Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which description? I hear of many. The Muslims have their description, the Christians have theirs', Buddhists, Hindus, etc.., numbering in the thousands. Can some people encounter a consciousness that matches a description they've heard and be wrong?
For me, it is the description of the Holy Spirit from Jesus. The description of the consciousness cannot be wrong if it matches the one you encounter. If your experience is driven by your subconscious it can be wrong (NOT reality) for myriad social psychological reasons.
For me, it is the description of the Holy Spirit from Jesus. The description of the consciousness cannot be wrong if it matches the one you encounter. If your experience is driven by your subconscious it can be wrong (NOT reality) for myriad social psychological reasons.
and when the "description" is in a book written by men, men with a particular agenda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
For me, it is the description of the Holy Spirit from Jesus. The description of the consciousness cannot be wrong if it matches the one you encounter. If your experience is driven by your subconscious it can be wrong (NOT reality) for myriad social psychological reasons.
So here we are ...love all around us...love making the world go round...created by love...
by a Creator that loves us...and then some live their lives blocking that love at every corner!
Knock it off!
We live in a duality that is both physical and consciousness. There is no west if there isn't an established east. There's no such thing as good if there isn't an established (and agreed upon) evil. Love can't exist without an opposition either.
As for "blocking love at every corner"; what makes you say that? On this forum, I see an exchange of ideas, beliefs, and facts from multiple points of view. This forum is a community of conversation. I don't know about you, but I was raised to see conversation as the key to friendships. We don't have to agree during the conversation; we just have to agree to keep the conversation going. If our world leaders would sit down together and do what we do daily on this forum, war would end. Weapons come out only after we stop talking with each other .
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 11-19-2017 at 06:44 PM..
For me, it is the description of the Holy Spirit from Jesus. The description of the consciousness cannot be wrong if it matches the one you encounter. If your experience is driven by your subconscious it can be wrong (NOT reality) for myriad social psychological reasons.
As others have asked, how can we differentiate an encounter experienced driven by our subconscious and one that is not? If it can be wrong, is this a reliable method to determine what is true?
For me, it is the description of the Holy Spirit from Jesus. The description of the consciousness cannot be wrong if it matches the one you encounter. If your experience is driven by your subconscious it can be wrong (NOT reality) for myriad social psychological reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
How do you differentiate?
I have explained it many times elsewhere in the forum. I used my ability to alter my experiences under conscious control as the test between content from my subconscious and content that reflects reality. If the experience could be altered by my conscious interference (as in Lucid Dreaming), I saw that as from my subconscious. If I could NOT alter it, I saw it as reflecting reality. I also conducted what I refer to as a "subjective scientific method" during various encounters to assure myself that my initial and subsequent impressions were valid. They are of no use for others who would want to validate my experiences, but they were more than sufficient to validate my "knowing" that I had encountered the consciousness of God. Ultimately the deciding factor is always your individual impression and "knowing" during the experience. When in the context of reading descriptions of God, I subsequently encountered in writing descriptions of the consciousness that I unmistakably experienced that was confirming and probative FOR ME.
I have explained it many times elsewhere in the forum. I used my ability to alter my experiences under conscious control as the test between content from my subconscious and content that reflects reality. If the experience could be altered by my conscious interference (as in Lucid Dreaming), I saw that as from my subconscious. If I could NOT alter it, I saw it as reflecting reality. I also conducted what I refer to as a "subjective scientific method" during various encounters to assure myself that my initial and subsequent impressions were valid. They are of no use for others who would want to validate my experiences, but they were more than sufficient to validate my "knowing" that I had encountered the consciousness of God. Ultimately the deciding factor is always your individual impression and "knowing" during the experience. When in the context of reading descriptions of God, I subsequently encountered in writing descriptions of the consciousness that I unmistakably experienced that was confirming and probative FOR ME.
Are there times when one's individual impression and "knowing" could be wrong?
We live in a duality that is both physical and consciousness. There is no west if there isn't an established east. There's no such thing as good if there isn't an established (and agreed upon) evil. Love can't exist without an opposition either.
These are philosophical constructs, and don't imply one extreme can have no meaning absent the other. Nor do they imply everything is binary, either good OR evil.
What actually is true is that there is a continuum.
Still plenty of contrast to appreciate. Even if we didn't know terrible suffering and want and distress, we could hypothesize them. Good still has meaning regardless, and would be appreciated -- without all the hindrances that go with coping with suffering.
So there IS such a thing as good without there necessarily having to be evil. Good is not merely the absence of evil. Evil is not merely the absence of good.
If the planet were torn in half and the west destroyed, the places constituting what was the east would be no less real or harder to define. If I'm loving today and tomorrow all evil is destroyed, I'm no less (or more) loving tomorrow just because evil ceases to exist.
This false dichotomy (or duality, if you prefer) actually EXCUSES and RATIONALIZES human suffering and cruelty. We can and should always work to eliminate those things, and while their total elimination may be a long-term work in process, they are doable goals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
