nonsense I'm talking about. Not worth my time going through all those "rules". Maybe read up on the positive effects of prayer and contemplation. There are many scientific studies explaining how they affect both physical and mental wellbeing. Whether or not that implies a creator God, is for the individual to decide. Asking a materialist to prove God is like asking a bricklayer to perform brain surgery. If you put your trust and faith in that....well, good luck. I think it would be far more interesting to read about your own personal opinion, rather than these useless links. Up for it?

The only nonsense I could detect is this very article, written by an ignoramus with zero knowledge of the subject he tries to discredit. Bottom shelf stuff....and I'm being very generous.

A very interesting podcast with Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI and creator of chatGPT.

The sooner the better. I think there is a great urgency for change actually, especially with the upcoming technological tsunami that is AI. AI is probably the biggest innovation since the internet was invented and will probably surpass it and will be adopted by the masses at a much faster rate than any technology so far. Will a man made AI include all the blind spots and moral shortcomings we have? Will it be able to rise above them on its own? Will it become, by virtue of its own development, a new lighthouse that guides us toward the next step in mankind's evolution? What place will religion have in this new landscape? What about spirituality? I think these and many more questions are worth exploring.

This is a very interesting point and something I'm still trying to wrap my head around. Is there a non-dual force or consciousness that is perfection of infinite Being-ness, that is the source of everything else, where nothing can be added or subtracted? Does the material world, along with individual consciousness and self-awareness emerge from this cosmic consciousness as imperfect (dualistic) agents? I tend to believe so. The question then is, what can we possibly add to this already perfect cosmic consciousness? And, is there a meaning to our efforts? My intuition tells me that IF there is a lack of some kind, then it's a condition of the manifest, material world only. But more and more I feel that the idea of something missing, something that will be reached sometime in the future, is simply an illusion. This imperfection is an illusion strictly bound to the material world, which is illusion itself. The perfection of the cosmic consciousness is the only intrinsic truth, ...a true universal constant. Or not...

Reminds me of a great discussion between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. Peterson argued for religion as a medium for archetypical structures, which are necessary for the individual to interpret reality. Harris on the other hand is convinced that we can dismiss religion altogether because we can interpret reality solely through facts and that religion is counterproductive in this endeavour, because it's weigted down by so much outdated dogma. https://youtu.be/jey_CzIOfYE My take is that both views are valid. I think it depends on the individual's (and as an extension on the society's) developmental stage, whether religion is useful or is actually hampering further development. Getting rid of religion altogether to rely solely on facts to make sense of reality would leave a sort of 'power vacuum' for people who rely on such a structure. At the same time, I don't think we can ever get rid of archetypes in the pursuit of truth. The solution therefore is to provide a framework that makes use of archetypes AND is free from unnecessary and outdated religious dogma. A system that puts the individual at the center and provides the tools to explore the relationship between the individual and his inner reality. A system that doesn't demand blind obedience and is not based on faith alone. That would provide clear and practical truth to all the stages of development, be it for the pre-modern, modern and post-modern man. That would be a new philosophy (I rather not call it religion) for the 21st century.

If the universe is first and foremost consciousness and if form is just an attribute of consciousness, wouldn't it mean that solutions are present at any time? They wouldn't have to be discovered from nothing, but somehow simply be accessed. What I'm trying to say is, if morphic fields exist, they exist as always complete, irrespective of time and space. That means that the idea of "before a certain event" and "after a certain event " are meaningless and have no influence on the integrity of the morphic field. In your example, the answers of the crossword puzzle are already present in the field and simply have to be accessed. The more people access this info, the easier it becomes for others to do so as well. It is not the people who put that information in the morphic field. Am I missing something?

You probably also believe your comment was very clever....

Thanks a lot for the ideas! In the end I opted for "Perspectives". For one the perspective of the viewer (you) who will interpret it according to his own unique point of view. On the other hand the individual perspectives of the people in the drawing, who create their own universe according to their own beliefs. Finally, the perspective of the observer (soul), who is the creator of the individual sub-perspectives. If you look at the guy in the center, he has learned to pierce through the veil, revealing the underlying order of the system and is looking back at the originator (Soul). In that sense we can either imagine the sub-personalities to be other people connected to each other by the web of life....or be manifestations of a single higher consciousness. This timeless consciousness splits and creates fragments just like a prism splits light, creating seemingly separate personalities in the process, without time or place restrictions. A sort of simultaneous "past lives".

Just finished this drawing. Rather than explaining my ideas behind it, I would be interested to know how you would interpret it...

A very interesting and thought provoking post. It somehow relates to my posts about time, where I tried to visualize the timelessness of the inner (spiritual) world compared to the material world. If there is a timeless state, the linear unfolding of cause and effect become meaningless.

I meant "you" as a general term, but I agree with you. I view all human institutions with a good dose of distrust.

Nevertheless, its important to keep the distinctions in mind when voicing your discontent with one or the other.

I think we need to classify and define the various parts. Religion and the church are related concepts, but they refer to different things. Religion is a set of beliefs, practices, and values that relate to the nature of existence, the purpose of life, and the relationship between humans and the divine or supernatural. Religion can be practiced by individuals or groups, and it can take many different forms, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many others. The church, on the other hand, is a specific organization that represents a particular religion. The church is typically a formal institution with a hierarchy of leaders, including priests, bishops, and other religious officials, who are responsible for interpreting and enforcing the teachings of the religion. The church may also have specific rituals, traditions, and practices that are associated with the religion. So, while religion is a broader concept that encompasses beliefs and practices, the church is a specific institution that represents a particular religion and provides a framework for practicing that religion. One can agree with a specific religion, while at the same time avoid the church. Most criticisms are usually related to the church, but are transferred to the religion by association. Not only that, criticisms of church and religion are almost always used as a criticism of God, which in my opinion is the greatest fallacy. Unfortunately, these 3 very different things are often one big blob of undifferentiated concepts in the minds of the materialists.

Never mind proving it. Just tell us how you know. Or maybe you wanted to write "I don't believe in God", but somehow got a bit carried away by enthusiasm? ????

I can just imagine the scene... ????

How I imagine it... The big stream of divine will splits into smaller branches (souls), who create even smaller streams (personalities). As long as the small streams think they are separate from the whole stream, they will have the illusion of free will. To them however, it will appear completely real and they act according to this believe. From the view of the whole stream though, everything within it happens in accordance to its flow (divine will). This flow is All There Is....there is nothing that is outside this flow, thus there can't be anything that is not divine will. The illusion of free will only persists as long as there is a personality who believes it is separate from the Whole.

That's exactly it. Can you still call it "free will" if it then resonates in harmony with the absolute? Who is there to exert this free will? This makes my mind wander.... I picture it this way. An entity (or soul) is not a perfect being or consciousness. It is a fragment of the Whole with a job to do. The job is to become whole again by going through specific interactions and experiences. The entity decides that the best way to do this, is to create an even smaller fragment of consciousness to enter the material world. And in doing so, it willingly chooses to forget its true identity. The soul designs the screenplay and then creates a fragment to play in it. In this material world this fragment of consciousness is given a name, is taught how its senses work and how to use them to manipulate the outside world. A distinct ego emerges or is built on top of the fragment. This fragment of consciousness, having forgotten its true identity, is now equipped with an ego and identifies with this construct. The ego can be a useful tool to interact with the outside world, but it can also be a great obstacle on the way to remember. So....the Whole splits and fragments (souls) generate new fragments (personalities) in order to return to the Source. The soul decides where and when the new fragment will incarnate. Since the soul exists in a timeless now, there are no limitations to time or place for the incarnation. And it's not just 1 soul for 1 personality. What if a soul were capable of creating multiple personalities, incarnating "at the same time" to learn different things? One in Roman times as a man, another as a farmer in the Dark Ages, another one as an expat in Thailand in 2023 and one as a woman in the year 3543? Wouldn't that blow your mind? ???? The implications would be amazing, but too long to get into now. "Past lives" would take on a completely new meaning, for example. Why this immense cosmic dance? What is the purpose? Some say it's a way for the Whole to experience itself, because if there is no fragmentation (duality), there is no experience, there is only being. Others say there is no purpose, and that's OK too. Like you say MauGR, we can only speculate about these questions. What ultimately matters most I think, is to listen within and ask ourselves: Who am I? The rest comes by itself.

I'm not completely sure on meaning (although I tend to associate it with the rest), but I'm pretty sure free will is linked to the material life and the ego, and has as much reality as the dream world (Maya) we live in. I believe that once we move on and consciousness is no longer restricted by a body, we will realize that there is only divine will and what we thought of free will was just an illusion. Some people realize that while still in the body, but for most of us, it will take something big (like death) to understand that. In a nutshell, if the world (Maya) and the ego (a construct to interact with Maya) are illusions, then it can be deduced that free will is also part of that illusion. I fought against this idea for a long time, because it's a hard pill to swallow and pretty scary to think we don't have free will, but ultimately I think there is no way around it.

Not many I think, simply because I'm an introvert and value quality over quantity. What gives meaning to my life is how well of a channel I can be, connecting to the inner dimensions and expressing them in the outside world. For example through art, but also through the way I interact with people. I don't have children, so no solace of immortality for me there.

I think the issue with the meaning of life is similar to the issue with free will. In the realm of manifest world both of them seem to exist, just like time and space seem to be real. But I also think that there are conditions where they all just fall away. Meaning, free will, time, space become just concepts without any reality. Both conditions can be valid at the same time and are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I still gravitate around the first, but I can also glimpse the truth in the second. It's a fascinating proposition.

Yes, I understand. I just mean that percentage wise, there are more people in the second category, simply because it takes a lot of introspection and awareness to reach the first category. Where am I at? Good question. Right now I'm working on old, deep seated beliefs that I think need to be cleared to better understand who I really am. It's a work in progress.