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.
I think that my own experience provides irrefutable proof that reality is living and conscious. The question, as you know, is whether or not reality is:
(1) Fundamentally living and/or
(2) Fundamentally conscious and/or
(3) Is a living organism (i.e., is alive as a whole) and/or
(4a) Is a conscious Being in the sense of having a God-like perspective/knowledge or
(4b) Is a conscious Being but lacks a cohesive "knowledge of Self" as a whole.
I interpret you as saying 'yes' to all except 4b, whereas I am agnostic on all of these questions, although there is a sense in which I lean somewhat favorably toward (1) and (4b).
My leaning toward (1) consists mostly of my view that Reality is unconscious (in the sense essentially "existing toward consciousness" in roughly the way that a rock perched on the top of a hill is "existing toward rolling" - which is to say, the potential-for-rolling is fundamentally built-in to the essence of the rock's situated reality). Basically a fundamentally "sleeping" Reality is not "dead" and if it is "not dead" then in some sense I guess it is appropriate to say it is "alive."
BTW: I'm using the term "fundamental" in the sense of "brute fact" and to imply the idea of "logical priority" - which is not the same as temporal priority. If my conception of Reality as an infinite multiverse is correct, then there was never a "time before" life or consciousness - i.e., no "first living thing" or "first conscious creature" for Reality-as-a-Whole but, nevertheless, it is probably the case that EVERY living organism evolved from pre-living conditions, and EVERY conscious experience emerged from proto-conscious conditions, thus I have a tendency to deny (2), (3), and (4a).
Just to be clear: Within our particular physical universe, there might have been things like "the first living organism" and "the first conscious being" but not for Reality-as-a-Whole.
Excellent question. My answer is: Conscious life is physical, thus conscious life is developmental because physical life is developmental.
But, as you already know, when I say that conscious life is physical, I do not mean to imply that every aspect of conscious experience is something that can be reduced to purely quantitative/objectively measurable phenomena. Ontologically speaking, conscious life is physical, but epistemologically speaking there are logical limits to objective knowledge due to the subjective/qualitative aspects of physical systems. Mary can know everything there is to know about the color red insofar as objectively accessible knowledge is concerned, and yet not know what it is like to subjectively experience the sensation of seeing red. This epistemological asymmetry stems from the logic of identity. If "seeing red" is a physical property that depends on being a particular kind of physical system, then only systems "of that kind" can know what it is like to experience, first hand, the seeing of red. If Mary is not a physical system "of that kind" then there will be something about the nature of red that she does not know, namely, what it is like to see red.
Your interpretation of your mystical experience could be correct, but I remain skeptical because I have yet to encounter any examples of conscious being who are not physically embodied and, as I see it, the overall web of scientific knowledge points toward the likelihood that all conscious experiences are embodied (tho I'm always on the lookout for new data).
Sorry for some repetition of my previous posts. I'm working on expressing views with maximum clarity and conciseness.
gotta get that book ready
start at the biosphere, thats empirical. The complexity vs volume ration is there and ready for ya. The jump to unknown is a question of how much bigger can you go. Self aware? well we are so that's at least a small portion of the universe that is. My gues is that anything we have the universe has more of.
Your interpretation of your mystical experience could be correct, but I remain skeptical because I have yet to encounter any examples of conscious being who are not physically embodied and, as I see it, the overall web of scientific knowledge points toward the likelihood that all conscious experiences are embodied (tho I'm always on the lookout for new data).
One source of my skepticism that I forgot to mention: If there is a level of "Jesus consciousness" or anything of the sort, why does it remain so "hidden" for so many of us, despite our sincere efforts to keep an open mind? Why doesn't God "level the playing field" so to speak, by giving all of us the upfront rational/empirical evidence that we need in order to decide, without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo and the scroll-encrusted assertions of ancient people, whether or not to worship Jesus as a savior? If Jesus really did perform miracles in ancient times, why not do so now? Right here, in front of my eyes? Maybe I would still be skeptical, but then that would be on me if I reject clear straight-up empirical evidence and/or air-tight logical arguments. Jesus appeared to the apostles after he died. He showed them the holes in his hands, etc. If he could do that back then, for them, why not appear now to me? Why not let me ask some direct questions so that I can pin down the rational reasons why he had to be born and die on the cross, etc.? Why not display some psi-powers under repeatable, controlled conditions under the gaze of scientists and skeptics so that anyone with an open and rational mind would have no rational choice but to conclude that Jesus is the savior?
I can already anticipate some of the answers:
(1) God works in mysterious ways.
(2) God already actually does present each of us with powerful rational and/or empirical evidence, but I'm just too pig-headed or hard-hearted to see the evidence He is presenting.
(3) God want's each of us to make a leap of faith; He does not want our obedience on the bases of reason alone.
(4) If I have not already accepted Jesus, then there is no clear and rational evidence that, alone, would convince me. (I.e., I could always find some wiggle-room for maintaining skepticism insofar as I am, apparently, committed to skepticism.)
I don't buy any of these answers. They all smack of convenient self-sealing irrationality. I suspect that if God is real, and if Jesus really is a savior, then God's power is greatly limited and, perhaps, He is struggling to figure things out just as much as we are. Or, more likely, God is not a "conscious Being" as such with independent powers and motivations, but is more like a "capacity of mind" that I have simply not yet developed (which would partially fall in line with your contentions based on your mystical experience, except for what I interpret as your insistence on the nature of God/Jesus as an independent Being/experiencer).
Bottom line: I suspect there are capacities of mind that give deep, direct insights into aspects of Reality that could be loosely thought of as "divine" in some sense, and which could be interpreted by some people as roughly Christian in nature, but I really, really doubt that this is the only interpretation, or necessarily the "best" interpretation of the experience. We know that human minds are capable of creating powerful illusions. People can, for example, become powerfully convinced that they experienced X when, in fact, they had no such experience (i.e., false memories can be even more vivid than real memories). We know there can be cognitive blindness. People can be convinced that their arm is not their arm, or that their spouse is not their spouse. And so on. Predispositions can powerfully influence our experiences and interpretations of experiences. So it does not surprise me at all that an encounter with a "divine" capacity of mind, or a near-death experience, etc., could inspire interpretations that are roughly Christian. (I realize that you did not go into your experience with a Christian bias, but no one in modern culture is immune from the pervasive influence of Christian mythology, so even without a conscious upfront Christian bias, I think one could end up with a Christian interpretation.)
Oddly enough, I'm not really saying that your interpretation is wrong. There could be ways that I cannot currently fathom in which your interpretation really is the best one. All I'm trying to do is explain my on-gong skepticism and agnosticism and suggest that, when all is said and done, a diversity of "truths" could end up being the Reality of things in certain cases (e.g., some spiritual cases) where logic does not necessarily mandate that there must be one and only one absolutely correct faith or interpretation.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 10-06-2017 at 10:14 AM..
My answer would be "what makes you think God wants us to worship Jesus?"
I have no reason to think God wants us to worship Jesus, even if there is a God. I'm simply going with the title of the thread - a Christian Narrative - which (so far as I understand) implies the worshipping of Jesus (or, at least, faith in the idea that Jesus is savior, and through this faith we attain eternal life, etc.) Am I completely off base here?
I have no reason to think God wants us to worship Jesus, even if there is a God. I'm simply going with the title of the thread - a Christian Narrative - which (so far as I understand) implies the worshipping of Jesus (or, at least, faith in the idea that Jesus is savior, and through this faith we attain eternal life, etc.) Am I completely off base here?
Insofar as you relate that title to what you have learned about traditional Christian religion, yes. Think of it as a fresh start on understanding what Jesus was all about.
Insofar as you relate that title to what you have learned about traditional Christian religion, yes. Think of it as a fresh start on understanding what Jesus was all about.
Fair enough. What would you say are the necessary and sufficient elements for categorizing a belief as Christian?
Personally, I don't see much point in categorizing a belief as Christian unless there is something special about Jesus. I'm not quite sure what the "something special" has to be, but I think some minimal requirement would be that Jesus (as Mystic suggests) embodied "God consciousness" on Earth. I think something roughly like that is minimally necessary, although I'm not sure if it would be sufficient (nor do I even know how to decide what is or is not sufficient in this case). If I interpret Mystic correctly, I think the idea is that the mind of Jesus somehow embodied the mind of God (via "perfect resonance") in a way that is probably not true for any other human being (although, really, I don't see why Jesus would necessarily have to be the only one), and the basic idea, I imagine, is that we should strive to emulate the mind of Jesus (especially his "love of all people") because, in this way we would, ourselves, in our own way, embody the mind of God (or, at least, the love of God) in our own life and presumably this is what God really wants.
If this were to become the consensus on what "Christianity" is, then I could have a lot more respect for Christianity, in general, as a spiritual path. As I've said to Mystic, if I were to count myself as a theist, or a Christian, this is roughly in the ballpark of the sort of theist/Christian I would have to be. At the moment, however, I'm not convinced (or even moderately inclined to believe) that the physical human being known, historically, as Jesus is quite so special as all that. It all sounds good in a romantic sort of way - I can see the inspirational value of the narrative/mythology - but all things considered, I do not find it ultimately credible from a rational point of view.
But my basic question still stands: If there really is a God - a more or less self-conscious Creator/Divine Being who has hopes and/or plans for humanity - and if he really wants us to learn to be in resonance with his all-loving mind, then why not just say so? And why not just say so now, rather than waiting for some "appointed time" or whatever. Too much of this still strikes me as fairy tale. A collection of ad hoc contrivances cobbled together to make sense of suffering, etc., in a world supposedly created by a loving God.
that is it in a nutshell. there is no jesus rising from the dead. There is no more need for you to praise the universe than a blood cell in you praise you. Or your child to praise you. Now if the child wants to, that's ok, to a point, but most parents will not need it.
as far as the blood cell raising you? so many powers of ten difference, we don't even know, much less care. But we eat right and exercise to maintain ourselves and thus the red blood too.
One source of my skepticism that I forgot to mention: If there is a level of "Jesus consciousness" or anything of the sort, why does it remain so "hidden" for so many of us, despite our sincere efforts to keep an open mind? Why doesn't God "level the playing field" so to speak, by giving all of us the upfront rational/empirical evidence that we need in order to decide, without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo and the scroll-encrusted assertions of ancient people, whether or not to worship Jesus as a savior? If Jesus really did perform miracles in ancient times, why not do so now? Right here, in front of my eyes? Maybe I would still be skeptical, but then that would be on me if I reject clear straight-up empirical evidence and/or air-tight logical arguments. Jesus appeared to the apostles after he died. He showed them the holes in his hands, etc. If he could do that back then, for them, why not appear now to me? Why not let me ask some direct questions so that I can pin down the rational reasons why he had to be born and die on the cross, etc.? Why not display some psi-powers under repeatable, controlled conditions under the gaze of scientists and skeptics so that anyone with an open and rational mind would have no rational choice but to conclude that Jesus is the savior?
I can already anticipate some of the answers:
(1) God works in mysterious ways.
(2) God already actually does present each of us with powerful rational and/or empirical evidence, but I'm just too pig-headed or hard-hearted to see the evidence He is presenting.
(3) God want's each of us to make a leap of faith; He does not want our obedience on the bases of reason alone.
(4) If I have not already accepted Jesus, then there is no clear and rational evidence that, alone, would convince me. (I.e., I could always find some wiggle-room for maintaining skepticism insofar as I am, apparently, committed to skepticism.)
I don't buy any of these answers. They all smack of convenient self-sealing irrationality. I suspect that if God is real, and if Jesus really is a savior, then God's power is greatly limited and, perhaps, He is struggling to figure things out just as much as we are. Or, more likely, God is not a "conscious Being" as such with independent powers and motivations, but is more like a "capacity of mind" that I have simply not yet developed (which would partially fall in line with your contentions based on your mystical experience, except for what I interpret as your insistence on the nature of God/Jesus as an independent Being/experiencer).
Bottom line: I suspect there are capacities of mind that give deep, direct insights into aspects of Reality that could be loosely thought of as "divine" in some sense, and which could be interpreted by some people as roughly Christian in nature, but I really, really doubt that this is the only interpretation, or necessarily the "best" interpretation of the experience. We know that human minds are capable of creating powerful illusions. People can, for example, become powerfully convinced that they experienced X when, in fact, they had no such experience (i.e., false memories can be even more vivid than real memories). We know there can be cognitive blindness. People can be convinced that their arm is not their arm, or that their spouse is not their spouse. And so on. Predispositions can powerfully influence our experiences and interpretations of experiences. So it does not surprise me at all that an encounter with a "divine" capacity of mind, or a near-death experience, etc., could inspire interpretations that are roughly Christian. (I realize that you did not go into your experience with a Christian bias, but no one in modern culture is immune from the pervasive influence of Christian mythology, so even without a conscious upfront Christian bias, I think one could end up with a Christian interpretation.)
Oddly enough, I'm not really saying that your interpretation is wrong. There could be ways that I cannot currently fathom in which your interpretation really is the best one. All I'm trying to do is explain my on-gong skepticism and agnosticism and suggest that, when all is said and done, a diversity of "truths" could end up being the Reality of things in certain cases (e.g., some spiritual cases) where logic does not necessarily mandate that there must be one and only one absolutely correct faith or interpretation.
One source of my skepticism that I forgot to mention: If there is a level of "Jesus consciousness" or anything of the sort, why does it remain so "hidden" for so many of us, despite our sincere efforts to keep an open mind? Why doesn't God "level the playing field" so to speak, by giving all of us the upfront rational/empirical evidence that we need in order to decide, without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo and the scroll-encrusted assertions of ancient people, whether or not to worship Jesus as a savior? If Jesus really did perform miracles in ancient times, why not do so now? Right here, in front of my eyes? Maybe I would still be skeptical, but then that would be on me if I reject clear straight-up empirical evidence and/or air-tight logical arguments. Jesus appeared to the apostles after he died. He showed them the holes in his hands, etc. If he could do that back then, for them, why not appear now to me? Why not let me ask some direct questions so that I can pin down the rational reasons why he had to be born and die on the cross, etc.? Why not display some psi-powers under repeatable, controlled conditions under the gaze of scientists and skeptics so that anyone with an open and rational mind would have no rational choice but to conclude that Jesus is the savior?
I can already anticipate some of the answers:
(1) God works in mysterious ways.
(2) God already actually does present each of us with powerful rational and/or empirical evidence, but I'm just too pig-headed or hard-hearted to see the evidence He is presenting.
(3) God want's each of us to make a leap of faith; He does not want our obedience on the bases of reason alone.
(4) If I have not already accepted Jesus, then there is no clear and rational evidence that, alone, would convince me. (I.e., I could always find some wiggle-room for maintaining skepticism insofar as I am, apparently, committed to skepticism.)
I don't buy any of these answers. They all smack of convenient self-sealing irrationality. I suspect that if God is real, and if Jesus really is a savior, then God's power is greatly limited and, perhaps, He is struggling to figure things out just as much as we are. Or, more likely, God is not a "conscious Being" as such with independent powers and motivations, but is more like a "capacity of mind" that I have simply not yet developed (which would partially fall in line with your contentions based on your mystical experience, except for what I interpret as your insistence on the nature of God/Jesus as an independent Being/experiencer).
Bottom line: I suspect there are capacities of mind that give deep, direct insights into aspects of Reality that could be loosely thought of as "divine" in some sense, and which could be interpreted by some people as roughly Christian in nature, but I really, really doubt that this is the only interpretation, or necessarily the "best" interpretation of the experience. We know that human minds are capable of creating powerful illusions. People can, for example, become powerfully convinced that they experienced X when, in fact, they had no such experience (i.e., false memories can be even more vivid than real memories). We know there can be cognitive blindness. People can be convinced that their arm is not their arm, or that their spouse is not their spouse. And so on. Predispositions can powerfully influence our experiences and interpretations of experiences. So it does not surprise me at all that an encounter with a "divine" capacity of mind, or a near-death experience, etc., could inspire interpretations that are roughly Christian. (I realize that you did not go into your experience with a Christian bias, but no one in modern culture is immune from the pervasive influence of Christian mythology, so even without a conscious upfront Christian bias, I think one could end up with a Christian interpretation.)
Oddly enough, I'm not really saying that your interpretation is wrong. There could be ways that I cannot currently fathom in which your interpretation really is the best one. All I'm trying to do is explain my on-gong skepticism and agnosticism and suggest that, when all is said and done, a diversity of "truths" could end up being the Reality of things in certain cases (e.g., some spiritual cases) where logic does not necessarily mandate that there must be one and only one absolutely correct faith or interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
My answer would be "what makes you think God wants us to worship Jesus?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I have no reason to think God wants us to worship Jesus, even if there is a God. I'm simply going with the title of the thread - a Christian Narrative - which (so far as I understand) implies the worshipping of Jesus (or, at least, faith in the idea that Jesus is savior, and through this faith we attain eternal life, etc.) Am I completely off base here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Insofar as you relate that title to what you have learned about traditional Christian religion, yes. Think of it as a fresh start on understanding what Jesus was all about.
I am so appreciative of your total engagement that I don't want to shortchange any of your questions or issues, Gaylen, but I can see that the title Christian carries some automatic baggage as a religion that is the source of your difficulties. Nate is trying to suggest what those misdirecting issues might be. My version is Christianity because it follows Christ, NOT any of the myriad Christian religions with their dogma purporting to explain our relationship to God. Our relationship to God is not one of worship. It is as a child to parent. Children reproduce their parents. Our parent is a multicellular consciousness (mind), NOT a physical being as we experience being. Worship is a way to foster the state of mind that is our birthright in harmony with the mind of God - agape love. The mind of Christ is our template (or tuning fork).
Since our inception as a species, we were not remotely developing the state of mind of our parent. Our consciousnesses were in limbo (out of tune, so to speak, from God). Those who died were born as INFANT Spirits but they were separated (dissonant) from God. One of us had to achieve perfect resonance (Identity) with the mind of God to connect the rest of us. Many came close (but no cigar). By the time of Christ, the fields were ripe for the harvest. Jesus was capable of achieving that perfect resonance. Our consciousness is capable of imagining and manifesting creative marvels for our enjoyment and entertainment. We have no idea what a consciousness identical to God's is capable of manifesting within our Reality that is fundamentally based on consciousness, hence I have no problem with any of the mythos about miracles, healings, etc.
The important element in this conceptualization is the reproductive meme. As embryo Spirits, we are not remotely capable of whatever our future lives as Spirits will develop into. When we die (are Born Again as Spirit), we will be mere infant Spirits, just as a physical embryo is not remotely capable of what its future life as a physical human being will develop into. This is a possible answer to why don't God or Jesus DO something to let us know the truth. That is like asking why our physical parents did not do something to let our embryo fetus know (if it were sentient at the time which it wasn't) that they were there. There are so many speculations about what the next stage of life is like, but we are completely incapable of even speculating what life as a Spirit in a spiritual body will be like when we enter it as an infant Spirit. No matter how developed or mature we become spiritually in this physical womb, we will still barely have the capabilities of an infant Spirit relative to what is to come.
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.
