Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[marco]

LAKE OF FIRE:

This expression occurs only in the book of Revelation and is clearly symbolic. The Bible gives its own explanation and definition of the symbol by stating: "This means the second death, the lake of fire." (Rev.20:14; 21:8) So it symbolizes the death from which no one is resurrected.

It is further evident that this lake of fire is symbolic from the context of references to it in Revelation. Death is said to be hurled into this lake of fire. Death cannot, obviously, be hurled or burned. Moreover, the Devil who is an invisible spirit person, is thrown into the lake....and being a spirit he cannot be hurt by literal fire. (Rev.20:10; see also Exodus 3:2 where an angel is in a burning bush & it doesn't affect him.)


("Gehenna" and "the fire prepared for the Devil & his angels" are also symbolic. They mean basically the same thing as "the lake of fire.")

Moderator Clarification

You are entitled to explain your interpretation of Lake of Fire but you cannot give a reference which simply relates to the activities of a religious organisation, rather than backing up your point. I removed this reference.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by gordsd]




[center]Understanding what is meant by the word "Spiritual"
Part Three[/center]

I am a bit of a contradiction.

So are we all.
( even Blastcat be !! )

Expressing contradictions, however, might make you WAY harder for other people to comprehend. Maybe you should work those kinks out.

Try me out.. if Blastcat can understand you, it's a step in the right direction.

I was a devout Christian and minister for a while and moved to somewhat of an atheist, then agnostic and now, I think that there is something out there.

Sorry for your loss.

I suppose you mean something "spiritual" is actually out there?
I'm still trying to figure out what you MEAN by the word.

So far, you seem to be pointing to mundane things only.
So, I don't get it.

“Spiritual� is kind of a religious term, and I myself hate the way some people use it as well.

Right, it's such a very ill defined confusing word. I have a RIGOROUS and NARROW usage... and I hardly EVER use it in here.. religious people seem to get all excited by it.. And they seem to imagine that I MUST mean it in the same particular way that they do... That only ADDS to the confusion around here...

So, whenever I use the word, I QUICKLY add that it has nothing at all to do with the supernatural. And that seems to calm everybody down. Almost everyone.

Now, back to the Genesis passage. The tree of knowledge and tree of life are front and center in the, if you will, tableau.

Myths and allegories can be approached from any different directions. You have an approach, and I think it's very nice. But I don't assume that it's the ONLY approach available.

Do you?

We all live are lives by certain values or ethos. The editor or author of the Genesis account I believe is about instilling certain values or ethos in its readers; that is, it is a warning about how one lives one's life—without spelling it out specifically.

Unfortunately, your great interpretation of Genesis doesn't add anything to your definition of "spiritual".

My "spirituality" if it can be said to exist .. are feelings of awe and reverence, mostly for nature... and of course, that means people, too. It's like the word "love" or "peace".

Hey, I resemble myself !

I do not mean feelings of awe and reverence.

Ok, those two possibilities are OFF the table.
I still don't know what you mean by "Spiritual".

I'm not sure where conscience comes from, or a deep sense of will to be moral, fair, humane, caring, but those words which describe what it means to be humane are there.

Not at all from "Human Brains"?

I am not sure about whatever it is that is out there (God), but as we live our lives, we cannot develop relationships of trust and peace without living those certain values which develop trust.

I have to wonder if you are saying that human values are "Spirits or Spiritual".
I don't see how human values clarifies what you mean by "spiritual".

Sorry.
Values can be perfectly secular.
I can have trust, peace and so on without any "God" concept to prop them up. Maybe you are saying that "spiritual" means " Can't exist without God" or something like that. I can't at all tell.. I'm just guessing.

Nakedness in the Garden represents being open with who we are and unashamed in sense of acceptance. The loin cloths covering the nakedness represents the innocents that was lost. The hint of deception and the passing of the blame by Adam to the woman destroyed the relationship they once had. The pair could not handle the knowledge of the tree.

You have a lovely interpretation, as I have already said.
Thanks for reminding me.

I still don't have a CLUE what you mean by "spiritual".

Anyway, I'm trying to answer your question.

I can see that.
Thank you very much.

Spirituality, in this sense, is understanding the lessons of the story and applying it to our lives

hmmm

This sounds to me that you are equating "spirituality" with "education".
If that's so.. why don't you just go ahead and use the WAY less ambiguous term?

I'm still having to guess at your precise meaning, but if it's "education"... I suggest that you drop the religiously loaded and confusing term... say what you REALLY mean.. Don't you think?

If you are intending a secular meaning by the word "spirit", could you make it plain?
If you are adding the supernatural to "spirit", could you make that plain, too?

In other words, could you make yourself plain?

so that we can have relationships which are strong with ourselves and those around us—not having to hide who we are or trying to pass the blame of our own actions on to someone else.

Now, it sounds to me that by "spiritual" you mean "good advice" ... Im not at all catching on.

It is spiritual in the sense that the story is about establishing on ethos on which to live life.

I've NEVER heard of the word "spirit" being used that way, but again, you seem to equate "spirit" for "learning or education or growing up".

Again, I'm just guessing.

You have to admit that at least to THIS kitty kat, you aren't making yourself very plain. I STILL can't say what you mean by "spirit" and why purely secular words could not be WAY more clear.

Spirit is learning?
Why not just the world "learning" and be INSTANTLY understood?

And if you don't MEAN "learning"... then you should see the problem.
You have been attempting to explain just this ONE WORD a couple of times now... and I'm still having to GUESS at what you mean by it.

Not very plain...

It is not meant to be an historical factual account.

I'm guessing again, but I could take that to mean that by "spiritual" you mean "fictional" as opposed to "factual". I hate guessing like this.. but I'm trying to get at your meaning.

It aint easy.

[catnip]

LAKE OF FIRE:

This expression occurs only in the book of Revelation and is clearly symbolic. The Bible gives its own explanation and definition of the symbol by stating: "This means the second death, the lake of fire." (Rev.20:14; 21:8) So it symbolizes the death from which no one is resurrected.

It is further evident that this lake of fire is symbolic from the context of references to it in Revelation. Death is said to be hurled into this lake of fire. Death cannot, obviously, be hurled or burned. Moreover, the Devil who is an invisible spirit person, is thrown into the lake....and being a spirit he cannot be hurt by literal fire. (Rev.20:10; see also Exodus 3:2 where an angel is in a burning bush & it doesn't affect him.)


("Gehenna" and "the fire prepared for the Devil & his angels" are also symbolic. They mean basically the same thing as "the lake of fire.")

Your point of view is purely JW. I am not alone in believing that it is for purification, the burning up of the beast, the egotistical twin of the spiritual person. The ancients were in awe of the assayers fire--the burning up of impurities and the resulting fine metal that remains. There is a long history of this point of view in the region in that period of history.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 55 by catnip]




[center]Where the Kingdom be at?
Part Three: .. Not getting the point AT ALL[/center]

Okay, as a Christian, I speak as a Christian: the kingdom of God is within. I would say that it is a state of mind. We can get to it through the concept of repenting--which is not just to fully regret and confess our sins, but to turn our focus from the world toward the spiritual, the heavenly realm and God.

Yeah. You seem to not be explaining the point in a way that I can comprehend.

I feel as though you are so determined not to comprehend that it would be impossible to do so. So I gave you a source that is not Christian or religious to try to show you. I don't believe that Jesus was teaching a cult of personality and to worship him--I believe he was preaching the "kingdom of Heaven", as is often said by those in the early churches. He taught unity, being in him as he is in the Father, worshiping the Father in spirit, sending the Holy Spirit, etc.

I'm not quite convinced that you ever were there.. so I won't say "Back to the drawing board". Time to work on expressing your ideas in a way that would be comprehensible to others.. Because if some people can't understand just what it is you are talking about ... you still might be correct.. but how would those people KNOW IT?

I can't break through prejudice, no. If your mind is set against comprehending, then I can't change it and you don't want me to. I can only express it as best I can. "Harden not our hearts . . . "

And more importantly, how do YOU know it, if you can't explain it to an outsider of your faith, how are you explaining it to yourself? what LANGUAGE are you using, what REASONING? You may just be feeling your way around. Feeling and knowing are two separate things... I hope you can appreciate that. So, if people "agree" with you, how would you know if they understand you, or just "feel" that they do?

It is not a matter of "agreeing" or explaining it to myself. It is a matter of seeking and finding, knocking and entering, asking and receiving. I got it years ago from the Gospels. People the world over have overcome the world in many and varied ways and attempted to teach it through various religions. It is worth sharing. But no, it isn't simple and yes, it does take a certain amount of "faith" in the result in order to begin.

How do account for my inability to comprehend you?
( I can't seem to break the habit of asking people questions when I don't understand. Don't feel that you have to answer any of them )

It is as simple as: if you don't want to, you aren't going to.

I thought maybe that since you bother to tell us that you know some deep truth that you might be able to at least explain what it was.. and so far.. you lost me.

But maybe you can get someone else to explain what you cant. Hence, Jim Carrey to the rescue. I watched the "moving" video... It was lovely.

I thought perhaps he might wrap it in a more acceptable colored paper to help you understand. I wouldn't have offered it if I didn't think it might help.

I'm not inspired at all.
Something that is based on poor logic might be simplistic, but simply fails. Jim is obviously well meaning and intelligent. His logic sucks in this video.

I'm not even sure at this point if Jim accurately represents what your point is that I am missing here.

As far as I am concerned, yes, Eckhart Tolle does teach a viable practice that is effective for "Awakening", if I may put it that way. I would point you to Matt 6 to begin--it is in practice that the results come clear. It is a way of life.

In the video, it's as if Carrey is denying the reality of human identity. He sounds like some kind of a Buddhist.

Probably. When I read an Ekhart Tolle book I saw that he had drawn heavily on Buddhism and Christianity. Perhaps he even tapped into other traditions. But I can identify all the teachings from a Christian point of view.

Denying reality doesn't impress me very much.

It isn't a denial of reality. It is an acceptance of the world as it is. This is where the film "I AM" would help you understand--if you are willing to approach it with an open mind.

I feel the same way about creationists and flat earthers and 911 truthers and global warming deniers. So, if you were trying to explain bits of your reasoning by using that video.. I could imagine you to be a "denier".

I have a terrible problem with false religion, too. That is why I hang out on these boards--to battle these idiotic beliefs that deter people from finding "The Way." As I said, I have no problem with scientific investigation and I have a rather scientific view of the world. I don't deny global warming--it worries me a great deal and I watch Smithsonian and National Geographic documentaries and wish everybody did.

That's not very impressive to me at all.. deny bits of reality that you don't like... I'll take a pass. Of course, I have to GUESS at your true position, because as I keep telling you.... you are INCOMPREHENSIBLE. At this point you have GIVEN UP trying to explain yourself. You point to others in the hope that they will do your job for you.

No, I don't give up unless I perceive that any attempt to convince you is impossible as you do indicate right here. There is nothing that I can do to change your mindset and if Jim Carrey couldn't do it, I sure can't.

But, I'd sure like to have a conversation with Jim.. wouldn't you?

Jim Carrey would want us to believe for some reason that we don't have and aren't stuck with the persistent experience of BEING somebody separate. He seems to hint that ego is an illusion. He asks "why don't we feel it?" ... yeah. Why don't we?

Sure, we have created our ego ourselves. It is our "false self" and we allow it to create all sorts of fears. In the long run, it makes us sick and makes us suffer. It tells us that we are separate from the rest of creation (which I think is a cause of denial of responsibility in global warming and the dismissal of the value of animals and the natural world as being something that "I" can do something about). The ego is the equivalent if artificial intelligence developing a mind of its own and creating havoc.

I think that's just the way we have evolved. We can't help being the humans that we happen to be. With brains that work the very peculiar way they happen to work, living in cultures that we happen to live in, and on a planet that we happen to all live on.

The problem is that the mind works just as naturally, even better, when we decide to "be real" and get in touch with our mind, to come to know ourselves, who and what we are and our place in the universe in a very real sense. And yes, there are those who are "natural" in that they never have to do this. Some call it "right mind".

We are "just" energy, he want's us to believe. We are maybe just "particles" floating around in space quite aimlessly, without rhyme nor reason.

Actually, that is terribly scientifically TRUE!

Well, Jim, I'm sorry, but we are "more" than "just" energy in motion. We have consciousness, we have self awareness, and we have the ability to create metaphors like "We are just energy".

And we have the ability to live in unity with all creation! We don't lose our self--we gain our true self and our true identity and understand our true place in this world. The ego lies to us! It is like racism on a micro scale. We are obviously NOT separate from creation--it is all around us. How we can be separate from it?

It's nice poetry, I suppose.
Points for that.

There is no use in going on with this, see. Nobody can lead you kicking and screaming into the peace of the kingdom. That is something only you can do. Those of us who have are delighted to try to help those who are on the way, but we know when we can't help.

I don't usually just "feel" in order to know if something is true or not. His very nice appeal to EMOTION is what I call another logical fail. I don't care HOW nice Jim is... that's NOT how I evaluate a person's reasoning. Yours is incomprehensible. His sucks.

Maybe you "feel" that when a person is articulate, anything the he says is logically sound. News for you.. "NOT THE CASE". Each and every statement has to be examined for soundness... case by dreary case.

Those who don't question won't find and that is certain.

Feelings are not identical with rational arguments.

With your Kingdom on earth idea.. I can't even get past the discovery stage.. and that means that I don't UNDERSTAND a word. I'm not getting my hopes up.

Your explanation only serves to generate questions.. that I will not ask at this time.
But believe me when I tell you that "They are available."

I don't ask a ton of questions when I understand what my debate opponent is talking about. You can imagine about 20 or so questions that I could ask. I wont make the effort at this time. If you ask for more questions, I will provide. My GOAL in these debates is to understand my opponents, debate the merits of their ideas and IDEALLY, reach some kind of agreement. What I USUALLY find is that with so many Christians, I can't get past the very first stage.. which I call "The Discovery Stage".

Early in the ancient faith, the early Christians and the Jews practiced mysticism. And this is what that was about. Since the Reformation--this has been downplayed, ignored, hated and taught against. The original reformers were not teaching that mysticism was bad, however. They were trying to encourage us to see that we are a "priesthood of all believers", that it is not for the few, but for all. In short, they taught against elitism! And now it is seen only as elitism and that is bad. For most Christians now, the faith is ABOUT God and not about a very real change in the individual, a dying to self and rising in Christ, a NEW person.

You are an extreme example of that kind of language mess.

Sorry if it seems that way to you. I took the time to ferret out the truth by digging in dark corners, wiping off the dust and cobwebs and trying to find out what it really was all about.

So much for understanding.
So much for debating any issue.
So much for reaching any agreements.

I don't think you are willing, so I am not really trying.

Carrey uses very bad logic. And when it comes to logical arguments, very bad logic takes ALL the points away.

Carrey is well meaning. So he is at least a LITTLE above zero...
His intentions seem to be well placed, but now he has to work on that darn REASONING.

Perhaps you need to go beyond an introduction to the subject. Perhaps it is a deep subject and not a shallow one. Perhaps it takes time in its creation and isn't instantaneous. Perhaps he can only show you the way as Christ has shown us the way and we have to do the pilgrimage our selves.

I think he is adding to the world's irrationality, so all in all.. I can not at all agree with his methods or his message. Both are very poor indeed. He is, in my estimation BELOW ZERO.. he does more damage than good, in my opinion, even WITH his charming ( but possibly completely illusory ) personality and great smile.

I don't need any of that mumbo-jumbo to "be nice" or whatever the outcome of his ideas are supposed to be. "Think like me" seems to be one of his main messages. He should stick to comedy. He is pretty darn good at THAT.

I don't have to think like him to be nice. Or to be a good person, or to be happy... productive.. so thank you very NOT Mr. Carrey. Do the asparagus in your teeth bit again.

Ewww! Okay, if that's what you want. We are not going to agree.

I think it all started with Jim Shadyac's documentary, I AM. You might be able to find it somewhere. It is well worth watching and very scientifically based.

If you can't find it.. I'll take a pass on trying to find it.
Give us a link if you think it's that important.

I can't hand it to you on a silver platter. Amazon and Netflix have it. You might find it or most of it on Youtube, pirated of course.

If you have a message, it's up to YOU to communicate it in a way that readers can comprehend. Telling us that some people just don't GET IT is absolutely USELESS.

I have. And you have rejected it. I can do no more.

[gordsd]

[Replying to Blastcat]

should work those kinks out.

As time goes on, as I grow and learn, perhaps I will.

Not at all from "Human Brains"?

I am not sure. Many are comfortable to accept the notion that conscience is simply a product of time and evolution. Some religiously think it comes from God. Others think that our consciousness and conscience is shared with a greater consciousness growing with the universe. From the youtube video of JC, I think he has a point, all of life could possibly be part of a greater consciousness, and I add: related to what we think of as a conscience.

This sounds to me that you are equating "spirituality" with "education".
If that's so.. why don't you just go ahead and use the WAY less ambiguous term?

So, in the sense of a teaching about how to be a true human being in a humane and moral connotation there is the notion that such teaching comes from outside of us. It is teaching--as you have thoughtfully pointed out--but the teaching has to do with how we live our lives (IMHO, not an historical account) that is, what is at the center of how we live and think about our lives. So it is teaching/learning, but since it concerns that which many think comes from God, or from a all encompassing consciousness, not simply proven to be the result of a brain from millions of years of evolution (I am convinced that evolution is a fact, yet i have a notion that there is conscious other out there as well) --so in that sense, I think it can be safely referred to as a spiritual teaching, but, as you have pointed out, it is good to clarify.

by "spiritual" you mean "fictional" as opposed to "factual"

So in the sense of equating spiritual with moral or ethical themes, I think it is safe to say that there are many moral/spiritual lessons which can be learned from fictional and factual stories.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 64 by catnip]


[center]
Where the Kingdom be at?
Part Four: .. Clarification and evidence demanded[/center]

Okay, as a Christian, I speak as a Christian: the kingdom of God is within. I would say that it is a state of mind.

They say that we can be in a "New York" state of mind, too !
Well, I think I got it now.

You are in your state of mind, and others aren't.
I think we finally got to the bottom of this.

We can get to it through the concept of repenting--which is not just to fully regret and confess our sins, but to turn our focus from the world toward the spiritual, the heavenly realm and God.

I suppose that people who are in YOUR state of mind might be able to, it's at least very possible. I can't tell because I'm not IN your state of mind. I'm in a state of my own. I call it the "Blastcat" state of mind, by the way.

I don't believe that your category "sins" has any real members. So, you would have to convince this agnostic and skeptic of that BEFORE I would start "repenting" ..You aren't explaining WHY I should repent.. you are just saying that I "have to".

How is repenting a method of knowing if your beliefs are true?
That don't compute.

I'd want to take a good hard look at your "evidence" for the reality of sin, you see. Your point of view might be askew.

It might be another one of those "state of minds" kind of things. I don't know if you believe that what you can dream up ( in your particular state of mind ) is necessarily true. Some people might not be inoculated from your view and not worry at all if the view is true. That's what some mental viruses do. They kill off the mental immune system first, and reduces just to about zero what I like to call "doubt", or better yet, "skepticism". In fact, to many faithful people "skepticism" is a dirty word, go figure.

For at least some Christian apologists, it's WAY more important to keep the faith than explore the doubts. And sometimes, that kind of anti-skepticism gets so STRONG that some Christians even slyly accuse non believers of being OBSTINATE and unwilling ON PURPOSE to understand.

I mean, why else would skeptics doubt the TRUE TRUTH of the TRUTH?

Kingdom is in the eye of the beholder, and sin is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm getting to see a pattern here.

Maybe it's "What you see is what you get", or, maybe "It my way or the highway".

Either WAY, I'm not impressed.
If all you have in the way of evidence for your views IS your views, I don't think it's news that we all have views, some of which you might refuse.

I have views, you have views.. is that front page news?

Yeah. You seem to not be explaining the point in a way that I can comprehend.

I feel as though you are so determined not to comprehend that it would be impossible to do so.

Do you often use your feelings to figure out if something is true?
How about this: Next time, if you want to know what I really think, ask me.

But if you REALLY start off with the assumption that the ONLY reason people don't INSTANTLY understand you is because they are DETERMINED not to understand, that's a very strong BIAS against your correspondents. I think you would do well to ASSUME that your honored opponent is being at least HONEST.

Or call me a liar to my face and be done with it.
You might not have noticed that what you wrote could be interpreted as an insult.

So, I ask you for a clarification.
I'm not convinced that you were attempting to insult me. Help me out.
Because I have my doubts.

Blastcat be so sensitive !
( Blastcat be not good grammar with )

So I gave you a source that is not Christian or religious to try to show you.

Oh... Jim, god bless his soul.
Do I have that right?

Look, thanks for your effort.
I mean it quite sincerely.

But I'm not IN a debate with Jim Carrey right now. I watched the video, I told you what I thought about it. I now have an appreciation of what Jim believes. That's great. Now I know. I tried to at least give you some reasons why I think Jim isn't reasoning very well.

So, you have managed to demonstrate your bad reasoning by more bad reasoning. Carrey has one thing going for him.. he is articulate. His reasoning in the video fails.

So, if you endorse Carrey's reasoning, I say the same thing for your reasoning: "It fails" just as much.

What you DEMONSTRATED to me is how much Jim's and your reasoning fails, and I would say, quite articulately. He speaks well.

I don't believe that Jesus was teaching a cult of personality and to worship him--I believe he was preaching the "kingdom of Heaven", as is often said by those in the early churches. He taught unity, being in him as he is in the Father, worshiping the Father in spirit, sending the Holy Spirit, etc.

Yep, I really do get that you believe a lot of things.
I'm skeptical of the truth of your beliefs, by the way.

I suppose you might mean that "spirit" is a state of mind, too. Like New York.

I can't break through prejudice, no.

I suppose that others might have more luck.
I hope that you aren't trying to hint that I'm prejudiced.

I take offense at that kind of thing.
You can clarify or let me continue to consider that your intent was to insult.

Up to you.

If your mind is set against comprehending, then I can't change it and you don't want me to. I can only express it as best I can. "Harden not our hearts . . . "

It really does seem that you are attacking me.
Clear that up pronto.

Why would you even imagine that my mind is set against comprehending?

I've been going on and on about NOT understanding you and WANTING to understand you. I find your insinuations insulting.

Clear it up.

If you back up what you say with solid evidence, my heart will go along. When it comes to IDEAS, my head comes first, THEN come "heart". I'm not going to fall in love with any idea until I can at LEAST understand it and THEN have solid evidence that it's TRUE. Otherwise, I just stay skeptical.

That's what I am right now... very very skeptical.
I can't "understand" what doesn't make sense to me.. sorry. My bad.

If I don't have any evidence to evaluate.. I remain skeptical, again, my fault.
It's all of that "critical thinking" nonsense that I've stuck with myself these days.

Here we are.
You are IN the kingdom.. and you know that by spiritual eyes. I don't have those eyes, so I'm not in the kingdom, which seems to be "a state of mind".

Well, I can agree.
I'm not IN the state of MIND that you are IN.

I appear to have a MIND of my OWN.

It is not a matter of "agreeing" or explaining it to myself. It is a matter of seeking and finding, knocking and entering, asking and receiving.

If I don't know what you are talking about ... how can I seek it? How will I know I found it? Sorry. You don't even seem to bother making sense to yourself. No wonder why you don't make sense to others !! I might have been expecting something from you that you can't deliver. I can't expect the impossible. But still:

No sense make you to me.
( Blastcat trouble has grammar with )

I got it years ago from the Gospels.

You must consider yourself very lucky indeed.
Congrats.

I'm not so very lucky, you see.
I remain an agnostic and a skeptic to your claims.

People the world over have overcome the world in many and varied ways and attempted to teach it through various religions. It is worth sharing. But no, it isn't simple and yes, it does take a certain amount of "faith" in the result in order to begin.

Again with the faith thing.

We just gotta gotta have faith in ORDER to have faith in the belief that you already have faith in, and THEN we will believe what you do, and have faith in it, too.

How marvelous!
I don't have faith, so I wont be having any of it.

Too bad for me.

How do account for my inability to comprehend you?
( I can't seem to break the habit of asking people questions when I don't understand. Don't feel that you have to answer any of them )

It is as simple as: if you don't want to, you aren't going to.

And here I thought you couldn't read my mind.
Turns out.. you can !!

( and yet, we don't seem to agree on what I'm thinking, so maybe you know my mind more than I do ! )

________________

FOR THE RECORD:

I question your ability to read minds.

________________

I thought perhaps he might wrap it in a more acceptable colored paper to help you understand. I wouldn't have offered it if I didn't think it might help.

Why would you condescend to someone you are respectfully trying to communicate with? "Colored paper".. I'd be impressed with colored paper?

No, wrapping your idea in brightly colored paper isn't going to help me understand you AT ALL. Not only do I have YOU to understand, I suddenly am invited to understand CARREY, too. You just made my task of understanding you MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. So, no thanks for the brightly colored gift. It didn't help.

I'm not looking for superficial WRAPPING... so no thanks at all.
You might have been well meaning, but you have managed to irritate me

And NOTHING else.
Blastcat really don't respond well to condescension.
If condescension wasn't your intention, please make yourself comprehensible.

I am waiting for a clarification.
You just lost yourself the benefit of my doubt by that ( only possibly ) well meant "colored paper" remark.

As far as I am concerned, yes, Eckhart Tolle does teach a viable practice that is effective for "Awakening", if I may put it that way.

You may put things any way that you like.
I don't feel particularly "asleep", so I don't know what you mean. Awakening from WHAT precisely?

From not thinking the way that you think?
The very WORD "awakening" is an insult to those you don't consider to be "AWAKE".

We must be all sleeping and perhaps just dreaming.. poor poor us.

You don't seem to consider just how arrogant and condescending this "awakening" concept is. I'm awake enough, thank you very much. There is NO problem over here. Arrogance and confidence isn't convincing to a skeptic. I demand evidence and sound reasoning.

Is there a terrible problem over there with those?

I would point you to Matt 6 to begin--it is in practice that the results come clear. It is a way of life.

I already have a way of life, thank you.
Why should I want to accept yours?

Do you mean by that to say that you DO agree with Carrey? People teach this and that.. maybe you are a Buddhist. I can't tell. I don't know what point you are trying to make. You seem to have the point of view that you are in "the kingdom".. whatever that is.. you say it's a way of looking at things. Big deal. People have different ways of looking at things. I have a different way of looking at things too.

Woop dee doo.
I have opinions and so do you.

In the video, it's as if Carrey is denying the reality of human identity. He sounds like some kind of a Buddhist.

Probably.

Right.
Are you advocating Buddhism?
Or a Buddhist Christianity?

Do you have a particular label for what you are advocating? Buddhist JW perhaps?

I have many labels that I use to describe myself.
When it comes to religion, I sometimes use "Skeptical Agnostic Humanistic Taoist". But of course, I have many other labels. I realize that if I want you to UNDERSTAND what I mean by that particular label.. "SAHT" ... I might MAYBE want to make myself comprehensible to you.

MAYBE.

______________

NOTE TO ACRONYM FANS:

It's a good thing that I don't label myself "Skeptical Humanistic Agnostic Taoist"
______________

When I read an Ekhart Tolle book I saw that he had drawn heavily on Buddhism and Christianity. Perhaps he even tapped into other traditions. But I can identify all the teachings from a Christian point of view.

Ok, that's nice.
People can approach Christianity in all kinds of ways, in fact, even by way of Buddhism.. why not?

I don't mind at all.

What I DO mind is when I read a lot of words that explain NOTHING.
Blastcat, welcome to "Not much in the way of actual information".

Frankly, today, I think I'll pass.
Thanks so much for trying though.

Much appreciated.

It isn't a denial of reality. It is an acceptance of the world as it is. This is where the film "I AM" would help you understand--if you are willing to approach it with an open mind.

"THE WORLD AS IT IS"

Why would you ASSUME that I don't approach information with an open mind?
If you have something to say.. don't be shy. I don't know what you mean by "I AM".

Somehow, I haven't watched every conceivable film on the planet.
My bad, I know.

• 1. Why would you assume that I don't understand the world as it is?
  2. Why would you EVER assume that I don't accept reality the way that it is?
  3. Why would you ASSUME that others don't know what reality really is?
  4. Why would you ASSUME that you know more about reality than anyone else?

You assume WAY TOO MUCH in my opinion.
In order for me to accept your reasoning, you'd have to as least TRY to demonstrate 1, 2, 3, and 4 are TRUE somehow.

Your assertion will NOT be enough to a critical thinker. At least, not to this one. And you are trying to convince THIS one, by the way.

I have a terrible problem with false religion, too. That is why I hang out on these boards--to battle these idiotic beliefs that deter people from finding "The Way."

By "THE" I suspect that you might mean "MY".
But I'm just guessing here.

You can call other people's beliefs idiotic all you want.
It's not convincing me.

You can call all other religions false if you want.
Again, you aren't convincing me at all.

If you want to convince anyone that your "Way" is true, you have plenty of work ahead of you.

You will just HAVE to go a bit beyond the name calling stage.
I suggest that it's time to up your game.


By the way, I'm a bit of a Taoist, so I'm particularly sensitive about talk of "the Way", you see. If you want to discuss Taoism I'd love another thread. Maybe I'll just go ahead and do that. I might find like minded people in here.

One of the fun sayings of Taoism is "The Way that can be named is not the Way".
I love Taoism.. at least, MY kind, any"way".

As I said, I have no problem with scientific investigation and I have a rather scientific view of the world.

Do you know what I haven't noticed much of? I haven't noticed much of your rather scientific view of the world. Isn't that interesting?

How do you account for my not noticing that?

I don't deny global warming--it worries me a great deal and I watch Smithsonian and National Geographic documentaries and wish everybody did.

Good.
I'm happy that you don't deny global warming.
Now, why would you deny human consciousness?

No, I don't give up unless I perceive that any attempt to convince you is impossible as you do indicate right here.

Is that how you interpreted my statement?
Interesting interpretation, indeed !

( You are completely wrong, about my inner thoughts, by the way. )

There is nothing that I can do to change your mindset and if Jim Carrey couldn't do it, I sure can't.

Well, if you really believe that... I guess giving up seems to be a great option !
I'm fine with that. If you can't explain yourself better than you already have, I wont ask for what you can't provide. But then please don't pretend to me that you can explain it.

Blastcat be watching that.
( not be watching grammar too much )

Sure, we have created our ego ourselves.

You know what I don't recall for some unknown reason? I don't recall creating my ego myself, that's what I don't recall.

How do you account for that lack of recollection on my part?

It is our "false self" and we allow it to create all sorts of fears.

It almost seems that you believe that any "self" that I currently aware of has to be a "false self". Notice the word "almost"... because I can't really tell.

You and Jim, you got the "true selves", perhaps.
I am going to remain a LITTLE skeptical.

You can call people "false selves" all you like.
I don't think name calling is going to prove your point.

That's just me.. others might be very impressed.

In the long run, it makes us sick and makes us suffer.

Are you talking about the very very long run, or the medium to long or the short long run?

I'm skeptical of your claim.

It tells us that we are separate from the rest of creation (which I think is a cause of denial of responsibility in global warming and the dismissal of the value of animals and the natural world as being something that "I" can do something about).

I question your ability to speak for "us".

Oddly, even though your ideas tell you something, they tell me "NOTHING".. but that you happen to HAVE those ideas.

How do you account for that?

The ego is the equivalent if artificial intelligence developing a mind of its own and creating havoc.

I'm a robot yes I are !!
( skeptical robot, by far )

You can define the ego any way that you like, but if you want to convince a skeptic ( Blastcat is extremely skeptical of your truth ), you might want to try the technique I like to call "providing the evidence".

I think that's just the way we have evolved. We can't help being the humans that we happen to be. With brains that work the very peculiar way they happen to work, living in cultures that we happen to live in, and on a planet that we happen to all live on.

The problem is that the mind works just as naturally, even better, when we decide to "be real" and get in touch with our mind, to come to know ourselves, who and what we are and our place in the universe in a very real sense.

Is that a problem for you? I'd have to be convinced that it's a problem for anyone else. Calling people unreal ... is being insulting.

Not convincing.

I feel as real as I want to feel. Thank you very much, but you see, when it comes to feeling really real, I have enough of that feeling already. I get real feelings of being real all the time, you see.

And yes, there are those who are "natural" in that they never have to do this. Some call it "right mind".

And they can call whatever they like whatever they like.
I don't PRESUME to call the way that I think about reality "right".

By "RIGHT", I am starting to think that you mean "MY".

What's right for me might not be so right to you.
That's why I don't preach what is "right".

I try to preach "logic", not BELIEFS. And I would NEVER be arrogant enough to preach that my "way" is the "right way".

You know what I say about my way? I say: "Try it, you might like it."
If you would like to know what my way happens to be, give me a message.

Blastcat is always happy to oblige !!
Ask as many questions as you would like.

( if you have lots and lots, I suggest we start a new thread all bout me )

Labeling things is not "logic", its putting stickers on sale items.
"Buy two, get one free" ... "10% off on all beliefs in the store"

"We will match any truth of other religions and add 5% truth to all of your truth purchases"

Not impressed, even IF Jim Carrey is your salesman of the month.
I will still ask for evidence before I purchase any beliefs someone wants to sell.

The right mind you say?
What gives you the right to say that anyone's mind is right?

We are "just" energy, he want's us to believe. We are maybe just "particles" floating around in space quite aimlessly, without rhyme nor reason.

Actually, that is terribly scientifically TRUE!

Wow.. here you are using science.

So, you are just a particle, floating around in space quite aimlessly, without rhyme nor reason and YET you know what is scientifically and terribly true. No WONDER I don't understand a word of what you're saying ! You are an aimless unmotivated truth particle !!

I should JUST believe anything you say.. but Blastcat be obstinate.

You see, from MY point of view, I'm a human being with the capacity for what I have been known to call: "reasoning". But your terribly true scientific investigations indicate that you are a particle of energy aimlessly floating around in space without a clue who also happens to know what is truly true. Good for you.

I don't have that particular point of view.

Maybe you would like to support your terribly true scientific findings with the evidence. Don't be shy.

Well, Jim, I'm sorry, but we are "more" than "just" energy in motion. We have consciousness, we have self awareness, and we have the ability to create metaphors like "We are just energy".

And we have the ability to live in unity with all creation!

So, NOW, you seem to agree that we aren't just particles of energy. We can also have identities. In your own words, WE have an ability.. If there is no real ego, then who is this "we"?

Honestly, I can't keep up.

You make NO sense.
What you DO seem to do is: "Meaningless contradictions".

As to what you could possibly mean by "live in unity with all creation", I can only guess. And I'm NOT in the mood to guess.

We don't lose our self--we gain our true self and our true identity and understand our true place in this world. The ego lies to us!

Oddly, I think I am engaging with another one of those egos. One lying ego to another, maybe, or worse: ONE LYING EGO to a true self.

It's insulting if you mean that I am nothing but a liar.
Clarification demanded.

It is like racism on a micro scale. We are obviously NOT separate from creation--it is all around us. How we can be separate from it?

If you simply mean UNIVERSE, yeah. We are in it.
Your point?

So, now, if I am not in that state of mind that you are in, it's like RACISM.

Wow.
Clarification demanded.

My particular EGO STATE allows me to understand that I am in the universe quite well. But you think that my ego state MUST be lying.. to that OTHER TRUE me.. the ego that is TRUE compared to the ego that is false.

All that to say that : "If you don't admit that you are in the Kingdom, your mental state is racist and lying, and mine is true. "

Meh...
This isn't helping me understand you AT ALL..... It's just seems to be insults and name calling.

Was that your intention?
This is the kind of thing that mismanaging your ideas can get you.

It's nice poetry, I suppose.
Points for that.

There is no use in going on with this, see. Nobody can lead you kicking and screaming into the peace of the kingdom.

As I wrote ( quite pithily, I might add )

• So much for understanding.
  So much for debate.
  So much for agreement.

If your intention was to drag me against my WILL into the state of mind that you like to call: "the kingdom", forget about it.

OF COURSE that wont happen.
I'm an agnostic and a skeptic.

You would have to CONVINCE me first.. and for that, my friend, we cannot bypass understanding of what you are talking about.

We aren't there yet, and you seem to want to abandon trying.
Your choice, of course.

But I agree.. If there is no use in going on with this, you should abandon the considerable effort you are taking.

That is something only you can do. Those of us who have are delighted to try to help those who are on the way, but we know when we can't help.

Wrong wrong wrong.

I can't understand you BY MYSELF ALONE.

If you want to make yourself comprehensible, you will have to do a little of that work YOURSELF. You interpersonal communication theory is unreliable.

I don't usually just "feel" in order to know if something is true or not.

GOOD..
Keep that in mind.

I never TRY to use emotions in order to know that propositions are true. I prefer evidence and logic.

( im not perfect, sometimes I make mistakes )
Good luck with "telling it like it really is", by the way.

[Blastcat]

oops

[marco]

Others think that our consciousness and conscience is shared with a greater consciousness growing with the universe.

I can fall in love with this notion. Curiously it explains some biblical puzzles, such as why God suffers when we sin. Our wrongs are not perpetrated by us alone, but by the body of which we are a part.

It is possible to be entirely mistaken about God - calling him Yahweh - and yet stumble on to the right path. And people will sense their path is a good one, so why change it? And possibly they shouldn't. If it works, don't fix it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 65 by gordsd]




[center]Understanding what is meant by the word "Spiritual"
Part Four: There's something out there[/center]

should work those kinks out.

As time goes on, as I grow and learn, perhaps I will.

Ahhh well said ! A man after my own heart.
Humility is very hard to find in these debates.

( I'm the MOST humiliestest cat there is )

I've improved my clarity a lot, I think, since I started testing my fine ideas. And I'm quite the slow learner.

( I know because I asked Blastcat about it ! )

Not at all from "Human Brains"?

I am not sure. Many are comfortable to accept the notion that conscience is simply a product of time and evolution. Some religiously think it comes from God. Others think that our consciousness and conscience is shared with a greater consciousness growing with the universe. From the youtube video of JC, I think he has a point, all of life could possibly be part of a greater consciousness, and I add: related to what we think of as a conscience.

mmm ok.

But my rather sly question was asking more precisely:

• "Aren't human thoughts the products of human brains"?
  Do we at least have SOME evidence to indicate that brains produce thoughts?
  What evidence do we have that the UNIVERSE has a mind or is a mind...?
  What evidence do we have that God is or has a mind?
  Is there any way at all to be sure about any of those possibilities?
  Are there other possibilities that I didn't mention?
  What should we believe about minds in the meantime?

This sounds to me that you are equating "spirituality" with "education".
If that's so.. why don't you just go ahead and use the WAY less ambiguous term?

So, in the sense of a teaching about how to be a true human being in a humane and moral connotation there is the notion that such teaching comes from outside of us.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how my ideas are coming from outside of me. I'll tell ya when I get some data. Right now, I have the very intimate feeling of "inside" they be.

Maybe that's just silly me.

As to purely secular ideas about how to be "humane", I suggest "humanism".
No supernatural involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

It is teaching--as you have thoughtfully pointed out--but the teaching has to do with how we live our lives (IMHO, not an historical account) that is, what is at the center of how we live and think about our lives.

As an agnostic and a skeptic, I don't usually come up with "supernatural" causation.
If it ever happens to me, I'll be the first to know.

But if by "spiritual" you really mean "teaching", why don't you use the word you really mean and avoid all of that confusion? After all this time I am STILL not really sure you mean "teaching" when you use the term "spiritual". I don't ever use those two terms as being IDENTICAL... not even close, really.

Is a math book spiritual?
It's full of "teaching", after all.

Im not convinced that you really mean that spiritual means teaching. Ordinarily, we QUALIFY the word teaching with "spiritual". Teaching can be about giving any kind of information at all... including about religion. But the word "teaching" without qualification isn't usually understood to be "spiritual".

You don't agree with the dictionary reports of the common usages for the word?

So it is teaching/learning, but since it concerns that which many think comes from God, or from a all encompassing consciousness, not simply proven to be the result of a brain from millions of years of evolution (I am convinced that evolution is a fact, yet i have a notion that there is conscious other out there as well) --so in that sense, I think it can be safely referred to as a spiritual teaching, but, as you have pointed out, it is good to clarify.

I'm NOW sitting here reading that sentence wondering "This is clarification?"
YIKES.. I had to read that three times. Slowly.

You have a notion that there is a "consciousness out there".
Could you say how you arrived at that notion?

I like to understand people's reasoning as much as I can.
I'm an agnostic, and yet, I have not arrived at the same kind of "notion".

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "notion". It seems to me that you might mean "untested hypothesis", but I'm not quite sure.

That would be an important clarification, too.

As an agnostic and a skeptic I can form many kinds of hypotheses. If I don't have a mechanism by which to test them, I go... "NEXT". And throw them on the pile of other untested hypotheses. Like the one where I'm a billionaire but I don't know my bank account number. Can I test that? I don't even know which bank, or if all that money is IN a bank. I don't know where to start looking. My bank accounts tell me that I'm not a billionaire.

Maybe "God" is an alien from the future. Can I test that?
No. So, as an agnostic and a skeptic, until such time as I can test... I have to say:

"NEXT".

That logically valid alien hypothesis of mine goes on the big pile in the corner along with the one about me being a secret billionaire.

by "spiritual" you mean "fictional" as opposed to "factual"

So in the sense of equating spiritual with moral or ethical themes, I think it is safe to say that there are many moral/spiritual lessons which can be learned from fictional and factual stories.

I can get a lot of moral lessons from reading the fictional accounts of Harry Potter, YEAH, BUT......

I'm TRYING here to figure out what you mean by the term "Spiritual". It's no good to use a term that is even MORE in need of explanation such as "moral/spiritual" in order to explain the simpler term "spiritual". That compound word only ADDS to my confusion.

I'm wondering right now... ( I wonder a whole lot ) how an ex-minister has so much trouble explaining what "spiritual" means. We have been at this for a while now.

Are you beginning to understand my concern about your use of that religious word?
What does it MEAN?

And more precisely, what does it mean to you, since you bother to use it, it must mean SOMETHING that you can articulate, surely.

If I'd have to guess right now, I would take a stab at it thus:

By spirit you might mean something like "Ghost in the machine". I use that terminology because one of the secular meanings for "Spirit" is "Ghost". The "machine" here would be the universe to stretch the metaphor to the extreme. Maybe "Ghost in the universe" would be better.

Am I close?

As an agnostic, a skeptic and an almost purely secular person, when I use the word "spirit" I am usually thinking about good liquor, or "mood". Team spirit, and a dram of spirit for the team spirit, if you will. As for the other meanings, such as ghosts or "God" or "generic supernatural being" and such.. I have found no evidence. Hence agnosticism and skepticism.

These supernatural beings are some of those wonderful hypotheses that I cannot test for.

And those supernatural and untested hypotheses are to be found in the pile in that sadly neglected dark dank and dreary corner of dreams.

It's a lot of fun debating with another agnostic, by the way. I have ONE ( two part ) deep dark and delicious question that I want to ask you.. since you declared yourself an agnostic, if you don't mind.. I HAVE to ask you:

_____________

• I can make a case that agnostics are also necessarily atheists !!
  Do you agree with me?
  
  IF not, would you enjoy taking a look at the argument?

_____________

[catnip]

[Replying to post 64 by catnip]


[center]
Where the Kingdom be at?
Part Four: .. Clarification and evidence demanded[/center]

As with the study of psychology, the evidence is encompassed by human experience and testimony.

It isn't of the intellect.

Ode 314



Those who don't feel this Love
pulling them like a river,
those who don't drink dawn
like a cup of spring water
or take in sunset like supper,
those who don't want to change,

let them sleep.

This Love is beyond the study of theology,
that old trickery and hypocrisy.
I you want to improve your mind that way,

sleep on.

I've given up on my brain.
I've torn the cloth to shreds
and thrown it away.

If you're not completely naked,
wrap your beautiful robe of words
around you,

and sleep.

--Rumi

"Like This" Coleman Barks, Maypop, 1990

I mean, why else would skeptics doubt the TRUE TRUTH of the TRUTH?

I tried showing you that it isn't found only within a religion and you didn't like it. *shrugs*

If I were speaking of psychology, it is a science and it does not rely on anything but the study of the mind and behavior--so I don't know what more you should need.

You claim to be Taoist, then you should understand.