mauGR1

33 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

..but giving a surge of ethics to the whole world through spirituality is not something I see as realistic at this point. 

Some day i think the same, but i still have some hope.

48 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

For me the answer isn't to look for a god as gods have a bad track record both with practical ethics and of intervening and fixing things. Spiritual endeavours might help bring a kind of peace. 

That's fair enough, no one can deny your common sense, but perhaps a little more general interest in spiritual research could add some ethics to science. 

If you don't see the slippery slope of a science without ethics it's ok, i guess, surely you are not alone.

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It has nothing to do with those pointing out science's limitations and whether or not in turn they reject physics.

Yet, those science's limitations, which can be called sometimes aberrations, you seem to be not too willing to discuss.

In other words, science seems quite willing to help the development of technology, even when that technology is obviously unethical, for a price.

Someone may not see anything wrong with it, after all, making money is important.. yet i have the feeling that this is a wrong path for the whole world to follow..

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Science is a dangerous thing.  I'm actually fearful of these science-minded posters.  They're mad, I tell ya.

Yep, and i find somehow comforting that someone, once in a while,  shares those feelings. 

It seems like all the religion fanatics of the middle ages have reincarnated as science fanatics of today. ????

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As a youth I almost burned down our family home with a bunsen burner whilst performing a chemistry experiment.  I was lucky to get out alive.  Fortunately no one in my family was home at the time and I was able to dispose of all of the evidence 

Lol, you just reminded me of what i did once playing with benzene in the bathroom, but i was caught in the act .

The terror on my mother's face as she was staring at the column of flames erupting from the sink was priceless. ????

12 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Here's a though that is not meant to be antagonistic... do you think it is at all possible that the spiritual world is just a state of mind, a figment of your imagination that you would love to be real because it allows you to answers questions that, without other means, cannot be answered?

That's quite possible !

It's also true that every day, while reading my favourite master's lectures, i ask myself the same question you're asking me.

I have no doubt though, that exploring the difference between the awakening state, the deep sleeping state, and the dreamlike state can give one interesting clues about consciousness. 

For example, when you dream, you are still you, but your relationship with your physical body is completely different. 

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Oh, I wouldn't say that assessment is cynical.  It's not.  It is, however, very accurate.

Yet, some people don't want to hear it ????

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Science confines itself to the objective world.  

If one had to be extremely cynical, it could be said that materialistic science is building its own prison.

10 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing. 

That's magnanimous from science ????

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

 

I'm a visual learner, so this is my take on the question of time.

I imagine a rotating disc, the "disc of creation". As we know, the edges of the disc will rotate much faster than the center. The closer we get to the center, the lower the speed. Imagining the center being close to infinite (say

1×10−a gazillion), makes time at that point close to zero (timeless/NOW). 

I also imagine there to be a slope, with the highest point in the center. That way, the center has a 360 degree view of the whole disc at all times. The closer you get to the edge, the less of the disc is visible to the observer.
 

An observer on the edge of the disc will experience time very differently from an observer on other points of the disc, closer to the center. For the observer on the edge, time seems to be linear, with a past, a present and a future, but for the observer closer to the center, those 3 points are observable and coexist all at the same time. 

This model explains the paradox Tippaporn was talking about. Time exists, is relative to the distance from the center, becomes less binding the closer we get to the center, and ceases to exist at the center.

So, where is God in this model? "God" is the center of the "disc of creation", all seeing, all knowing, timeless. But God is also the disc itself. There is nothing in creation that is not God. 

 

 

Excellent, although diagrams can only be a pale reflection of " all that exist", this is a good one !

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The paradox is solved by understanding that time exists differently depending on what system of reality one is looking at.  Again, time is relative.  

Holy words. 

I think Louis Armstrong, also known as Satchmo, or "the angel of harlem, would agree.

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Likely we are the same. Maybe humans are significantly different to other life forms through evolution rather than god anointing us in some way. We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness,We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness, and the way they live. Not and the way they live. Not sure justified or not. Keep in mind the sunset you find beautiful is in the environment in which humans evolved. Warm weather, beautiful things etc feel good for us, in my opinion, as an adaption by humans to the world not a god made world created to be beautiful to humans. 

Warning, you are a little step away from being a believer. 

.. just if you start asking yourself whether consciousness originates from humans, or, most likely  imho, it's already here and there, regardless of our life on this tiny planet.

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

you can consider what is going on where you are and if you don’t simply rely on your feelings, but feelings can be a factor, but look at what is going on and attempt objectivity that is all science is.

That's a good point, yet it appears that materialistic science doesn't have a high opinion of " feelings ".

Instead,  spiritual science gives a lot of importance to feelings, which are connected with imagination and desire, which are connected with thoughts, which are connected to actions and results in the material world.

All of this " soup" ingredients are the ingredients of your spiritual body, which is called " soul".

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have said this before but even in the world of god, dreams, spirituality, the 10th dimension, things may work differently but that difference can be described and is science. Even if no rules apply that is  a thing that can be described and science can attempt to work it out to make the dream world consistent with the known world. If there is a different so far unknown world.

There is indeed some truth in what you say, and there indeed may be some sort of " rules " in the higher realms.

However, by now, you should know the difference between " science " intended as pure knowledge, and mechanistic ( or materialistic) science, which studies the property of matter,  and has become a pretty unethical tool in the hands of a few.

Yes, obviously the natural  (or material) world and the state of awakening  are consistent with the spiritual worlds and the dreamlike state.

So, yes, true science can describe spiritual realities, but it always will be a subjective experience described by a man ( or a group of men ) with all its imperfections. 

Btw, thanks for your thoughtful post.

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Science is everywhere by definition including heaven and the 5th dimension and in everyone’s head and spiritual world. Nowhere to hide. 

Well, at least we know the name of your God.

I would say, however, that your god is a human construct, and it's totally insignificant in the spiritual world.

When you dream, you are in a spiritual world, and you cannot measure anything there.

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The question then is whether God imagined what would live on the planets and what they would become, so was invested in the creatures on the planets, or if God left it up to evolution and didn't interfere with whatever happened.

Thanks for understanding the meaning of what i was trying to say.

Well, i believe that there's a hierarchy from the point of view of small beings, living on a small planet in the vastness of the visible universe.

It's fair imho to say that smaller beings can operate changes and transform smaller realities, in the same way, higher beings can transform higher,  or bigger realities. 

I know that for most this is complete nonsense, but what can i do..

As for Seth's concept of 'bedrock reality ' i can compare it to the Hindu vision of the trinity, which somehow i find easier to understand than the Christian trinity, we can see the solar system as a tiny atom, with a sun as nucleus, the planets orbiting, and last but not least the force of attraction ( which can be defined as love) which keeps everything together. 

This repeating pattern can be called God. 

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But somehow in this theory there is this point where a belief is no longer considered a belief about reality but a condition, or fact, about reality and then somehow beliefs therefore create one's reality. 

I consider this to be very sound reasoning, long before hearing about Seth.

If we take time out of the equation, one may even say that matter and thought are the same thing, just with a different frequency. 

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I'm out of this thread

Deja vu n. 5 ????

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I actually love to stir the pot!  To get people to start using their noodles in ways they don't even suspect.  It's a good antidote for boredom, too.  Controversy is a good thing. 

I was typing a long ( for my standard) post about bedrock reality, but it went accidentally deleted, so, forget it ????

Yes, stirring the pot is ok, and controversy is good.

But we still can agree to disagree on almost everything, what is left is probably bedrock reality ????

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

or they could be false prophets.

 

Well, to be honest, I'm aware of that possibility, a false prophet could give his followers mostly correct informations to gain their trust, and then completely mislead them.

So being skeptical is not a bad thing at all.

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

2 alternatives I suppose. You could think the words have some wisdom but consider the source being the spirit unlikely. Or you could take the whole package and say they are either both worthwhile or not worthwhile as the truth crumbles if part of it is false.  On the theory that it is simply her it could be that in separating from herself she opens up something else within herself like an unconscious voice that might show a different point of view to the norm. 

Not necessarily. 

It doesn't matter to me if it's Seth or J.Roberts talking to herself. 

There are many cases in literature where people claim to be in contact with spirit, some may be charlatans of course, but others may be not.

As i said, comparing Seth's words with various other spiritual masters' and texts', i have a positive impression that that wisdom, although with different words, images and metaphors, is worth at least some consideration. 

Incidentally, I've had enough experiences with the supernatural not to discount or dismiss anything, and i would add that,  generally, drinking alcohol, even in small quantities, limits drastically the opportunity to get in contact with supernatural beings. Perhaps medicaments and other intoxicants have similar effects, but I'm not sure about that.

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It is my opinion that if a person feels they are speaking on behalf of a different person the most likely explanation is that parts of themselves have become separate and they are communicating with themselves. Maybe they find it hard to talk of metaphysical things and create an 'other' to do it for them while they tend to daily life. The possibility of an actual spirit seems very 19th century and needs incredibly strong evidence to be deemed likely or correct. So someone who doesn't take it on or give it detailed analysis has a reasonable and rational basis to do so. 

The fact that you have never seen/heard a spirit is not evidence that some other people cannot see/hear.

If you think that all the people who have seen/heard a spirit are mentally ill, perhaps you have a prejudice. 

Perhaps, removing that prejudice just for a short while could give you another perspective. 

We are not talking about blind faith here, and you would admit that having a strong prejudice is not the right attitude to understand what Seth , or anybody says.

Btw, we are looking at the finger here, and not at the moon, so to speak.

J.Roberts and Seth are just the messengers of a cosmic vision; i have no intention, at the moment, to study Seth's message intensively, but what I've read so far makes enough sense to me.

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

these people on this thread are playing psychological games if you don't accept what they're preaching. 

 

The thread which keeps on giving ????

49 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Good luck finding willing subjects you can indoctrinate with this garbage. 

That's harsh, don't you think?

Why not staying on topic and say what do you think about existence, reality and consciousness, just saying. 

Or do you think that " science " knows anything you want to know ?

No one is trying to indoctrinate anyone here, although peaks of egos may occasionally appear ????