Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Woof999 said:

There's that answer again.

I could try to explain it, but I don't care if you believe or not. Your beliefs are nothing to do with me.

I post on here because it's interesting and I'm learning stuff, but I'm not trying to convert anyone.

[AsianAtHeart]

8 hours ago, Mark1066 said:

If you’d ever actually read the Bible you would know that, according to the Gospels, Jesus said the most important commandments were: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind…the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Thank you for referencing scripture--I appreciate that!

 

I've read the Bible more than once, and it may actually say more than what many people interpret in the passage you have quoted.

 

Consider Jesus' words in a related passage:

 

Quote

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength: this is the first commandment. (Mark 12:29-30, American KJV)

The first commandment of the Decalogue, as we know, is this:

 

Quote

You shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3, American KJV)

While the subject is the same, these seem to be interpreted differently.  Of course, Jesus was actually quoting from what is well known among the Jews as the "Shema"--a passage in Deuteronomy which all good Jews memorize early, that starts with the Hebrew word "shema," hence its name.

 

Quote

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: (Deuteronomy 6:4-6, KJV)

The word "first" which Jesus used to reference this commandment is the Greek "protos" (think "prototype").  It can mean first in a chronological sense, but it is often used to indicate first in importance, just as we sometimes would use the word in English.  Certainly, the first commandment of the Ten is to have no other god in the presence of Jehovah (Hebrew says literally "[to/before/beside/above/together with/by] my face").  To worship is to love; and God asks us to love Him more than anyone or anything else.  That is the first commandment of all.

 

So, while focusing on the "first" commandment, Jesus appears to be saying BOTH that it was the first chronologically AND that it was the first in importance (the "great" commandment).

 

To know God is to love Him, since we love Him because He loved us first, and we learn this as we get to know Him.  God is love, and the more we see His love, the more it will fill our own lives with its sweet influence.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, AsianAtHeart said:

To know God is to love Him, since we love Him because He loved us first, and we learn this as we get to know Him.  God is love, and the more we see His love, the more it will fill our own lives with its sweet influence.

As far as i know,  Jesus said once " i came not to bring peace, but a sword ".

How would you interpret these words in relation to modern times ?

Are we seeing the beginning of something resembling the Biblical prediction of the apocalypse?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

As far as i know,  Jesus said once " i came not to bring peace, but a sword ".

How would you interpret these words in relation to modern times ?

Are we seeing the beginning of something resembling the Biblical prediction of the apocalypse?

I don't know if it's the apocalypse, but sure seems like the end of western civilization. The resemblance between now and the end of the Roman Empire is quite stark.

The worship of money and false gods ( science and social media ) was never going to end well.

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know if it's the apocalypse, but sure seems like the end of western civilization. The resemblance between now and the end of the Roman Empire is quite stark.

The worship of money and false gods ( science and social media ) was never going to end well.

Apocalypse means also revelation, if one wants to look at the positive side.

The way i see, we have the chance to evolve faster than usual, both individually and collectively, while the myopic materialistic vision is approaching the end.

Let's get ready for the fireworks, it's not going to take long.

[Hummin]

On 9/17/2022 at 10:46 AM, AsianAtHeart said:

xylophone, I'm not sure when you joined this discussion, but two weeks ago I addressed the "eternal hell" myth in the post quoted below which I assume you have not read.  I believe it will interest you.

 

For a little background to all posting in this thread, I am a scholar of the Bible--though not a clergyman.  I have studied the Bible extensively, including in its original Hebrew and Greek languages.  This does not mean I know all of the Bible, for one can never stop learning and there is always more to learn; but I would be happy to answer any Bible questions you may have, and if I don't know the answer, I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance, either. 

 

May God guide.

 

 

Then the question who remain to ask, why do religion give such complex and confusing texts to be understodd by ordinary people, who is most people. The bible is an important book of history and influence, but to claim it is the only truth, is wrong. 
 

I have started to read The Silk Road: A new history of the world, and think some would be interested to read it. 

Frankopan realigns our understanding of the world, pointing us eastward. It was on the Silk Roads that East and West first encountered each other through trade and conquest, leading to the spread of ideas, cultures and religions. From the rise and fall of empires to the spread of Buddhism and the advent of Christianity and Islam, right up to the great wars of the twentieth century—this book shows how the fate of the West has always been inextricably linked to the East

 

https://www.amazon.com/Silk-Roads-New-History-World/dp/1101912375

[AsianAtHeart]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Then the question who remain to ask, why do religion give such complex and confusing texts to be understodd by ordinary people, who is most people.

If the Bible were so simple that it required no diligence in study to grasp it, who would believe it could have come from God?  Would God give all instruction at, say, a third-grade level?

 

There are parts of the Bible that are extremely simple and easy to understand at face value.  And then, if you study it more deeply, it may be possible to understand it on a whole different level.  It is this very complexity and depth that authenticate its origin.  The Bible has material for all to consider and enjoy, from the simplest child to the wisest scholar.  And what is most fascinating is that it can be the very same Bible passage under consideration for both!

 

What's more, the Bible tells the straight truth, detailing the weaknesses of humanity in addition to his accomplishments--both good and evil get fair representation, without hiding the objectionable points of its heroes.  It is this transparency, this honest presentation of the facts, that helps us see not only its authenticity, but also that we, too, though we have defects, may yet find acceptance with God if we should seek Him whole-heartedly.

 

 

[Hummin]

Tried to read some of the replies here while I have been searching my god in the forrest, fishing, picking mushrooms, blueberries and drinking clear untreated water, and not sure I should reply anymore because some of it is to far out there. 

 

I feel fresh, reborn and humble knowing and accepted Im just a tiny nothing in the big picture. Nature is great peace out

 

 

 

According to Vedas there are 33 Gods/Devas. These Gods are separated in the following pattern : 12 + 11 + 8 + 2. 12 is the number of Adityas, 11 are the number of Rudras, 8 is the number of Vasus, 1 is Prajapati, the Master of Gods, and 1 is the Supreme Ruler who is very powerful

 

And that is only a small part of the earth’s population who believe, than take the whole universe populations and their views. 

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

If the Bible were so simple that it required no diligence in study to grasp it, who would believe it could have come from God?  Would God give all instruction at, say, a third-grade level?

 

There are parts of the Bible that are extremely simple and easy to understand at face value.  And then, if you study it more deeply, it may be possible to understand it on a whole different level.  It is this very complexity and depth that authenticate its origin.  The Bible has material for all to consider and enjoy, from the simplest child to the wisest scholar.  And what is most fascinating is that it can be the very same Bible passage under consideration for both!

 

What's more, the Bible tells the straight truth, detailing the weaknesses of humanity in addition to his accomplishments--both good and evil get fair representation, without hiding the objectionable points of its heroes.  It is this transparency, this honest presentation of the facts, that helps us see not only its authenticity, but also that we, too, though we have defects, may yet find acceptance with God if we should seek Him whole-heartedly.

 

 

Well, it is simple because you believe it is simple, and at once someone else take their view on it, it becomes another menaing, and multiply with everyone who would like to have opinion on what the truth is. Every alfa male or woman who wants to lead will use the bible for their pupose as every goverment and so on. You get me. 
 

Bible is true for those who is told it is the truth, and want to believe it is the truth, nothing else

[AsianAtHeart]

30 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Well, it is simple because you believe it is simple, and at once someone else take their view on it, it becomes another menaing, and multiply with everyone who would like to have opinion on what the truth is. Every alfa male or woman who wants to lead will use the bible for their pupose as every goverment and so on. You get me. 
 

Bible is true for those who is told it is the truth, and want to believe it is the truth, nothing else

The Bible is true for everyone.  For example,  go and rebuild the city of Tyre--if you dare.  It will never happen, because God said it wouldn't, as is recorded in the book of Ezekiel (look at the last verse of this quote especially).

 

CITY OF TYRE
 

Quote

 

Eze 26:7  For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Eze 26:8  He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

Eze 26:9  And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

Eze 26:10  By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

Eze 26:11  With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

Eze 26:12  And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

Eze 26:13  And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

Eze 26:14  And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

 

And it isn't impossible to rebuild a city--or even to build one new.  Longview, Washington was built on a marsh in two years by one man some years ago.  The city of Rome was rebuilt after Nero burned it to the ground.  Many cities have been rebuilt.  With but $5 each from all the unbelievers in Britain and America, there would be sufficient to rebuild Tyre.  Why don't the atheists pool together and disprove the Bible once and for all?

 

Why not form an infidel colony on the site of old Tyre, go into the fishing business in a modern manner, and there, in defiance of prophecy, dare to answer God’s challenge, ‘Thou shalt be built no more; for I the Lord have spoken it?’

 

The site is habitable: ten million gallons of water daily gush from the springs, and fertile fields stretch clear to the distant mountains.

 

Since there are millions of determined doubters who write numberless books to disprove the Bible, how did any prophet have the breath-taking daring to utter such a defiant prophecy? For two thousand years no skeptic has dared say the prediction is untrue.

 

In fact, Volney, the French skeptic, tells of visiting this spot and observing fishermen drying their nets on the rocks, just as the prophet said they would.” (“Travels,” Vol. 2, page 212).

 

Every year, every day, every minute that Tyre has remained in utter ruin it has disproved the emphatic declaration of skeptics that Bible predictions are vague or were made after the events which they foretell took place.

 

TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM

 

The thought of actually trying to disprove a prophecy is not so fantastic. It is just what ought to occur to the logical mind. It did occur to one determined doubter.

 

There lived a learned man about A. D. 300 who read the words of Jesus in Luke 21:24: ‘Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ He had once been a Christian, so he knew the predictions. He made up his mind that Jerusalem should be trodden underfoot by the Israelites instead of by the Gentiles.

 

This man also knew that the Bible foretold the utter destruction of the Jewish Temple and its services, that the Jews were to be scattered to all nations of the earth, and that Christianity was to go to ‘every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.’

 

He was determined to overthrow Christianity, not by killing its adherents, which had been tried by his predecessors for 250 years and had served only to increase its followers, but by the more effective method of shattering the prophecies. Thus he would prove Jesus a liar. And he had the power, if anyone ever had, for he was Julian, emperor of Rome, with an immense army and the wealth and power of the civilized world at his command.

 

That he intended to stage a contest between himself and God, that he consciously planned to disprove prophecy, is stated by a writer as infidelic as Julian himself — Edward Gibbon, the world’s accepted authority on that period, in chapter 23 of his famous history. Rather than paraphrase, I will include Gibbon’s account:
 

Quote

 

[Julian] ‘embraced the extraordinary design of rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. In a public epistle to the nation or community of the Jews, dispersed through the provinces, he pities their misfortunes, condemns their oppressors, praises their constancy, declares himself their gracious protector. . . . They deserved the friendship of Julian by their implacable hatred of the Christian name. . . .

 

‘After the final destruction of the temple by the arms of Titus and Hadrian, a ploughshare was drawn over the consecrated ground, as a sign of perpetual interdiction. . . .

 

‘The vain and ambitious mind of Julian might aspire to restore the ancient glory of the temple of Jerusalem. As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the imperial sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation. . . .

 

‘He resolved to erect, without delay, on the commanding eminence of Moriah, a stately temple, . . . and to invite a numerous colony of Jews, whose stern fanaticism would be always prepared to second, and even to anticipate, the hostile measures of the pagan government.

 

‘Among the friends of the emperor . . .the first place was assigned, by Julian himself, to the virtuous and learned Alypius. . . .This minister . . .received an extraordinary commission to restore, in its pristine beauty, the temple of Jerusalem. The desire for rebuilding the temple has in every age been the ruling passion of the children of Israel. . . . Every purse was opened in liberal contributions, every hand claimed a share in the pious labour, and the commands of a great monarch were executed by the enthusiasm of a whole people.

 

’Yet, on this occasion, the joint efforts of power and enthusiasm were unsuccessful; and the ground of the Jewish temple, which is now covered by a Mahometan mosque, still continued to exhibit the same edifying spectacle of ruin and desolation. . . .

 

‘The Christians entertained a natural and pious expectation that, in this memorable contest, the honour of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle.

 

‘Whilst Alypius, assisted by the governor of the province, urged, with vigour and diligence, the execution of the work, horrible balls of fire breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and the victorious element continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent, as it were, to drive them to a distance, the undertaking was abandoned.’

 

 

Julian could have rebuilt a whole city with his wealth and power, but he could not rebuild a single temple. He began his work with a great flourish of trumpets, advertised to the whole world his purpose, and the reason for it; he was going to disprove the Bible prophecies and so destroy Christianity.

 

Account for it as you please, two facts remain: First, Julian boasted he was going to disprove Bible prophecy by doing what the Bible had said would not be done; second, with all the wealth and power of the world at his command, he failed.

 

Now, some might ask whether God predicted the event and then supernaturally intervened to see that His word was not thwarted. Was it not rather the superstition of the workmen that defeated the project?

 

But it is immaterial whether the workmen were discouraged by superstition or not. The prophets did not say how such attempts to rebuild were to be defeated. The public were invited by God Himself to defeat His prophecies if they could. Here was a man who boldly, boastingly accepted the challenge, put the power and wealth of the Roman Empire into the endeavour, and miserably failed. God had said all such attempts would fail.

 

It is fortuitous that if the endeavour was to be made, one who was wealthy, and who was more powerful than any man now living, tried it. No one else since Julian’s day has made a similar experiment.

 

BABYLON

 

Or consider that the Bible prophesied that Babylon would be abandoned and never inhabited (by people) again. 

 

Quote

Because of the wrath of the LORD it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly desolate: every one that goeth by Babylon shall be astonished, and hiss at all her plagues.  (Jeremiah 51:13)

 

And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon, to make the land of Babylon a desolation without an inhabitant. (Jeremiah 51:29)

 

And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant. (Jeremiah 51:37)

If you want to prove that God does not exist or that the Bible is not true, all you have to do is go live in Babylon.  This wouldn't even require much money--just a plane ticket and a tent would suffice.

 

Whether you admit these facts or not, they are true and cannot be disproven, because God has spoken and He does not lie.  And, regardless of whether you believe the Bible or not, these prophecies still hold true.  This is why I assert that the Bible is true, not only for those who are told so, but for everyone on earth.

[Tippaporn]

23 hours ago, Woof999 said:

On 9/19/2022 at 4:43 PM, Tippaporn said:

That last statement says a lot about what science understands of consciousness.  And it's not a whole lot.

.... and science has the self awareness to at least admit that. The "believers" just say - "you can't explain it, so it must be god", which is hardly convincing.

I think you're mistaking me for a religious guy.  I don't subscribe to religion of any kind.  What I deal with is not at all religious.  No dogma, no contradictions, no fairy tales..

 

23 hours ago, Woof999 said:

On 9/19/2022 at 4:43 PM, Tippaporn said:

What does choice or intelligence have to do with the theory of evolution?

If your lack of intelligence leads you to make decisions that shorten your lifespan then you're hardly likely to contribute to evolution.

Again, intelligence and choice on the part of the individual, or life form, has no bearing whatsoever in the theory of evolution.  Neither does longevity.  The only purpose assigned to a life form is to recreate.  If you can show where the theory deals with any of these three attributes then show it.

 

23 hours ago, Woof999 said:

On 9/19/2022 at 4:43 PM, Tippaporn said:

The bottom line is that if science has no clue as to what consciousness is, what we are, or what life is, then how can science be so cocksure that consciousness plays no role?

Where does science say it is sure let alone cocksure?

We've covered the fact that after 300+ years the only thing that science can agree on regarding consciousness is that it exists.  Nowhere does the theory of evolution incorporate consciousness, which is what we are and we are life.  By omitting it then it stands to reason that they're cocksure consciousness doesn't play a role or function.  While science doesn't state it outright it is implied.  That's just a logical and common sense conclusion.

 

23 hours ago, Woof999 said:

On 9/19/2022 at 4:43 PM, Tippaporn said:

"Chemicals themselves will not give rise to consciousness or life. Your scientists will have to face the fact that consciousness comes first and evolves its own form."
—The Seth Material, Chapter Ten

and what makes you so cocksure that Jane Roberts was right?

The quote is not by Jane Roberts.  It's a quote by Seth.  They're not the same.

 

The short of it is consciousness creates form.  Not the other way around.  I'll provide the reasons why in a series of posts.  Bear with me.

 

23 hours ago, Woof999 said:

You mock science yet without it you might well be chipping away your answers from a block of stone on Mount Ararat rather than on a modern forum that would never exist without it.

I am not anti-science at all.  Yet I strongly criticise science when the criticism is earned.  Science has some serious failings.  Much of what it professes and believes is in fact highly damaging.  Should I turn a blind eye to it's many shortcomings and simply worship science in eternal gratitude for what amazing accomplishments they've succeeded in bringing about for humanity?  To fawn only while ignoring what can even be deemed a dark side of science would equate to being nothing more than a blind, worshiping acolyte who bows in amazement at science's every utterance.  That's not who I am.

So often people make the error of labeling another as anti simply because they criticise.  That is fallacious logic.  Best you avoid doing so.

 

[Woof999]

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I think you're mistaking me for a religious guy.  I don't subscribe to religion of any kind.  What I deal with is not at all religious.  No dogma, no contradictions, no fairy tales..

I'll come back to that.

 

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The only purpose assigned to a life form is to recreate.  If you can show where the theory deals with any of these three attributes then show it.

How is one supposed to recreate after death? Smart choices and intellect are prized assets by the fairer sex. If you have more opportunity to recreate, you contribute far more to the ongoing gene pool.

 

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

While science doesn't state it outright it is implied.  That's just a logical and common sense conclusion.

Or perhaps just an assumption?

 

42 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The quote is not by Jane Roberts.  It's a quote by Seth.  They're not the same.

Indeed. Seth came to Jane Roberts during an ouija board session. What was that earlier about nothing religious and not believing in fairy tales? I agree that they are not the same. Jane was a human and Seth was a figment of her imagination.

 

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The short of it is consciousness creates form.  Not the other way around.  I'll provide the reasons why in a series of posts.  Bear with me.

Now you're using a Seth quote as if it's established fact. If you insist on quoting a paranormal entity in your quest to prove the existence of a supernatural entity then I'd rather you didn't worry about the forthcoming series.

 

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, Woof999 said:

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Show it, then.  Put up your "facts" which prove it's existence.

On a lighthearted note, this would be a good starting point: Darwin Awards

 

You've also asked for facts or evidence on the evolution of species. Look up "speciation". Perhaps start here: Speciation

The opening paragraph from the linked article:

 

How do new species form? Like most areas of Evolutionary Biology, research related to the formation of new species - 'speciation ' - is rich in historical and current debate. Here, we review both early and modern views on speciation, starting with Darwin and finishing with current genomics-era insights.

Rich in debate . . . early and modern views . . . current insights.  You said it was factual.  All they're doing is describing what little of the process they're able to observe and theorise about what they're observing.  I thought Darwin's handwritten notes, which predated his book by about 20 years, was a trifle humourous.  Note at the very top of the paper:

"I think"  555555555  He certainly did.

20 hours ago, Woof999 said:

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, I'm not religious.  I do believe in a source but I don't use the term "God."  For one, the label has too many preconceived notions attached to it and for another my concept is not at all as Christians personify the idea of God.

Out of interest, what term do you use?

I like Seth's term.  All That Is.  It's hard to read anything else into that label.  Labels aren't important.  Convenient, but not important.

 

20 hours ago, Woof999 said:

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Seems to me you're just repeating what you've been told by someone.

On many points yes. It came from my education. What are your beliefs based on? What you see all around and others don't because they don't want to? I'm just a layman and don't claim to be anything else. What are your credentials that would lead me or anyone else to lend more weight to your arguments above scientists who have studied the subjects for decades?

As for education my view is that it can be a great asset.  Especially for those who are naturally in the habit of questioning.  The more they question the better.  On the other hand, for those who do little questioning an education can become an indoctrination instead.

My beliefs are based primarily on what makes sense and what works.  Where it comes from is neither here nor there with me.  It's the integrity and validity of any given knowledge that is important to me.

 

We all have awareness.  Though it's never identical.  Everyone therefore sees something that another does not and vice versa.  Beliefs are a filtering mechanism.  They filter out what one does not want to see and leaves them only that which their beliefs allow them to see.

I've never asked anyone for credentials.  Credentials are meaningless to me.  There are people who are worthy of their credentials and many who are not.  Credentials are no guarantor of anything.  Certainly not of  one's character.  Requiring degrees min the hope that a degree pans out to be meaningful has come into vogue starting in the 80's.  Do you wear designer clothes to impress others?  Many people use credentials to impress.  I'm not impressed by them.  Rather I would be the judge of whether someone is knowledgeable or not.

As to scientists who spend their entire careers on particular subject matter it may very well be meaningless.  Imagine spending an entire career studying the theory of evolution only to find in the end that it's based on false premises.  An education, a degree, and an entire lifelong career may amount to nothing if what you've been taught and what you've studied is, in essence, so much junk.

I'm sensing that you defer to another's authority rather than your own.  There are certainly times when such deference is warranted.  By and large we are our own authorities.  Granted, those who covet authority would contemptuously disagree.

As you describe yourself as a layman who doesn't claim to be anything else I would inform you that you are much more than you think you are.  Though you do not realise it you have within you the knowledge of the whole.  You have valuable talents and gifts uniquely your own.  I would advise to never undervalue or underrate one's self.

No one has the market of knowledge to themselves.  Indeed, knowledge . . . true knowledge . . . is available to all of us.

 

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Indeed. Seth came to Jane Roberts during an ouija board session. What was that earlier about nothing religious and not believing in fairy tales? I agree that they are not the same. Jane was a human and Seth was a figment of her imagination.

 

Now you're using a Seth quote as if it's established fact. If you insist on quoting a paranormal entity in your quest to prove the existence of a supernatural entity then I'd rather you didn't worry about the forthcoming series.

Do not make the mistake of writing a book review on a book you've never read.  You're making that mistake now.  You know nothing of Seth yet you've concluded he's a figment of Jane Robert's imagination.  Are you in the habit of claiming to know something when in fact you do not?  There's a term for that.  I believe it's an imposter.

Since credentials are important to you then I'll provide some of Seth's.  His technical information is of such quality that he's been visited by a number of scientists.  The Seth material is housed in the Yale University Archives, not by any means an obscure university.  It's said that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale.

A figment of Jane's imagination, indeed.  With statements like that you expose yourself and do not put yourself in a good light.

 

On the other hand, what is offered by science and religion in terms of a cohesive and comprehensive explanation of who and what we are and the reality we find ourselves is extremely lacking, contradictory and discombobulated to say the least.  So much doesn't fit together, so much information opposes other information, and so much which doesn't work in a practical and functional manner.

Before you laugh and disparage other's knowledge, only because your personal beliefs keep you blind to it and prevent your understanding, take a good, hard look at the whole of contemporary knowledge, much of what you've been taught to believe, and you'll find that most of it makes no sense whatsoever.  Given that then you are in no position to laugh or ridicule, my friend.

[Tippaporn]

@Woof999

 

Anyone who has raised a child will attest to young children's aversion to new food.  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you've haven't tried it, sweet pea."  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you haven't tasted it.  How do you know it's not good?"  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  In adulthood so many people treat new ideas just as young children do  new foods.  Fortunately children do end up trying new foods . . . and liking much of it once they've tasted it.  Unfortunately, many adults never grow out of that childhood phase when it comes to new ideas.  They're confronted with a new idea and their immediate response is, "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"

Is that who you are Woof999?

 

Since I traveled internationally when I was young I was exposed to a lot of "foreign" food.  Back in the States it's more common for someone to have never left it's borders than not.  Once I worked with a Lebanese guy.  His wife would pack his lunch daily.  He preferred, though, to eat lunch out.  So as not to bring his packed lunch home, or toss it wastefully in the rubbish bin, he would offer it to me.  It was authentic homemade Lebanese food and it was delicious.  Now and again I would offer some to my coworkers.  None of them were interested in even trying any of it because it was "foreign" food.  They were simply unable to get past their preconceived notions that it wouldn't taste good.

Is this how you deal with new ideas, Woof999?

When I was 6 or 7 years old I read a comic book about aliens who had come to Earth.  These aliens had attained advanced knowledge and had come to offer it to the Earthlings.  The Earthlings, driven by their fear of the unknown, surrounded the alien's spaceship with their weapons of war.  The aliens stood at the ramp to their spacecraft when the order was given to blow them back to whence they came.  Having superior knowledge and technology the aliens returned to their spacecraft, unharmed, and flew away.

Are you like the Earthlings, Woof999?

 

Young children are naturally inquisitive.  There is little that they won't hear because they haven't yet been indoctrinated in the beliefs of their elders . . . parents and teachers and all whom they come in contact with.  But conformity takes it's coarse over the years.  They learn, as most do, to reject anything that doesn't fit their prejudiced thinking.  Their inquisitiveness gets thoroughly squashed.  And they live out their lives knowing only what they know.  Or what they think know.

Is this what happened to you, Woof999?

The above are some of the common barriers people face when searching for answers.  A closed mind is a terrible thing.

[AsianAtHeart]

2 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Indeed. Seth came to Jane Roberts during an ouija board session. What was that earlier about nothing religious and not believing in fairy tales? I agree that they are not the same. Jane was a human and Seth was a figment of her imagination.

I know nothing about any of this--but I would refuse to read anything that I knew had been inspired through a Ouija board.  If what you are saying is true, and this "Seth" communicated to Jane via a Ouija board, then "Seth" is by no means a figment of her imagination, but a real being.  Just not a human being.  The devil and his cohorts work through those boards to communicate with people.  I could tell you hair-raising stories, but it is best to give no glory to the devil and to focus, instead, on God who is much stronger. 

 

Oh, and both God's angels and the fallen angels (devils) are highly intelligent and much superior to us intellectually.  They have had the advantage of thousands of years of existence in which to learn.  Anything they inspire will be powerful stuff--but, even if some of it might be correct (the devil knows he will be most successful when mixing a little falsehood with a greater amount of truth), it is pure folly to trust anything coming from the dark side.

[Hummin]

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Woof999

 

Anyone who has raised a child will attest to young children's aversion to new food.  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you've haven't tried it, sweet pea."  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you haven't tasted it.  How do you know it's not good?"  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  In adulthood so many people treat new ideas just as young children do  new foods.  Fortunately children do end up trying new foods . . . and liking much of it once they've tasted it.  Unfortunately, many adults never grow out of that childhood phase when it comes to new ideas.  They're confronted with a new idea and their immediate response is, "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"

Is that who you are Woof999?

 

Since I traveled internationally when I was young I was exposed to a lot of "foreign" food.  Back in the States it's more common for someone to have never left it's borders than not.  Once I worked with a Lebanese guy.  His wife would pack his lunch daily.  He preferred, though, to eat lunch out.  So as not to bring his packed lunch home, or toss it wastefully in the rubbish bin, he would offer it to me.  It was authentic homemade Lebanese food and it was delicious.  Now and again I would offer some to my coworkers.  None of them were interested in even trying any of it because it was "foreign" food.  They were simply unable to get past their preconceived notions that it wouldn't taste good.

Is this how you deal with new ideas, Woof999?

When I was 6 or 7 years old I read a comic book about aliens who had come to Earth.  These aliens had attained advanced knowledge and had come to offer it to the Earthlings.  The Earthlings, driven by their fear of the unknown, surrounded the alien's spaceship with their weapons of war.  The aliens stood at the ramp to their spacecraft when the order was given to blow them back to whence they came.  Having superior knowledge and technology the aliens returned to their spacecraft, unharmed, and flew away.

Are you like the Earthlings, Woof999?

 

Young children are naturally inquisitive.  There is little that they won't hear because they haven't yet been indoctrinated in the beliefs of their elders . . . parents and teachers and all whom they come in contact with.  But conformity takes it's coarse over the years.  They learn, as most do, to reject anything that doesn't fit their prejudiced thinking.  Their inquisitiveness gets thoroughly squashed.  And they live out their lives knowing only what they know.  Or what they think know.

Is this what happened to you, Woof999?

The above are some of the common barriers people face when searching for answers.  A closed mind is a terrible thing.

I understand where you coming from, and the ideas you serve us, be it copy paste or your own writings, but we all look at new ideas and likaable things with critical eyes, and only open for change when we need it, and once we think we found it, we close that gap behind us until next time if even necessery. 
 

I also find you a little bit naive and also generalising people like you do. If aliens was able to reach earth, should we welcome them with open arms and invite them to our homes? I fear their drive for exploring would be of same reasons as ours, and that is of big concern. I truly hope we never ever will be able to see aliens in our time. 
 

When it comes to taste, and experience of different tastes, it is something that changes by the older you get, and some is a bit more adventurous than others. Can not put people in boxes like you do with labels on based on their preferences and taste. 
 

 

Seth have good ideas, so have many many other living humans as philosophers who lived thousands of years ago who also did not preach much about religions. Seth have also been in the candy shop and picked his cherries as well, and some made to his own as time mature every common sense made up by time. Some for better, some for worse, as the nature of extremism living in humans who need attention and claim their place in history. Each and one for their time, and what the specific time hunger for. 
 

I just wish people did open up their eyes for the true nature we are surrounded by, and understand the true god we are depended on, each and one of us. Amen

 

Just to drink pure water filtered  in clean sand and moss and been through uknown pit-holes with rocks on the way, circulated out debris and ended up fresh and clean to drink is a miracle itself. Thats pure luxury, as well all the berries and mushrooms in the whole world as well fresh fish without any chemicals at all. 
 

That kind of luxury is disappearing slowly all over the world day by day because we are truly looking for god the wrong places and using our energy on basically empty life filled with words and meanings that really at the end have no value when pure nature as we are depended on  one day is gone. Here we looked for god everywhere else than where we should have looked, and realised  it to late. 

 

Blinded by false gods, feelngs, meanings, books and words. Who is your true shepherd? Who is feeding you? Who are we truly depended on? 
 

 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

As to scientists who spend their entire careers on particular subject matter it may very well be meaningless.  Imagine spending an entire career studying the theory of evolution only to find in the end that it's based on false premises.  An education, a degree, and an entire lifelong career may amount to nothing if what you've been taught and what you've studied is, in essence, so much junk.
 

I get the impression that you don't really understand the 'methodology of science'. 'Science' is never settled. There's always some degree of uncertainty, however small that uncertainty is. If a scientist were to spend his entire career studying 'evolution' and discovered that the theory was based on false premises, then he would probably become as famous as Charles Darwin, and would probably be nominated for a Nobel prize, provided, of course that he was able to demonstrate, in accordance with the Methodology of Science, that the premises were false.

 

A very important part of the Methodology of Science, is the process of Falsification, that is, devising an experiment that shows that a particular theory is false. A very basic example of this process of 'Falsification', is the Galileo experiment which falsified the Aristotelian concept that heavy objects seek their natural place faster than light ones, ie., that heavy objects fall faster.

 

Gilileo supposedly dropped, at the same time, two iron balls of significantly different weights, from the leaning Tower of Pisa, and found they both hit the ground at approximately the same time. Of course, there was a slight difference due to the air resistance. A feather would fall at a much slower rate. However, astronaut David Scott performed a version of the experiment on the Moon during the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, dropping a feather and a hammer from his hands. Because of the negligible lunar atmosphere, there was no drag on the feather, which hit the ground at the same time as the hammer.

 

Although the Galileo experiment was very simple, Aristotle apparently never did it. Aristotle’s fame was such that no one seriously challenged his assertions for over 2,000 years. Galileo’s experiment shows us the utility of gathering accurate observational data and comparing it to the predictions of scientific models. This is the very mechanism through which science corrects its own errors.

 

Unfortunately, appeal to authority and apparent scientific consensus on an issue, is quite common. Scientists can also be flawed human beings, just like politicians, journalists, plumbers, electricians, and so on, and some are willing to remain silent on any doubts they have if the expression of such doubts would annoy their bosses and damage their career.
 

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

I understand where you coming from, and the ideas you serve us, be it copy paste or your own writings, but we all look at new ideas and likaable things with critical eyes, and only open for change when we need it, and once we think we found it, we close that gap behind us until next time if even necessery. 

Critical eyes?  In truth?  All information that comes to you or anyone else gets sifted first through one's personal belief system.  Which explains why certain information gets rejected automatically and out of hand.  If it doesn't fit into one's belief system it is quickly discarded uncritically.  Or the reverse, where information is readily accepted because it does fit in with one's belief system.  Often uncritically as well.

 

Most people are not in the habit of examining information by first stepping outside of their belief systems.  By suspending their beliefs during the time in which they examine a fresh idea.  Again, the physical universe as idea construction.  We create using ideas.  Those ideas which we entertain on a regular basis become what is called a belief.  Beliefs are powerful in that they then create experience.  You will accept as real only that which believe and you literally live your beliefs.

Regardless of whether one is aware of this process or not it is the process which all must and do follow in this reality.  Hence you may create unconsciously by default, in which case you live life as a leaf blowing in the wind or you understand the process and use it to create with full conscious intent.

 

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

I also find you a little bit naive and also generalising people like you do.

Naïve in what way?  Expound.  Don't be afraid of possibly insulting me.  I welcome criticism.

Now I do understand the concept of creating one's reality through the use of ideas and beliefs.  My understanding of it is not merely on an intellectual level.  I put it to quite practical use.  It bears consciously intended results.  An understanding of this concept also provides much insight into others.  One cannot help but expose what they believe in.  Is it not plainly self evident that Seth's concept of creating one's own reality does not fit into science's belief system in which the process controls life experience and further determines the direction of life?  Creating one's own reality is the diametric opposite of that.  It states that consciousness creates the process and all of the resulting conditions for life and it is consciousness which determines the direction which life takes.  And so any attempt to accept Seth's concept when one believes the opposite to be true boils down to fitting a square peg into a round hole.

When confronted with an idea which is a polar opposite of accepted ideas then an immediate recognition of fitting a square peg into a round hole takes place.  And the square peg is then automatically rejected.  A critical evaluation of ideas does not take place as you suggest.  So if you believe I'm generalising when I comment about certain posters then you mistake what is instead a recognition on my part of what a poster's beliefs are.  Woof999's out of hand rejection, and ridicule, of Seth's validity is due in whole to his current beliefs.  The out of hand rejection, with zero critical contemplation taking place, is the more obvious since he's completely ignorant of what and who Seth is.  Riddle me this . . . how can one conclude on something when one has no knowledge on which to base any conclusion?

And the fact that one refuses to critically examine an idea solely because it doesn't fit into their belief system is the epitome of a closed mind.  One's beliefs act to slam shut, oftentimes with great vigor, any possibility of understanding.

[Hummin]

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Naïve in what way?  Expound.  Don't be afraid of possibly insulting me.  I welcome criticism.

Now I do understand the concept of creating one's reality through the use of ideas and beliefs.  My understanding of it is not merely on an intellectual level.  I put it to quite practical use.  It bears consciously intended results.  An understanding of this concept also provides much insight into others.  One cannot help but expose what they believe in.  Is it not plainly self evident that Seth's concept of creating one's own reality does not fit into science's belief system in which the process controls life experience and further determines the direction of life?  Creating one's own reality is the diametric opposite of that.  It states that consciousness creates the process and all of the resulting conditions for life and it is consciousness which determines the direction which life takes.  And so any attempt to accept Seth's concept when one believes the opposite to be true boils down to fitting a square peg into a round hole.

When confronted with an idea which is a polar opposite of accepted ideas then an immediate recognition of fitting a square peg into a round hole takes place.  And the square peg is then automatically rejected.  A critical evaluation of ideas does not take place as you suggest.  So if you believe I'm generalising when I comment about certain posters then you mistake what is instead a recognition on my part of what a poster's beliefs are.  Woof999's out of hand rejection, and ridicule, of Seth's validity is due in whole to his current beliefs.  The out of hand rejection, with zero critical contemplation taking place, is the more obvious since he's completely ignorant of what and who Seth is.  Riddle me this . . . how can one conclude on something when one has no knowledge on which to base any conclusion?

And the fact that one refuses to critically examine an idea solely because it doesn't fit into their belief system is the epitome of a closed mind.  One's beliefs act to slam shut, oftentimes with great vigor, any possibility of understanding.

I refered specific to your reply when describing you as naive if you would not be sceptical if aliens landed in your backyard, and Im also believing you take Seth a little bit to literally when speaking or describing his teaching, the same way some bible scholars take on the bible wich use metaphors and figuratively language as phrases and idioms to describe something they have no clue about, but make the text more devine as well infernal if Im right with my words and language barriers. 
 

Im all in on we can create our own destiny to a point, but we are still here in the physical world with physical limits and physical laws. Period

 

As said before, all religions and philosophies have a message that can in fact change someones life, there is no doubt about that, but it is each and one of us, who of different reasons at some point in life is open to receive  the message at the right time, if not born in to it, and became a follower by heritage. The way you and AsianAtheart present is a bit over the edge for most, at least for me, but as an idea of being creator of your own destiny, I can to a degree accept, but as said before, it have its own limits and comes with various rules depending where you are born, who is your parents, your dna, etc.you do not choose your parents! 
 

And also the spin off SethTalks have created an over the edge dangerous cult among many others, that is not healthy at all. 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Hummin said:

If aliens was able to reach earth, should we welcome them with open arms and invite them to our homes? I fear their drive for exploring would be of same reasons as ours, and that is of big concern. I truly hope we never ever will be able to see aliens in our time. 

Key word . . . fear.  Fear that alien life would be just like us.  Fear that then creates imaginings of a negative light.  Why wouldn't they be like the alien's in the comic book story I related?  Is a negative perspective more real, more plausible, than a positive one?  People tend to project their ideas, good or bad, outward.  God is a personification in that sense.  We create him in our own image.  True enough?

I recall you wrote this:

  

On 9/8/2022 at 3:57 AM, Tippaporn said:

As stated many times, I do not believe life is unik to earth, I believe in a universe or universal life, life which travel space and I can believe in several universes, and big bang was not the start of everything! But as far I know, we can only see as far as light travel towards us, or as far there is light.

Then Seth fits the description of an alien, does he not?  He's not of this world, or of this physical universe, though he can travel to our world.  Not in a spacecraft but through psychological pathways.  Perhaps he's symbolic of the aliens in my comic book story.  He certainly comes offering great knowledge.  Seems to me that you would play the character of a general in my comic book story who gives the order to blow Seth back to Hell, using AsianAtHeart's framework of viewing reality.

[Sunmaster]

One thing I've learned is to be skeptical of anyone professing "truth" or knowledge of "God" based on a book, whatever that book may be. For me, the only valid measuring staff is the ability to embody compassion. This ability doesn't come from intellectual knowledge, but from how we experience and integrate life's events in our belief system. It goes beyond any dogmatic belief system. A compassionate person can be of any religion, 'non-religious but spiritual' or be atheist. It doesn't matter. A compassionate atheist trumps any scripture thumping extremist who's ready to condemn you to eternal hell for not accepting their truth.
The signs of a compassionate person are quite easy to spot, if you know what to look for. 

True knowledge of God is knowledge of oneself. This knowledge comes from personal experience (is highly subjective) and no other knowledge, be it academic or religious can make up for it. Nor can any objective truth-seeking tool (aka science) make sense of it.
You can read 1000s of books or quote hundreds of passages of your favourite holy scripture. It may make you feel good, but if that knowledge is not based on direct experience, it's worthless. Harsh but true.

As for creating your reality....I do believe we are, as I believe in the power of thoughts and repeated thoughts produce our belief systems. However, from personal experience, I can't say it's quite as clear-cut. For example, for years my wife and I have been trying to have a child. No matter how I tried to visualize and manifest this reality, it didn't work. I don't know...
I do trust that the universe knows best and accept the challenges as they come...I'm not complaining. If the universe serves you lemons, all you can do is make a nice lemonade.
Maybe @Tippaporn can shed a light on this.

 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Key word . . . fear.  Fear that alien life would be just like us.  Fear that then creates imaginings of a negative light.  Why wouldn't they be like the alien's in the comic book story I related?  Is a negative perspective more real, more plausible, than a positive one?  People tend to project their ideas, good or bad, outward.  God is a personification in that sense.  We create him in our own image.  True enough?

I recall you wrote this:

  

Then Seth fits the description of an alien, does he not?  He's not of this world, or of this physical universe, though he can travel to our world.  Not in a spacecraft but through psychological pathways.  Perhaps he's symbolic of the aliens in my comic book story.  He certainly comes offering great knowledge.  Seems to me that you would play the character of a general in my comic book story who gives the order to blow Seth back to Hell, using AsianAtHeart's framework of viewing reality.

Humans have fear for everything thats different because we have memory of past. If you are interested in history from earth you will know why we have so strong fear of foreigners, not only because of our nature, but also carrying diseases that we not yeat had been exposed to. 
 

We are not living in a comic book where the ending can change from book to book ???? We live in a physical harsh environment we have to adopt to when the environment around us changes. 
 

Just a heads up from a previous post, it doesn’t serve me any good to insult you, so I am not here to ridicule you or insult you. 

[AsianAtHeart]

The truth is that there are other beings, "aliens" if you will, on other planets.  But they will not make any appearance on earth.  They are watching us, and learning from our experience with the evil sickness of sin--and they themselves, by seeing what has happened to us, have steeled themselves against falling into the same trap.

 

If we were ever to see these "extraterrestrial beings," they would be kind and friendly toward us.  But these "aliens" are not angels. 

 

Apart from humans, the only beings to be present, and sometimes seen, on earth are the angels: both the good, heavenly angels, and the fallen angels more commonly known as devils, demons, or foul spirits.  These angels, both good and bad, are with us constantly, though we see them not.  Every human being has at least two of the good, heavenly angels with him or her throughout life.  One of these is a guardian angel, who can serve as the person's protector, and the other is the recording angel, who writes a record of every word and action that the person does.  This record will be consulted in the judgment, and used to pass sentence on each one. 

 

Those who pray to God for spiritual help and strength are sent more angel helpers to help keep back the evil angels which are also pressing in to tempt and to annoy.  Those neglecting to pray may lose these helpers, who go, instead, to the aid of others who request their help.  Entirely unseen, and unconsidered by most, is this constant spiritual struggle going on behind the scenes.

 

The Ouija board earlier mentioned is a special tool used by the demons to sent their nefarious messages to us.  Those who toy with one are putting themselves on Satan's ground.  It is virtually the opposite of the Bible, which would lead us heavenward; the instruments of Satan will direct us in the path toward destruction.

 

Ours is the only planet in the universe which has fallen into the trap of sin.  But it will soon end.  Soon, God will come and put an end to both sin, and those who cling to it, forever.  We are each being tested to see whose side we will take.  If we choose the selfish pleasures of the world, we take the side of God's enemy; if we choose to be like God, cultivating His attributes of love, mercy, unselfishness, kindness, forgiveness, righteousness, and patience, we are choosing to be on His side.  As we confess our sins and forsake them, God accepts our service to Him, and will lead us to a close relationship with Himself.  For these people who choose God's will and way over their own selfish nature, God will come and rescue them from this blighted planet.

 

Ultimately, the choice is ours.  God wants everyone to choose Him, because He loves us.  He does not wish for anyone to perish.  On the other side, Satan, who knows that his time is short, wants us all to perish with him.  Satan and his angels want nothing more than to have company in their misery--as the old saw says: "misery loves company."  Those who accept Satan's company will receive Satan's fate: eternal death.

 

In God's kingdom, no one would be happy who has come to enjoy sin.  For example, suppose one likes to criticize other people--he or she would be unhappy there because God's people would not be eager to listen to the negative talk, and also because there would be nothing to criticize.  Living forever in a place where one could not be happy would be worse than dying and never existing again.  Hell is God's equivalent of our human compassion on a severely injured animal when we "put it down" or "put it out of its misery."  Hell is the most merciful thing a loving Creator can do to stop the pain from being prolonged.

[AsianAtHeart]

27 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

True knowledge of God is knowledge of oneself.

While I agree with some of your thoughts, I cannot agree on this one.  I can tell you for certain that, 1) I am not God--so there's no way to know God by knowing me; and 2) there is nothing in me worthy of knowledge, for the more I know myself, the more I see how wretched and unworthy and selfish I am. 

 

There is no help to be found by looking inward.  The best we can hope to gain by doing so is a knowledge of how weak we are, and how much we need help from our Creator--from a power outside of ourselves.

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I refered specific to your reply when describing you as naive if you would not be sceptical if aliens landed in your backyard, and Im also believing you take Seth a little bit to literally when speaking or describing his teaching, the same way some bible scholars take on the bible wich use metaphors and figuratively language as phrases and idioms to describe something they have no clue about, but make the text more devine as well infernal if Im right with my words and language barriers. 
 

Im all in on we can create our own destiny to a point, but we are still here in the physical world with physical limits and physical laws. Period

 

As said before, all religions and philosophies have a message that can in fact change someones life, there is no doubt about that, but it is each and one of us, who of different reasons at some point in life is open to receive  the message at the right time, if not born in to it, and became a follower by heritage. The way you and AsianAtheart present is a bit over the edge for most, at least for me, but as an idea of being creator of your own destiny, I can to a degree accept, but as said before, it have its own limits and comes with various rules depending where you are born, who is your parents, your dna, etc.you do not choose your parents! 
 

And also the spin off SethTalks have created an over the edge dangerous cult among many others, that is not healthy at all. 

Would I be skeptical of aliens landing in my backyard?  Certainly.  But I would divest myself of any preconceived notions and evaluate them according to my observations.  No naïveté on my part there.

Now how would you know whether I take Seth too literally when you know nothing of the information he conveys?  You wouldn't.  Neither would you be able to conclude that it's similar to literal interpretations of the Bible.

You state that you do believe that we create our own reality.  For you it's in part.  For me it's complete.  The difference between us is the extent to which we create our own realities.  Since I believe that it's 100% and you believe in some lesser percentage does that mean I take my interpretation too literally or does it mean that you don't recognise the full extent to which we create our own reality?  Which is it?

Now I would say that you find areas in your life in which it seems you have no control.  Since you are convinced that there are experiences in which you seem to have no control then it's only natural that these areas of experience would lead you to limit the extent to which you have control in your life.  Now if you were to read Seth in full then you would find that Seth would clear up any misunderstands where you've concluded other than full creative control.  It's called learning.

An inquisitive mind seeking the truth would say to itself, "On it's surface I don't agree with your claim and I don't believe it to be true but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you the opportunity to perhaps correct any of my misguided thinking."  But that does not appear to be the approach you take.  The approach your mind takes would be to say, "On it's surface I don't agree with your claim and I don't believe it to be true and therefore I will look no further."

That's the difference between you and I here in our respective approaches to seeking answers.  If confronted with fitting a square peg to a round hole I don't automatically give up and toss the square peg away.  I'm venturesome enough, and patient enough, to see whether or not I need to reshape my round hole to that of a square.

 

And I'll again bring up the old question I posed to you some time ago.  If it is not you who creates your experience then who?  You've thus far adamantly refused to address that question head on because you have no answer for it.  So it remains one of those questions which you decide not to cherry pick.  Which is the same reason, I believe, that you did not address a single other thing in my post.

As to my presenting my ideas, or AsianAtHeart presenting his beliefs in over the top fashion is it really over the top?  Or is it your interpretation that when someone has firm beliefs and expresses them unwaveringly, with conviction, and passionately when you're not open to those ideas then you feel that person to be assaulting or imposing on you?  Now if, on the other hand, the information which is expressed so adamantly by another happens to agree with your ideas then you would assuredly not consider it to be over the top.  You would rather be happier than a pig in mud and look forward to hearing more.  Do you see the difference?

Now we are each on this thread to express our beliefs about God, science, and everything in between.  Everyone of us has a framework of ideas which are then used to view and interpret reality and life.  Each of us makes claims as to what we believe reality to be.  The religious types make their claims based upon the totality of information they have available to them.  The science guys do the same.  And those of a mix, or those whose framework is neither - like mine, also do the same.

 

Now I'm trying to think of the old joke of a Muslim, a Jew, and a Catholic in a bar arguing and each making claims that their God is the one and only God.  I can't recall now how it goes but in the end they can't all be right.  And perhaps none of them are.  In that sense we each argue here for our point of view and make claims that our view is the accurate representation of reality.  Now we can't all be right and perhaps none of us are.  Yet regardless we challenge each other's beliefs as to their ultimate truth and attempt to find the fallacies in another's beliefs.  You do it.  I do it.  Every other poster does it.

In our conversations I challenge your beliefs.  I have no problem with you challenging mine.  Now when the challenge to your beliefs becomes too much for you then you complain with the reasoning that you may not be ready to hear or accept ideas which grate against yours.  Would that be a fair assessment?

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

And also the spin off SethTalks have created an over the edge dangerous cult among many others, that is not healthy at all.

What the f?  Over the edge?  Dangerous?  Cult?  Unhealthy?  Lordy, lordy, it certainly is over the top when anyone makes pronunciations on things they know less than zero about.

Please do elucidate, Hummin.  What evidence do you offer to show that it's dangerous.  And don't give me an opinion.  You've just made a claim that they're dangerous so you must be in possession of solid evidence which supports your claim.

Cult?  Again, provide evidence that this is true.  No opinion.  Evidence only.

 

Unhealthy?  Once again, provide evidence that this is true.  No opinion.  Evidence only.

What do you know about Seth, Hummin?  Let's hear it.  I would hope you have in depth knowledge.  For if you don't you just put your foot in your mouth big time with that load of BS.

You're a pretty good poster, Hummin, and I enjoy your posts.  But this statement is a very surprising embarrassment.

[Hummin]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Would I be skeptical of aliens landing in my backyard?  Certainly.  But I would divest myself of any preconceived notions and evaluate them according to my observations.  No naïveté on my part there.

Now how would you know whether I take Seth too literally when you know nothing of the information he conveys?  You wouldn't.  Neither would you be able to conclude that it's similar to literal interpretations of the Bible.

You state that you do believe that we create our own reality.  For you it's in part.  For me it's complete.  The difference between us is the extent to which we create our own realities.  Since I believe that it's 100% and you believe in some lesser percentage does that mean I take my interpretation too literally or does it mean that you don't recognise the full extent to which we create our own reality?  Which is it?

Now I would say that you find areas in your life in which it seems you have no control.  Since you are convinced that there are experiences in which you seem to have no control then it's only natural that these areas of experience would lead you to limit the extent to which you have control in your life.  Now if you were to read Seth in full then you would find that Seth would clear up any misunderstands where you've concluded other than full creative control.  It's called learning.

An inquisitive mind seeking the truth would say to itself, "On it's surface I don't agree with your claim and I don't believe it to be true but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you the opportunity to perhaps correct any of my misguided thinking."  But that does not appear to be the approach you take.  The approach your mind takes would be to say, "On it's surface I don't agree with your claim and I don't believe it to be true and therefore I will look no further."

That's the difference between you and I here in our respective approaches to seeking answers.  If confronted with fitting a square peg to a round hole I don't automatically give up and toss the square peg away.  I'm venturesome enough, and patient enough, to see whether or not I need to reshape my round hole to that of a square.

 

And I'll again bring up the old question I posed to you some time ago.  If it is not you who creates your experience then who?  You've thus far adamantly refused to address that question head on because you have no answer for it.  So it remains one of those questions which you decide not to cherry pick.  Which is the same reason, I believe, that you did not address a single other thing in my post.

As to my presenting my ideas, or AsianAtHeart presenting his beliefs in over the top fashion is it really over the top?  Or is it your interpretation that when someone has firm beliefs and expresses them unwaveringly, with conviction, and passionately when you're not open to those ideas then you feel that person to be assaulting or imposing on you?  Now if, on the other hand, the information which is expressed so adamantly by another happens to agree with your ideas then you would assuredly not consider it to be over the top.  You would rather be happier than a pig in mud and look forward to hearing more.  Do you see the difference?

Now we are each on this thread to express our beliefs about God, science, and everything in between.  Everyone of us has a framework of ideas which are then used to view and interpret reality and life.  Each of us makes claims as to what we believe reality to be.  The religious types make their claims based upon the totality of information they have available to them.  The science guys do the same.  And those of a mix, or those whose framework is neither - like mine, also do the same.

 

Now I'm trying to think of the old joke of a Muslim, a Jew, and a Catholic in a bar arguing and each making claims that their God is the one and only God.  I can't recall now how it goes but in the end they can't all be right.  And perhaps none of them are.  In that sense we each argue here for our point of view and make claims that our view is the accurate representation of reality.  Now we can't all be right and perhaps none of us are.  Yet regardless we challenge each other's beliefs as to their ultimate truth and attempt to find the fallacies in another's beliefs.  You do it.  I do it.  Every other poster does it.

In our conversations I challenge your beliefs.  I have no problem with you challenging mine.  Now when the challenge to your beliefs becomes too much for you then you complain with the reasoning that you may not be ready to hear or accept ideas which grate against yours.  Would that be a fair assessment?

The only curtain claim I can make about your reply, is those three is praying to the same god, the same origin and the same family! Anyone else claiming different, havent read their history ????

 

You are only willing to spend as much time and energy to understand something if you feel it is necessary or beneficial, but after trying and your conclusion is it is to far fetched to be taken seriously even if I'm trying to put my goodwill to it, same as reading the bible twice.

 

Interesting theories, stories but I have my experience and my home as said many times now. If my imaginary god is the nature our planet, our Galaxy and universe with everything in it, I can accept that. But me as an individual, I'm just a passenger who can only relate to my life here and now happening as we go randomly based on my action and decisions as we go. I can make it better from day to day by learning and changing my approach as my thinking and new decisions made, but I'm very aware I can not control everything in my life. Destiny is as much unknow to me as to you! Good night and good morning

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, AsianAtHeart said:

While I agree with some of your thoughts, I cannot agree on this one.  I can tell you for certain that, 1) I am not God--so there's no way to know God by knowing me; and 2) there is nothing in me worthy of knowledge, for the more I know myself, the more I see how wretched and unworthy and selfish I am. 

 

There is no help to be found by looking inward.  The best we can hope to gain by doing so is a knowledge of how weak we are, and how much we need help from our Creator--from a power outside of ourselves.

Wow, I cannot express in words how diametrically opposite this belief system is from mine. I honestly and genuinely feel sorry for you if you feel so weak and so disconnected from your true Self. What a sad existence that must be....