Do you believe in God and why

[save the frogs]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

save the frogs.  The conspiracy theorist.

cult leader may be over the top.

but there is such a thing as being too pushy with one's ideas.

and especially if those ideas are not that sound, it could be a problem.

 

you mentioned buddhism as a dogma in a past post.

it's only a dogma if you treat it as such.

i've personally read a few buddhist books, grabbed some ideas that interested me, but ignored 90% of it.

 

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You are truly a gentle soul, Sunmaster.  You could have addressed your post specifically to me, as it is obviously in response to how you perceive my approach and you wish to comment on my approach by contrasting it with yours.  Of course as long as you don't name me then there can be no confrontation.  No worries if you directly name me or even call me out.  I enjoy criticism.  As long as it's constructive and not given for the sole purpose of denigrating.  I agree with what you say but I also disagree.  But you'll have to wait on my peculiar perspective until tomorrow.

I'm not afraid of direct confrontation. It has its time and place in a conversation. 

I just don't find it conducive as a long term strategy or method. 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Hummin said:

I know what I know, I believe what I believe, and  I say what I say! It is not up to me to tell everyone else what illusion they are on! 

 

I do not claim to know, like some others repeatably do often. Thats the difference, and I continue keeping my reality true and real for me! 

 

You see the difference? Maybe you need another decade around the sun, to understand that your reality might be different from others? Even Seth have his followers, it is still just a minor fragment of everything. Just a small tiny pixel of the whole truth.

 

One day you might understand ????

I get what you said and I agree.

My reality is probably different to everyone else's, but it's good enough for me.

I was very religious as a pupil and became a sacristan at an early age. That was my reality then. However, the Chaplain told me that there had been complaints that I was too young to be a sacristan, so I had to give it up, which was the beginning of my realisation that religion was not what I was looking for. So being an agnostic became my reality then.

Many years later I had my "Road to Damascus" moment and then that became my reality.

IMO, anyone so invested in one version of reality that they can't accept a different reality exists is probably missing out on growing spirituality.

Perhaps it was a good thing I was rejected as a sacristan, or I might have been religious all my life, and lived a ( IMO ) sham.

[save the frogs]

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

save the frogs.  The conspiracy theorist. 

I had some down time.

I looked up "Seth" ... it's the "Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts" you keep referencing, right?

 

I had a look at some quotes here:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/474304-seth-speaks-the-eternal-validity-of-the-soul-a-seth-book

 

And I've concluded after reading these quotes that this is mostly rubbish.

and that Jane Roberts was a charlatan / con artist.

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

[mauGR1]

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 ????

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I had some down time.

I looked up "Seth" ... it's the "Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts" you keep referencing, right?

 

I had a look at some quotes here:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/474304-seth-speaks-the-eternal-validity-of-the-soul-a-seth-book

 

And I've concluded after reading these quotes that this is mostly rubbish.

and that Jane Roberts was a charlatan / con artist.

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

The ego is a jealous god, and it wants its interests served. It does not want to admit the reality of any dimensions except those within which it feels comfortable and can understand. It was meant to be an aid but it has been allowed to become a tyrant.

Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)

 

 

 

Seems quite fitting here, don't you think? ????

[save the frogs]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Seems quite fitting here, don't you think?

well, she's talking about ego.

maybe that particular quote shouldn't be taken out of context.

 

but just because people limit themselves, doesn't mean what SETH is teaching is what people should open their minds to.

what's worse? narrow-mindedness or filling your head with nonsense?

 

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

well, she's talking about ego.

maybe that particular quote shouldn't be taken out of context.

 

but just because people limit themselves, doesn't mean what SETH is teaching is what people should open their minds to.

what's worse? narrow-mindedness or filling your head with nonsense?

 

Right, both are to be avoided. 

 

But you say it's all rubbish after reading a few quotes out of context. You did the same thing when judging this thread...

Do you really believe you can make a fair assessment with so little information? 

 

Plus, you don't explain why or which part you think is rubbish or nonsense. Should we just take your word for it? 

 

[save the frogs]

14 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

But you say it's all rubbish after reading a few quotes out of context.

well, it's mostly a hunch on my part. 

but I re-read the quotes and maybe they're all "out of context". 

so this exercise is a failed attempt on my part.

technically, i would have to read the entire books.

which i will not do.

hey guys, i'm taking a break from this thread.

take care!

Edited March 18, 2023 by save the frogs

[OmegaRacer]

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

well, it's mostly a hunch on my part. 

but I re-read the quotes and maybe they're all "out of context". 

so this exercise is a failed attempt on my part.

technically, i would have to read the entire books.

which i will not do.

hey guys, i'm taking a break from this thread.

take care!

I just had a strong episode of deja vu. ????????

[save the frogs]

1 minute ago, OmegaRacer said:

I just had a strong episode of deja vu.

who the heck are you? never heard of you before.

 

ok guys. THIS quote is NOT out of context and DEFINITELY BS!

no such thing as "simultaneous lives". total garbage!

“It is not correct, therefore, to suppose that your actions in this life are caused by a previous existence, or that you are being punished in this life for crimes in a past one. The lives are simultaneous.”
― Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, OmegaRacer said:

I just had a strong episode of deja vu. ????????

Same here, at least thrice in few days ????

[OmegaRacer]

16 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

who the heck are you? never heard of you before.

 

ok guys. THIS quote is NOT out of context and DEFINITELY BS!

no such thing as "simultaneous lives". total garbage!

“It is not correct, therefore, to suppose that your actions in this life are caused by a previous existence, or that you are being punished in this life for crimes in a past one. The lives are simultaneous.”
― Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul

 

Sorry, I didn't know I had to introduce myself to you first and that I needed your permission to reply.

????????

Edited March 18, 2023 by OmegaRacer

[Sunmaster]

36 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

who the heck are you? never heard of you before.

 

ok guys. THIS quote is NOT out of context and DEFINITELY BS!

no such thing as "simultaneous lives". total garbage!

“It is not correct, therefore, to suppose that your actions in this life are caused by a previous existence, or that you are being punished in this life for crimes in a past one. The lives are simultaneous.”
― Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul

 

If one quote is all you base your opinion on, without having read the book it's taken out of, then it's still out of context. 

[save the frogs]

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

If one quote is all you base your opinion on, without having read the book it's taken out of, then it's still out of context. 

as i mentioned in another thread, there's no time to fact-check everything.

would take a lot of time and effort to read all the books.

i'll cut my losses after that one silly quote.

[Sunmaster]

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

as i mentioned in another thread, there's no time to fact-check everything.

would take a lot of time and effort to read all the books.

i'll cut my losses after that one silly quote.

Right. Why go through the effort of reading a whole book, when you can just pick a short quote and "confirm" the opinion you already had? Makes perfect sense. ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

well, it's mostly a hunch on my part. 

but I re-read the quotes and maybe they're all "out of context". 

so this exercise is a failed attempt on my part.

technically, i would have to read the entire books.

which i will not do.

hey guys, i'm taking a break from this thread.

take care!

You and I have had more farewells on this thread than Dame Nellie Melba. That's an Australian reference.

I get where you are coming from, in that Tippaporn is clearly genuine in his belief about Seth, but his posts over time can seem to become a bit too assured in their perceived correctness, and in turn his opinions of others become problematic, based on the Seth theory. 

The Seth thing does not resonate with me - I always wonder why a disembodied spirit cannot provide more proof and concrete practical stuff to prove their knowledge and other worldliness - but I accept that many others feel differently and I haven't looked at it enough to build a complete basis for an opinion. 

[Tippaporn]

10 hours ago, save the frogs said:

cult leader may be over the top.

but there is such a thing as being too pushy with one's ideas.

and especially if those ideas are not that sound, it could be a problem.

 

you mentioned buddhism as a dogma in a past post.

it's only a dogma if you treat it as such.

i've personally read a few buddhist books, grabbed some ideas that interested me, but ignored 90% of it.

"cult leader may be over the top."

Over the top to ludicrousness?  I think that's the perception of most here.

"but there is such a thing as being too pushy with one's ideas."

Different strokes for different folks.  There are folks who actually engage in the ideas I present.  They find them intriguing and are eager to know more.  They are curios people.  They desire to know.  They have the patience required to know.  They naturally avoid all of the many pitfalls which serve as barricades for others.

I understand full well that understanding does not come easily at times, and certainly not always quickly.  As with many things, it requires persistence.  Only those who have heard enough then deem that persistence to be pushiness.

"and especially if those ideas are not that sound, it could be a problem."

If you wanted to be fair and honest you would admit that you have little knowledge of the ideas I present.  They are foreign to you.  And as I've often said, you cannot explain how life works, or who we are, in a few paragraphs.  Not only that but, again if you wanted to be fair and honest, you must admit that there's a very good chance that everything you believe to be true is not necessarily true.  So if an idea flies in the face of what you believe to be true you forget what I point out in the previous sentence.  You then come from the position, using the assumption, that everything you know thus far is indeed true.  And so, between lacking the patience to wait for a full explanation and assuming that all you know to be true is true then it's only natural and logical that you would, in your haste, ascribe a small portion of an explanation to be unsound.  That's purely elementary, my friend.

"you mentioned buddhism as a dogma in a past post."

Rather, you interpreted me as saying that Buddhism is a dogma.  For I said no such thing.  Buddhism is not dogma.  As with any religion (and yes, it's been argued that Buddhism isn't a religion) there exists a certain degree of dogma.

"i've personally read a few buddhist books, grabbed some ideas that interested me, but ignored 90% of it."

I wonder what can be inferred from that statement. 

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I had some down time.

I looked up "Seth" ... it's the "Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts" you keep referencing, right?

 

I had a look at some quotes here:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/474304-seth-speaks-the-eternal-validity-of-the-soul-a-seth-book

 

And I've concluded after reading these quotes that this is mostly rubbish.

and that Jane Roberts was a charlatan / con artist.

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

Brilliant.  You look at a few quotes without even considering their fuller context and then immediately conclude that it's all rubbish.  Zero patience in attempting any understanding.  Simply brilliant there, save the frogs.  Well done!!

Let's look at just the first quote:

“Suffering is not good for the soul, unless it teaches you how to stop suffering. That is its purpose.”

Not true?  Rubbish?  What's he saying there?  Can you put it in your own words?  Rephrase it?  Can you explain what is untrue about it?  Can you provide your own explanation for why suffering in the world exists?  What's your theory of the case?  And how would your theory work as a practical application?  How do you handle the suffering in the world?  What do you make of it?  How many seconds did it take for you to conclude there's no value in that statement and that it's meaningless? 

So many questions.  Will you answer them one by one?  Or is your time limited?

Now if I were to say you lack patience and do not at all attempt any true understanding by pondering upon the statement for a greater length than a split second some might accuse me of stating my opinions.  Unjustly so, too.  And point out that it's problematic for me to do so.  Yet is it an opinion or is it an accurate assessment?  If someone were to say of the drunk passed out mid morning on a park bench that he drinks too much would that be a judgmental opinion or an accurate assessment?

Does the truth ever hurt?

Questions.  More questions.  And ever more questions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VLOm4_559UI/TL7wqx9XF7I/AAAAAAAABe4/XetoXVg4bao/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/mybrainisfull.jpg

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Tippaporn

[save the frogs]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

"you mentioned buddhism as a dogma in a past post."

Rather, you interpreted me as saying that Buddhism is a dogma.  For I said no such thing.  Buddhism is not dogma. 

maybe you talk too much?

and you can't even remember half the things you're saying?

or you don't know what you're saying half the time?

do i need to sift through your volumes of text to find it?

i'm too lazy. 

[save the frogs]

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

The Seth thing does not resonate with me

then, that's fine. go with your gut.

it sounds like mostly nonsense to me.

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

 

[mauGR1]

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 ????

[save the frogs]

 

 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

“Suffering is not good for the soul, unless it teaches you how to stop suffering. That is its purpose.”

Not true?  Rubbish?  What's he saying there?  Can you put it in your own words?  Rephrase it?  Can you explain what is untrue about it?  Can you provide your own explanation for why suffering in the world exists?  What's your theory of the case?  And how would your theory work as a practical application?  How do you handle the suffering in the world?  What do you make of it?  How many seconds did it take for you to conclude there's no value in that statement and that it's meaningless?

no, i agree that quote has some validity.

that would be needed to read in context with the surrounding text.

i'm guessing the Seth books is not the best place to get a good explanation though. 

I'm pretty sure Jane Roberts takes a concept which has validity and screws it up. 

 

here's a link for you:

https://jayvay.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/stop-telling-me-i-need-to-read-the-seth-material-i-have-i-dont-its-<deleted>/

Stop Telling Me I Need to Read The Seth Material. I Have. I Don't. It's Cr*p.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by save the frogs

[transam]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If one quote is all you base your opinion on, without having read the book it's taken out of, then it's still out of context. 

I wonder what Jehovah Witness God believers do.....???? 

[Sunmaster]

 

20 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

then, that's fine. go with your gut.

it sounds like mostly nonsense to me.

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

 

Imagine being so threatened by ideas that you start seeing witches everywhere.

Some people here would have made great inquisition witch hunters...nudge nudge. ????

 

But then, since everything happens at the same time, maybe, maybe they ARE, somewhere, right now...hunting a poor old woman with a black cat....

Wooow ????????

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Sunmaster

[save the frogs]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Imagine being so threatened by ideas

who says I am "threatened" by anything?

do I look scared? 

 

 

[save the frogs]

https://www.the-office.com/seth/

 

“How about karma?”

No, Seth does not advocate the concept of karma, or “paybacks” carried from one lifetime to the next. Seth speaks of physical lifetimes arising from a timeless, spaceless realm of Consciousness. In these terms, multiple lifetimes essentially occur simultaneously. Lessons not learned in one lifetime will be learned in another. Love not practiced in one lifetime will be practiced in another. However, there is no “karma” carried between linear lifetimes in the traditional sense of eastern religions.

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

First of all, Tipaporn has quoted this teaching in one of his posts.

And then, when I said he was dismissing the concept of karma, he denied it.

But here it states that the Seth teachings do dismiss karma. 

So, you are contradicting yourself.

You don't even know what you're saying half the time.

You're the expert on the Seth teachings and you're contradicting what they're saying. 

 

Also, if you believe that "lifetimes occur simultaneously" 

... then maybe you're .... gullible?

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by save the frogs

[Sunmaster]

29 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

who says I am "threatened" by anything?

do I look scared? 

 

 

I do.

And yes. Very much so.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Sunmaster

[save the frogs]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Does the truth ever hurt?

you are starting to come across as a complete joke to me.

you are a self-proclaimed expert on the Seth teachings, yet you claimed you weren't dismissing karma.

when in fact, that's one of the most important part of the Seth teachings.

I won't be reading your Seth nonsense anymore. 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by save the frogs

[Fat is a type of crazy]

I look for interesting aspects of human nature here. I think that's all we have is human nature and feelings. 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.