• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should I Keep Trying to Understand and Save Christianity?

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Let me start by saying the question I asked could have been answered in its simplest form by one of two words: "yes" or "no"
the mind has no form. the spirit has no form. a soul, a person, has a form. i'm trying to instill the fact that your term and spirit are not synonymous in esoteric understanding; although they may be in exoteric understanding.


Why are you stating this? Have I mentioned ANYTHING about "the body?" No. I have been talking about personality, memory and other mind-related items. Who, on Earth, believes that the self is merely "the body?" This discounts so many things that are supported by the material body, but are not part of its physicality - like personality, emotion, memory, etc.)
because a soul is a form, a body, a vehicle. a created thing. a mind isn't. they are distinctly different things. mind is the first cause. form is a result of the cause.

So, to be clear, since you say it is lost in death, my "personality" is a part of my "body" then, is this what you are saying? But memories aren't according to you? How does this follow in any way, shape or form?
a personality comes from the root word personal; which again comes from the root word person. a person is a human. a mind, spirit, isn't necessarily viable human although a human, a person, has a spirit, mind.


And this can be proven by... ?
information, mind, isn't created or destroyed. it can change levels of density but no it can't be destroyed. the no-hiding has been experimentally proven as to the idea of conservation of information.


So, when a new life comes into the world, the "mind" it has access to is not new? If it can't have been created for the new being, then it must be somehow getting re-appropriated from another, correct? And if memories are not able to be lost (again, according to you), then why does "mind" not come with all of the memories from it's previous "owner?" And please don't say "sometimes it does" - that is a complete cop out. The fact would be that there would be a great many more of us with past-life memories if memories can't be lost and "mind" is transferred or "tapped into" from one being to the next - without creation of new or destruction of old.
main memory and stored memory are not the same exact theory. just as you don't hold all the current life experiences in main memory and something can trigger a past experience memory from stored memory. like books we are written in the akashic records. those who can open up enough can retrieve those record written in the etheric body, quantum computer. those memories are entangled with the other minds. those minds that some see as distinctive and separate are actually a collective consciousness.


Within what I believe, you are "Fool" at this moment... and this moment only, whatever moment that is/happens to be. A moment from now you are "Fool" in that moment. Each moment that passes is gone, each moment yet to be is just that... yet to be. Like the rest of us, you inhabit a 1-dimensional slice of reality with respect to time. Which is a point. you don't get a line... definitely don't get anything 3-dimensional. Even if time were somehow relative to one being vs. another, an exact state of the universe within a given subset of time is what it is, and no more.
the consciousness, information, mind, spirit becomes a character. joseph campbell relates it as a hero with a thousand faces. we wear a mask. we simply take that mask off at death and put it on at birth. in fact we play many roles in the third density experience. we wear many hats. we wear many masks.

take off the mask. what is left? fool came into being as a human on this planetary experience in space/time. in a higher dimension the mind isn't limited to space or time. infinite, eternal, things are limited to space/time. they are formless and no definitive place in higher dimensions. it transcends space and time constraint, what is called entanglement.. in the next appearance what role will the mind take?

in this lifetime, what experience will the mind take? when asleep what dimension does the mind exist in when dreaming? the mind doesn't operate under third density limitations.


Then the original unanswered question stands - why care about the fate of the soul?
some have become attached to preservation of the form at the expense of the mind. what happens if self loses control of self; while trying to save the soul, the chemical body? **** happens.


There are plenty of things we all have in common besides having a "mind", and in much the same way, with as little variance as you propose this "mind" (I have to admit I do not agree with you on this - I believe that each person has their own "mind" that belongs exclusively to and can and will only ever be accessible to each individual themselves) has between us. For example, we share the sun and the energy it produces that fuels life on our planet. Our relative distances and effectiveness of its heat/energy that we see in our locale on Earth may vary, sure - but this is no difference than the expression of "mind" that you propose takes on 1000s of languages, cultures, ethnicities, etc. We also all have the need to expel waste of various types. Point being - why choose "mind" and give it supernatural significance over any of the other thousands of things we all share?
other things have mind and they don't have a form like the personality. they too are souls.


the mind isn't supernatural. it is nature realized, actualized.

the mind creates and the spirit moves and the created is realized. who builds a house without a blue print? who constructs a blue print without mind?

mindless is without sense. senses are needed in this nature. the mind has many ways of taking in information about other things and has the ability to create many expressions of sensory things.

it works the same way at the macrocosm as it does the microcosm. as above; so below.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Let me start by saying the question I asked could have been answered in its simplest form by one of two words: "yes" or "no"


Why are you stating this? Have I mentioned ANYTHING about "the body?" No. I have been talking about personality, memory and other mind-related items. Who, on Earth, believes that the self is merely "the body?" This discounts so many things that are supported by the material body, but are not part of its physicality - like personality, emotion, memory, etc.)

So, to be clear, since you say it is lost in death, my "personality" is a part of my "body" then, is this what you are saying? But memories aren't according to you? How does this follow in any way, shape or form?


And this can be proven by... ?


So, when a new life comes into the world, the "mind" it has access to is not new? If it can't have been created for the new being, then it must be somehow getting re-appropriated from another, correct? And if memories are not able to be lost (again, according to you), then why does "mind" not come with all of the memories from it's previous "owner?" And please don't say "sometimes it does" - that is a complete cop out. The fact would be that there would be a great many more of us with past-life memories if memories can't be lost and "mind" is transferred or "tapped into" from one being to the next - without creation of new or destruction of old.


Within what I believe, you are "Fool" at this moment... and this moment only, whatever moment that is/happens to be. A moment from now you are "Fool" in that moment. Each moment that passes is gone, each moment yet to be is just that... yet to be. Like the rest of us, you inhabit a 1-dimensional slice of reality with respect to time. Which is a point. you don't get a line... definitely don't get anything 3-dimensional. Even if time were somehow relative to one being vs. another, an exact state of the universe within a given subset of time is what it is, and no more.


Then the original unanswered question stands - why care about the fate of the soul?


There are plenty of things we all have in common besides having a "mind", and in much the same way, with as little variance as you propose this "mind" (I have to admit I do not agree with you on this - I believe that each person has their own "mind" that belongs exclusively to and can and will only ever be accessible to each individual themselves) has between us. For example, we share the sun and the energy it produces that fuels life on our planet. Our relative distances and effectiveness of its heat/energy that we see in our locale on Earth may vary, sure - but this is no difference than the expression of "mind" that you propose takes on 1000s of languages, cultures, ethnicities, etc. We also all have the need to expel waste of various types. Point being - why choose "mind" and give it supernatural significance over any of the other thousands of things we all share?


Why is it that so many people who consider themselves "spiritual" wish to distance the mind/soul/self from the body? Why is it that they point to the ability of the mind to affect the outcome of bodily processes like overcoming sickness, but completely ignore the fact that it also works the other way - that physical damage to the body can also affect the "mind?" It's a bit dishonest. I readily accept that the functions of the mind can affect things like recovery time for injury, overcoming sickness, etc. I don't ignore it, don't leave it out of conversation etc. but the moment you mention something to a spiritual person like brain damage altering a person to the point that their "self"/"mind"/etc. is also damaged, it's like you just poked them in the eye.


Can you do anything as this "sky full stars" to prove it to me?


Then I should think you would be capable of listing for me all of the possible forms, no?


Which created things? All of them? Neat trick. You must want for nothing.

Or does it "not work like that?" One might wonder of what good it is to be part of the ever-flowing "mind" that is somehow, somewhere out there, and what makes it all that much better than being just what we appear to be.

the mind is no thing exclusive. the mind is all things inclusive. panpsychism.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
Brick, you can't save Christianity. The contradictions and practical realities are too toxic.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Why care about anything else but yourself?
Because other things have actual known and appreciable value. That's why. The soul? How would anyone know? Who has any "facts" regarding the soul? Who has any true experience? How can such experience or any "facts" even be verified? My family on the other hand? I can go give them a hug RIGHT NOW if I want. Time and time again they prove their love for me, and this allegiance has been found to be extremely beneficial to me in emotional and truly enjoyable ways. What has my soul done for me that I can verify or even understand? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And you can try and pin the same sort of lack of surety on some scientific items of knowledge, but it is nowhere near the same. For example, take the speed of light. Can we take the scientist's word for it what the velocity value of the speed of light is? Personally, I think we can, because THEY EXPLAIN THEIR METHOD FOR CALCULATING IT IN DETAIL, and the method makes sense and is completely repeatable. And is also CONCURRED by multiple sources. With ideas surrounding "soul" (an example of a spiritual subject of knowledge or investigation) there are reams and reams of guess work, with differences abound in schools of thought and supposed "facts". It is nearly impossible to compare the two unless one has deluded oneself.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
the mind is no thing exclusive. the mind is all things inclusive. panpsychism.
Proof? Do you have anything more than a neat idea for a science fiction or fantasy novel?

As far as the article goes - it is mostly a joke, unfortunately. There are some really easy to spot tells in it. A couple I saw, I've reproduced or described here:

Article said:
"One critic in the audience noted that there is currently no way to test this theory, and that integrated information theory fails some common-sense tests when trying to deduce what things are conscious. (A thermostat, for instance, may have some low-level consciousness by this metric.) But Koch said he was not troubled by this notion. Many objects people think of as conscious may not be, while some that are considered inanimate may in fact have much greater consciousness than previously thought, Koch said."
Note that there is NOTHING in that entire paragraph that actually refutes the observation that there is absolutely no way to test the theory. They just sort of dodge the point and pretend they answered to it, by quoting this "Koch" character as having said "Many objects people think of as conscious may not be, while some that are considered inanimate may in fact have much greater consciousness than previously thought, Koch said." Seriously? THAT is the response to criticism that your theory cannot, at all, be tested? SERIOUSLY??

Also, it is mentioned in the beginning of the article that this little panel of super-geniuses met where? "at a salon at the Victorian home of Susan MacTavish Best, a lifestyle guru". This is just too funny. I mean... do I even need to explain how ironic that is?

And then, obvious statements like this one:
Article said:
"You can simulate the mass of the black hole at the center of our universe, but space-time will never twist around the computer itself," Koch said. "The supercomputer can simulate the effect of consciousness, but it isn't consciousness.
"So wait... you mean the property we call "consciousness", which we have only ever found in life-forms (remember that we are only able to observe "consciousness" and create a definition for it - we don't actually know what it is) can't simply be re-created using a computer?!? This proves panpsychism!!" Ummm... no it doesn't. A computer can't replicate a banana either. So what? It's like saying, "You know, this toaster doesn't display the ability to create matter from nothing... therefore God." Very much the same as that actually.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
the mind isn't supernatural. it is nature realized, actualized.
Like all ideas of any God, it is convenient for you and your musings that they cannot be proven or disproved. You cannot know for sure the things you speak. You can't. To pretend you can is conceit. And just because you can quote others as having said similar things, or even buying into your exact ideas, means nothing. Absolutely nothing with regard to an unknowable idea like this.

I'll just end this by saying that, with you posting things like that article on "panpsychism" as if there were any merit to it at all, you have basically lost all credit with me in this particular conversation. There is no need for us to discuss further.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Like all ideas of any God, it is convenient for you and your musings that they cannot be proven or disproved. You cannot know for sure the things you speak. You can't. To pretend you can is conceit. And just because you can quote others as having said similar things, or even buying into your exact ideas, means nothing. Absolutely nothing with regard to an unknowable idea like this.

I'll just end this by saying that, with you posting things like that article on "panpsychism" as if there were any merit to it at all, you have basically lost all credit with me in this particular conversation. There is no need for us to discuss further.

there is no Absolute separate from it's reality. the Absolute is nature, as one poster has reiterated over and over. nature is intrinsic to the Absolute and the Absolute is inherent in it's nature. it is the problem of the knower to know more than itself but unfortunately doesn't have means to prove it to another who always has doubts. like the scoffers of alien life, the doubter believes himself wise. wisdom is proved right by the believer. a doubter can only prove anything by a small example representative of that which is being proved.

western science can't absolutely prove the universe exists. it would have to have an instrument that could control the Absolute. that again would become a problem because the absolute would then again be divided and not Absolute. the Absolute can only be proven by the Absolute by controlling the self. you can't prove otherwise and so the absolute will never be known; except absolutely. that isn't the problem of the Absolute, that is the problem of the seeker's limitations.

know thyself.

the problem of western science is that it can't control consciousness, mind. some things are self-evident with self being the proof. western science, or scientism, doesn't teach something from nothing, so then the consciousness, mind, doesn't come from nothing, nor does it collapse into nothing. so the question is, What is the mind of self that identifies and defines the soul. Where does mind come from?.


Where does it end? has science found the end that it would know the beginning?

it is science's problem to prove, or another's to prove.

it isn't the knower's problem to experience and know for a skeptic. skepticism is a state of mind..
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe there is nothing else.
I don't trust that what comes next will be without Jesus. I think the way, the truth, and the life will always be paramount.
Christianity is not working. If you think it works, care to share why you think so?
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
I believe you will find that Jesus is the resurrection but the resurrection is not Jesus.
I believe those in the first resurrection are only raised through Jesus. Jesus is the "body" of Isaiah 26:19. The body is one. (John 17:11, 1 Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 12:12)
 
Top