# Consciousness



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2018)

I've been listening to some podcasts where the notion of consciousness comes up.  Deists like Jordan Peterson, Deepak Chopra, and Ben Shapiro believe that consciousness is an indicator of something transcendent.  They reject materialism, that is (as I understand it) that phenomena arise from the existence of material.  That seems to make allot of sense to me.  

An analogy would be a battery.  If atoms are arranged in such a way that they form a battery, then the resulting electrical charge potential exists as a result.  If I think of consciousness in those terms it doesn't seem to require "another plane" or some such idea.  If atoms are arranged in such a way that they form a brain, then the resulting consciousness exists as a result.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 3, 2018)

If it's transcendent or something more than normal, would that be the same as cosmic consciousness?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> If it's transcendent or something more than normal, would that be the same as cosmic consciousness?



I've been looking into this since I got home at 3pm and have found some interesting things.  This program is amazing:

https://www.closertotruth.com/

I've watched about 8 episodes so far and I'm hooked.

I also found this, which is interesting:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/

The closest sensible things I've heard to what amounts to "Cosmic Consciousness" are ideas like "Consciousness is what occurs during quantum uncertainty" or "Consciousness is an inherent property of matter that manifests itself when organized in a particular way (a brain)".  So far I'm convinced that materialism can adequately explain consciousness but I'm still learning.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> If atoms are arranged in such a way that they form a brain, then the resulting consciousness exists as a result.


What do you think happens to a person's brain when they die? What goes missing to make them dead? It would seem like all the ingredients are still there 30 seconds after death. 

Do we know the main ingredient that keeps us alive?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2018)

I've said this before, but I don't see how consciousness arrives from unconsciousnss.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 4, 2018)

stringmusic said:


> I've said this before, but I don't see how consciousness arrives from unconsciousnss.



Do you believe our spirit preexisted?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you believe our spirit preexisted?



God knew us before time, so he either knew our spirit or He knew He would create us.

So in short, I don't know.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 4, 2018)

stringmusic said:


> What do you think happens to a person's brain when they die? What goes missing to make them dead? It would seem like all the ingredients are still there 30 seconds after death.
> 
> Do we know the main ingredient that keeps us alive?



When respiration and blood flow to the brain cease the brain cells will eventually die.  Then the tissue begins to decompose.  This article says that science may be able to reanimate dead people up to 24 hrs. after death.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...aims-corpses-soon-revived-24-hours-death.html

If it's true, then we may have to redefine what dead is.  Perhaps one day we will be able to construct cells artificially and we may figure out how to animate them:

https://ideas.ted.com/the-ongoing-quest-to-build-life-from-scratch/

What do you think of those pursuits?  Do you think they're noble or useful?

Dead is the cessation of the spontaneous qualities that make something alive.  Cells might continue to live after brain function has ceased but I wouldn't say that the person is still alive.  When the totality of a being's cells quit performing electro-chemical functions I would say the the totality of the body is dead.  Medically they would say someone is dead if they no longer breathe or pump blood though cells may remain alive for some time after that.  

I don't think we know what sparks life because we haven't been able to spontaneously generate it.  Do you think we should try?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 4, 2018)

stringmusic said:


> I've said this before, but I don't see how consciousness arrives from unconsciousness.



No one knows.  We do know that the only way to observe consciousness is to see it manifest in a material organization like a brain.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> No one knows.  We do know that the only way to observe consciousness is to see it manifest in a material organization like a brain.



We simply do  observe consciousness in the acts of the will. Why or from what observation can we say an individual is of two minds? Are we not making a declaration that we can observe another's consciousness through an individual's acts ( wilfull or not) and our own consciousness through the willed intellectual process of posting the query?

The observation of consciousness then  is manifest in that we see it in the acts of the will which will is not of material organization? So the observation of consciousness is that there is a mover also other than material organization. An unconscious man on a pallet is full of material organization, but none the less unconscious.

Now a person can also declare or indicate their will before it is essayed as an act and by this declaration of will we judge them conscious.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2018)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2018)

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html



"But there is no self awareness present: we don't reflect on who we are, what we're doing, or even the fact that we are dreaming."

I do.

Interesting.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> "But there is no self awareness present: we don't reflect on who we are, what we're doing, or even the fact that we are dreaming."
> 
> I do.
> 
> Interesting.



It may mean that you are in a state of lucid dreaming instead of normal sleep dreaming.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 6, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It may mean that you are in a state of lucid dreaming instead of normal sleep dreaming.


Sure. Or it may mean that the exact opposite is true in my case.

I often study my dreams while they are occurring. I frequently attempt to go past third tier(In my dream, I am asleep and dreaming that I am asleep and dreaming). 

My wife frequently will ask what I dreamed about, knowing that I can recall them in order.

Sometimes she has to wake me three times.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Sure. Or it may mean that the exact opposite is true in my case.
> 
> I often study my dreams while they are occurring. I frequently attempt to go past third tier(In my dream, I am asleep and dreaming that I am asleep and dreaming).
> 
> ...


I can recall dreams and have been able to change events in reoccuring dreams I have over many years, but I've never dreamed that I am dreaming...that is wild.

What are your thoughts about other animals that display consciousness and self awareness?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 6, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Sure. Or it may mean that the exact opposite is true in my case.
> 
> I often study my dreams while they are occurring. I frequently attempt to go past third tier(In my dream, I am asleep and dreaming that I am asleep and dreaming).
> 
> ...



Have you ever seen the movie _Inception_?  Good flick.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 7, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What are your thoughts about other animals that display consciousness and self awareness?


I think that we should eat them.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I think that we should eat them.



Easier to say that rather than try to explain how consciousness is a unique gift only bestowed upon humans by a higher power.


----------



## Israel (Feb 7, 2018)

I recall a dream (but have forgotten the particulars) in which the "I" in the dream was asked a riddle by another in the dream. I was stumped...but when the answer was given I was surprised at how trenchant was the response.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 7, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Easier to say that rather than try to explain how consciousness is a unique gift only bestowed upon humans by a higher power.


Who says that?

In formulating your response, was thought prior to consciousness or awareness?


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 7, 2018)

Israel said:


> I recall a dream (but have forgotten the particulars) in which the "I" in the dream was asked a riddle by another in the dream. I was stumped...but when the answer was given I was surprised at how trenchant was the response.


Do you remember how it made you feel?


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 7, 2018)

I may have shared this before. A friend of my wife started to tell us about a dream she had recently. I recognized it immediately as my own dream. When I stopped her and began telling the dream, she thought that I was just playing off of her initial words.

I brought pencil and paper and asked her to draw a map showing details. I went into the other room and drew the identical map. She was more surprised than I was.

We both had the same dream.


----------



## Israel (Feb 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Do you remember how it made you feel?



Yes. In the dream it seemed normal...this "other" fellow was pretty clever in his answer. But I awoke astounded considering the seeming ramifications.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 7, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes. In the dream it seemed normal...this "other" fellow was pretty clever in his answer. But I awoke astounded considering the seeming ramifications.


I think you passed the "mirror test".


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever seen the movie _Inception_?  Good flick.


I just watched the trailer. I am going to try and watch it tomorrow.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Who says that?
> 
> In formulating your response, was thought prior to consciousness or awareness?



Without any research into it, my initial answer would be that if I am alive I am conscious and aware.


----------



## Israel (Feb 8, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I think you passed the "mirror test".


 
I had to look that up.
Is it this?

The mirror test, sometimes called the mark test or the mirror self-recognition test (MSR), is a behavioural technique developed in 1970 by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. as an attempt to determine whether a non-human animal possesses the ability of visual self-recognition.


If it is that, a test designed by man to determine self recognition amongst "non humans" (with some_ passing _the test) the limits of that test remain something conceived and bordered by the mind of man. (in other words it is man saying "let me see if any possess what I know of _self consciousness_"...which limits are subject to what man sees himself as possessing)

Nevertheless, is it wrong to then extrapolate that "recognition of self" therefore includes the inherent (whether it be _inherent_ might be arguable by the "outside" influence in the making of the mark) ability to recognize _not self?_ That the being recognizes the mirror image as "not self", not mistaking the_ mark _placed there as upon a _something else_, but instead looks to _itself_ for what the image displays?

This too, has significant ramifications in consciousness as to a certain mark left toward an _initial discerning_ for a being. What that being is, as opposed to what it is not.


Do you remember this childhood riddle? (I think it's a variant on the two kids who fell down the chimney)


> Two boys were having fun in the school playground at lunchtime. The school bell rang, signalling that lunchime was over. As they turned to head back to class, a gust of wind scooped up some dirt off the ground and blew it right in their face. When the wind stopped, one boy's face was covered with dirt, while the other boy's face was perfectly clean. But it was the boy with the clean face who rushed to the washroom to wash his face, while the boy with the dirty face went straight to class.
> 
> Assuming both children had equally good hygiene habits, can you explain this strange behavior?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Feb 10, 2018)

stringmusic said:


> What do you think happens to a person's brain when they die? What goes missing to make them dead? It would seem like all the ingredients are still there 30 seconds after death.
> 
> Do we know the main ingredient that keeps us alive?



what goes missing is the electrical charges created in and used by the brain. It's just like an unplugged toaster. The toaster is functionally sound, but without the electricity flowing it's not "alive" so to speak.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> what goes missing is the electrical charges created in and used by the brain. It's just like an unplugged toaster. The toaster is functionally sound, but without the electricity flowing it's not "alive" so to speak.



Not quite.  When the electricity in people goes off something happens to telemeres that's so far un-reversable.  They degrade and can't be repaired.....yet.

Then what? What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death?  Is this something we should try to accomplish?  I say absolutely yes.  What would be the theological implications of this technology for believers?  Anyone?


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Not quite.  When the electricity in people goes off something happens to telemeres that's so far un-reversable.  They degrade and can't be repaired.....yet.
> 
> Then what? What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death?  Is this something we should try to accomplish?  I say absolutely yes.  What would be the theological implications of this technology for believers?  Anyone?


None.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> None.




Do you think science should try to cure death?


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Not quite.  When the electricity in people goes off something happens to telemeres that's so far un-reversable.  They degrade and can't be repaired.....yet.
> 
> Then what? What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death?  Is this something we should try to accomplish?  I say absolutely yes.  What would be the theological implications of this technology for believers?  Anyone?





> What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death?  Is this something we should try to accomplish?  I say absolutely yes.


That's interesting to think about but its got a lot of angles to consider.
First, we already more or less do that - patient flat lines, slap the paddles on him/her and get the heart going again.
But what does reverse/stave off death actually mean?
Permanent coma?
Bed ridden forever?
I cant help but think about in terms of like taking a 50 year old truck and rebuilding the engine.
Sure now the engine works again but the rest of the parts are still 50 years old and rusting/rotting away.
Not to mention, and this sounds awful cold but its worth considering, but who and how do we take care of a society full of people who are alive but cant work and all the other implications of reversing/staving off death.
We already warehouse the elderly, sick etc etc.
Now multiply that by XXXXX.
Who gets the stave off death shot/procedure? Those that can afford it? Those that are deemed "worth living longer"?
Huge, gigantic, massive can of worms.....


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's interesting to think about but its got a lot of angles to consider.
> First, we already more or less do that - patient flat lines, slap the paddles on him/her and get the heart going again.
> But what does reverse/stave off death actually mean?
> Permanent coma?
> ...



When the tech comes online they will theoretically be able to repair any damage, perhaps reverse aging.  Some people involved in the applicable fields think that the first person to live to 1,000 is already alive.  Say a 2 year old today lives to be 80.  By that time they learn extend life to 150. During that next 70 years they figure out how to extend life to 400. And on and on.

Of course the rich will be the first to get the treatments.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think science should try to cure death?


I do not think science is a thing in itself. If it were to be, it should stop killing people first.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I do not think science is a thing in itself. If it were to be, it should stop killing people first.



I suppose I meant science as a pursuit performed by scientists.

Some scientific discoveries are used to kill people, others are used to cure people.  Do you think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to find a cure for death?


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose I meant science as a pursuit performed by scientists.
> 
> Some scientific discoveries are used to kill people, others are used to cure people.  Do you think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to find a cure for death?


It is underway as we speak. I just don't expect much from science, other than for it to continue to claim too much for itself. It is inherent in its flaws. As you pointed out, science is humans.

The cure for death is an issue for the unbeliever. A believer knows that he lives as long as Christ lives.


----------



## Israel (Feb 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's interesting to think about but its got a lot of angles to consider.
> First, we already more or less do that - patient flat lines, slap the paddles on him/her and get the heart going again.
> But what does reverse/stave off death actually mean?
> Permanent coma?
> ...



Yes.

With more cans found in every can opened.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes.
> 
> With more cans found in every can opened.


I have to agree.
Personally, I see more negatives than positives in the long term.
Maybe it boils down to I don't trust man with that kind of power.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> It is underway as we speak. I just don't expect much from science, other than for it to continue to claim too much for itself. It is inherent in its flaws. As you pointed out, science is humans.
> 
> The cure for death is an issue for the unbeliever. A believer knows that he lives as long as Christ lives.


The Bible was written by man. It has the same flaws that man has made everywhere else. In fact it has more flaws because from the time that it was written until now man has been able to better understand many of the things that were explained in the bible.
The believer uses the same man made writings as the non believer. The major difference is that while one side forbids/denies change the other is always looking to improve through change.


----------



## Israel (Feb 12, 2018)

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 12, 2018)

bullethead said:


> The Bible was written by man. It has the same flaws that man has made everywhere else. In fact it has more flaws because from the time that it was written until now man has been able to better understand many of the things that were explained in the bible.
> The believer uses the same man made writings as the non believer. The major difference is that while one side forbids/denies change the other is always looking to improve through change.


Or the Writings use the believer and the non believer.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I have to agree.
> Personally, I see more negatives than positives in the long term.
> Maybe it boils down to I don't trust man with that kind of power.




Why? 

You can't stop science from trying to cure death.  Do you imagine some kind of Mahattan Project where all the world leaders get together and promise not to pursue the tech? On what grounds?


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Why?
> 
> You can't stop science from trying to cure death.  Do you imagine some kind of Mahattan Project where all the world leaders get together and promise not to pursue the tech? On what grounds?


Oh I have no doubt science is and will work in that direction.  Like I mentioned above, we already have made strides in that direction.
I'm just not convinced "curing death" (as in death is eliminated) is a good idea in the long term.
On the surface it sounds great. 
We could probably spend days on discussing the environmental implications, days on the social implications, days on the political implications, days on the financial implications, days on the psychological implications, days on.......
I think Israel hit the nail on the head with this -


> With more cans found in every can opened.


Sure some of those cans will contain "positives".
I just envision lots more cans of negatives than positives.


----------



## red neck richie (Feb 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh I have no doubt science is and will work in that direction.  Like I mentioned above, we already have made strides in that direction.
> I'm just not convinced "curing death" (as in death is eliminated) is a good idea in the long term.
> On the surface it sounds great.
> We could probably spend days on discussing the environmental implications, days on the social implications, days on the political implications, days on the financial implications, days on the psychological implications, days on.......
> ...



Anyone seen pet cemetery?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh I have no doubt science is and will work in that direction.  Like I mentioned above, we already have made strides in that direction.
> I'm just not convinced "curing death" (as in death is eliminated) is a good idea in the long term.
> On the surface it sounds great.
> We could probably spend days on discussing the environmental implications, days on the social implications, days on the political implications, days on the financial implications, days on the psychological implications, days on.......
> ...



Then we'll just have to be scared but it's worth it to keep trying to discover things.


----------



## red neck richie (Feb 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Then we'll just have to be scared but it's worth it to keep trying to discover things.



When you figure it out your not skeered.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Then we'll just have to be scared but it's worth it to keep trying to discover things.


Scared?
I'm not scared. I'm a lot older than you are. I'll never see it 
I absolutely agree we should continue to try to discover things.
I'm just not sure every discovery is a positive thing for everybody.
Kind of depends on how that discovery gets used.

Question -
Do you cherish time with your daughter? (I know you do)
Do you think the fact that you only will have a certain amount of time with her heightens that/makes you appreciate it more?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> When you figure it out your not skeered.



Even though you may not be right.


----------



## Israel (Feb 13, 2018)

The Manhattan Project was mentioned.

It would be interesting to ask (if one stood next to Oppenheimer)

"What do you mean when you say 'I have become Shiva, destroyer of worlds.'?"

Everyone knows he did not "do it" on his own...but he obviously saw his part. And whether things unfolded (yet) in whatever he may have seen (if anything) ahead, his statement is not unlike what is called an ecstatic utterance, the plain revelation to him, and then through him to a truth. 

He helped pop that can wide open, and in the moment of perfect sight of those worms (no longer of imagination) in their wiggling, he identified himself with the many armed destroyer. (Too deep an image?)

The struggle of man to put the Genii back in the bottle, to unring that bell seems endless. But, it has an appointed end.

For some "I can fix this" must give way to "My God, what have I done?"! 

That seeing can only be borne in the Savior's light.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Scared?
> I'm not scared. I'm a lot older than you are. I'll never see it
> I absolutely agree we should continue to try to discover things.
> I'm just not sure every discovery is a positive thing for everybody.
> ...



Yes.   I have to admit that I don't often think of how limited my time on Earth is.  I could keel over right now while typinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnhhhhhe;o....    


Just kidding.  But in all honesty, I could be concerned about my mortality more but I'm not.  Some days I have my head down with the ball tucked and I'm just trying to make yardage.  Some days I feel particularly philosophical and I try to revel in every little experience.  That can be exhausting and I actually get bored of it.  I don't beat myself up anymore because I'm not doing anything "meaningful".  One can obsess over regrets or simply observe how they come into consciousness and then pass.  

I enjoy the good times with my daughter as much as anything else I enjoy.  I have a peculiar attachment to her that is unique and profound and it creates very distinct experiences that I find mysterious and powerful.  I know that they could end at any time. 

We put our dog down in Jan.  People ask me if we are gonna get another one and I say "I don't want to emotionally invest that deeply in something that will only be around for such a short time". She was 11.  Right now it doesn't seem like it was worth it.  I wish that my dog and my family and all my friends could live forever.  See the appeal?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

Israel said:


> The Manhattan Project was mentioned.
> 
> It would be interesting to ask (if one stood next to Oppenheimer)
> 
> ...



The existential dilemma that you're trying to describe here can be resolved without the need of un-provable claims.  The seeing born from the Savior's light (whatever the heck that means) is a fiction until you can _demonstrate_ otherwise.


----------



## ky55 (Feb 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> We put our dog down in Jan.  People ask me if we are gonna get another one and I say "I don't want to emotionally invest that deeply in something that will only be around for such a short time". She was 11.  Right now it doesn't seem like it was worth it.  I wish that my dog and my family and all my friends could live forever.  See the appeal?



Sorry about your dog. 
Ours is getting older, and this comes to mind a lot:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/725858-tis-a-fearful-thing-tis-a-fearful-thing-to-love

*


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Sorry about your dog.
> Ours is getting older, and this comes to mind a lot:
> 
> https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/725858-tis-a-fearful-thing-tis-a-fearful-thing-to-love
> ...



Mortality creates a particular situation.  The absence of it would cause a different one.  It might be fun to make a list of the good and bad that might come from the absence of mortality.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

Back to consciousness for a second.  

We know what consciousness feels like when it manifests in material, but if one claims that consciousness is immaterial, then what does that consciousness feel like and how would one know?


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.   I have to admit that I don't often think of how limited my time on Earth is.  I could keel over right now while typinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnhhhhhe;o....
> 
> 
> Just kidding.  But in all honesty, I could be concerned about my mortality more but I'm not.  Some days I have my head down with the ball tucked and I'm just trying to make yardage.  Some days I feel particularly philosophical and I try to revel in every little experience.  That can be exhausting and I actually get bored of it.  I don't beat myself up anymore because I'm not doing anything "meaningful".  One can obsess over regrets or simply observe how they come into consciousness and then pass.
> ...


I absolutely see and completely understand the appeal.
But I cant help but wonder if some of that appeal and wishing stems from the fact that whether consciously or subconsciously you know they cant and wont and that's where this appeal/wish stems from.
And that's part of my point. I suck at explaining things but.....
Things that appeal to us, things that we wish for, things that we want to accomplish etc are what make life go 'round and motivate us, provide us enjoyment etc.
I cant help but wonder if some of that gets lost when you know "they" aren't going anywhere. When you know "Ive got forever to accomplish this", would I enjoy trout fishing with friends as much today if I know I could do that forever.
Even the pain involved with putting your dog down. Isnt that pain a part of "living"? A part of what makes us appreciate life?

An "eliminating death" question from a different angle -
Right at this very moment what keeps us from being in an all out nuke war with NK?
The death toll.
Now eliminate the death toll.
Considering man's inherent desire to war, do you think we would revert to all singing kumbaya or do you think no death toll would be all the reason we need for perpetual nuke wars?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I absolutely see and completely understand the appeal.
> But I cant help but wonder if some of that appeal and wishing stems from the fact that whether consciously or subconsciously you know they cant and wont and that's where this appeal/wish stems from.
> And that's part of my point. I suck at explaining things but.....
> Things that appeal to us, things that we wish for, things that we want to accomplish etc are what make life go 'round and motivate us, provide us enjoyment etc.
> ...



I understand your point.  I make the same arguments to believers about Heaven.  I claim that they haven't really thought about the details, they just know that it will be Paradise cuz that's what they're told.  At my friend's dad's funeral his pastor brother said "Dad, I know you're up there catching Heaven bass".  How big is that bass?  How pretty was that day?  Is it that same moment forever or much beterer each time than we can possibly imagine.  And that goes on forever? 

"I wish this moment could last forever". I hear people say that all the time. What if they could hook you up to a machine that replicated that moment in your mind forever and they keep your body alive.  In dystopian science fiction like the Matrix the only thing that goes wrong is that some of the people see through _THAT_ reality and struggle against it.  Or they realize that it's a facsimile and it doesn't satisfy anymore.  You'd have to make a theoretical argument that "something" in your mind rejects the manufactured experience.  It's too soon to say that "something in your mind" would react that way or what would cause it.   That's why it's fiction.

We don't know what the implications will be of that tech.  I know that we'll probably still get a rush out of jumping from a great height since the origin of that sensation is biological. For that experience to no longer affect us, that instinct would have to be altered. I don't know how much fun it would be to bungee off the Eiffel Tower for the 10,000th time.  Maybe it never gets old.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

I imagine that some people will choose to die even if the option to live forever exists.  If believers agree with that, how do they imagine that impulse translates to life in Heaven? 

If you're in Heaven, like in the perfect Matrix, is there something in the nature of spooky consciousness that would make you feel that "something's just not right"?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Or the Writings use the believer and the non believer.



Man using man.
Spot on


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Or the Writings use the believer and the non believer.





bullethead said:


> Man using man.
> Spot on



Does 2+2=4 exist even if there are no beings to think about it?  Does "Jesus is Lord" work the same way?  What about before anything exists?  What's he lording over then?  Nothing?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I absolutely see and completely understand the appeal.
> But I cant help but wonder if some of that appeal and wishing stems from the fact that whether consciously or subconsciously you know they cant and wont and that's where this appeal/wish stems from.
> And that's part of my point. I suck at explaining things but.....
> Things that appeal to us, things that we wish for, things that we want to accomplish etc are what make life go 'round and motivate us, provide us enjoyment etc.
> ...



Immortality would be used as a tool to gain, have and keep power.

Man never uses anything to help all the masses. Things like money, immortality etc etc are used to keep the masses in line.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Does 2+2=4 exist even if there are no beings to think about it?  Does "Jesus is Lord" work the same way?  What about before anything exists?  What's he lording over then?  Nothing?



He's just out there, nowhere, all by himself lording over nothing.  But there's not nothing, cuz He's there.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Immortality would be used as a tool to gain, have and keep power.
> 
> Man never uses anything to help all the masses. Things like money, immortality etc etc are used to keep the masses in line.



Oh, you old cynic.

From _Inherit the Wind_:

"They're simple people, Henry; poor people.  They work hard and they need to believe in something, something beautiful.  Why do you want to take that away from them?  It's all they have."

And from the Neo-Conservative, Intelligent Design proponent Irving Kristol:

"If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded--or even suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Man using man.
> Spot on


Precisely to an end.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> He's just out there, nowhere, all by himself lording over nothing.  But there's not nothing, cuz He's there.


Everything is always present with omniscience.


----------



## Israel (Feb 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> The existential dilemma that you're trying to describe here can be resolved without the need of un-provable claims.  The seeing born from the Savior's light (whatever the heck that means) is a fiction until you can _demonstrate_ otherwise.



"He who is forgiven little, loves little, he who is forgiven much, loves much."

The weeds get so thick at times one can easily be distracted by false light. As though"a" belief in "a" god is somehow of a sufficiency to the soul. But all men have gods, and the what and who of their consistency is made plain in their attentions. And intentions.

The scriptures are plain as to the myriad things a man might serve with his life, in _this_ life, going so far as to readily admit "there be gods many, and lords many".

There is no lack of abundance to which a man might yield himself in worship. But there is one Savior. One who appears to the saving of the soul from that panoply of false gods. There is no salvation in any other. His appearance and salvation are plainly manifest among  those which have been convinced (by another) of their need of salvation.

To the soul that satisfies itself (as a man at a smorgasbord might) with his picking and choosing of those things which _please _ (living for _pleasure alone)_ what need of salvation? Oh, there may be _some interest_ expressed as to knowing whether there be "a" God, like another thing he might put on his plate to supplement all else of his choosing, but to such a man, that is merely something else to _have_, to _know_.

But Jesus is quite plain. "Clear the plate", there is nothing else needed, for there is in reality, nothing else at all, except the knowing of Himself. And that it is only the knowing of Him, that any can begin to come to the knowing of the God above all gods. And that that God has ordained this, the God of salvation, has made, and wills, to only make Himself known through that appointed One, that elect One, that chosen One. Jesus is unremitting (as I believe you know, and so many bewail) in His exclusivity.

He was, and is prepared, for the receiving of all _projection_
of all malignant motives a man (any man) might cast his way by that _projection_. "He wants to make Himself something" "He thinks he is better than us..." "He only seeks glory for Himself" "He blasphemes".

When a man is brought to see (by the convincing of another) the true place where these things are resident (but are shunted off by _projection_), then he begins to appreciate a need of his soul's salvation. And likewise the provision of a savior, indeed, the Savior of whose innocent blood he is now made aware of his part in spilling. Till then it is "all else" at fault, all else up for vilification, all else held in his eye for reviling, for to himself, and of himself...he is _more than_ OK. (Not like Hitler, at the _very least_!) Or, that publican there. Or, those benighted _gullibles_...there.

The soul unaware by the Spirit's light, though, is precisely the need crying out answered by the God of salvation. To despise it, to find fault in it...is just another form of projection against _self_ ignorance. And only invites a deeper working of the Spirit's light toward salvation. The man who blames his brother for "not seeing" is shown to only be the one, blaming himself.

And so it goes. He who is forgiven little, loves little, he who is forgiven much, loves much.


And no man can bear to see the "just how much" he has been all wrong, apart from the mercy shown in the Savior's light.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2018)

Israel said:


> "He who is forgiven little, loves little, he who is forgiven much, loves much."
> 
> The weeds get so thick at times one can easily be distracted by false light. As though"a" belief in "a" god is somehow of a sufficiency to the soul. But all men have gods, and the what and who of their consistency is made plain in their attentions. And intentions.
> 
> ...


Ya hear these types of claims about one religion, ya hear em about every other religion. 

When someone talks as if the things they say are a matter of fact, it would also be wise for them to also know that only the facts matter. Try to include some next time.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Ya hear these types of claims about one religion, ya hear em about every other religion.
> 
> When someone talks as if the things they say are a matter of fact, it would also be wise for them to also know that only the facts matter. Try to include some next time.


Does anyone else see what I see? Anyone?


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 14, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Does anyone else see what I see? Anyone?



Just the same ol' thing.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Does anyone else see what I see? Anyone?



Lets discuss it then.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2018)

https://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/39042-message-muslims.html

Same old claims made by believers in here.


----------



## Israel (Feb 15, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Ya hear these types of claims about one religion, ya hear em about every other religion.
> 
> When someone talks as if the things they say are a matter of fact, it would also be wise for them to also know that only the facts matter. Try to include some next time.





> All a person has to do to not only become an authority on what 2000 year old dead people think, want, like, dislike, love, hate, feel...but also speak for the person and tell others what the corpse understands...is to read a book.
> The beauty is since the dead person didn't write down a single thing, these new self appointed authorities just say whatever the heck they want about any situation while asserting and claiming that those are the words and thoughts and actions of someone and more often something that they not only never knew but can never possibly know.
> 
> Actually, it is not much different than what the anonymous authors who wrote the gospels did.
> ...






> And......
> Jesus taught to follow the Old Testament.
> He wasnt asking for a new religion.
> Paul wanted that.



Besides the obvious attribution to Paul of departing from the discipline of Jesus Christ (and His teaching) is the underlying accusation of Paul's motives in that departure.

You say (do I misconstrue?) Paul wanted a new religion.
And you have come to that, how? You have divined his intentions...how? What insight informs you of such a Machiavellian scheme to subvert the Gospel?


Must you not then do the very thing of which you accuse me, that is the knowing of a heart's desire of one you would claim...not present?

But we know this:

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us...

Fear not. I will no less be called to account for every word of presumption, every attempt to go beyond that which I know for the purpose of impressing, than any other man.


We remain in that, entirely alike.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2018)

Israel said:


> Besides the obvious attribution to Paul of departing from the discipline of Jesus Christ (and His teaching) is the underlying accusation of Paul's motives in that departure.
> 
> You say (do I misconstrue?) Paul wanted a new religion.
> And you have come to that, how? You have divined his intentions...how? What insight informs you of such a Machiavellian scheme to subvert the Gospel?
> ...



I do not claim to have insight. I use knowledge gotten from study. There is no need for you to lie and claim that I do not offer information to back up my statements. I do and have done that for many years. I constantly offer links that back up my statements. I don't make claims without the ability to back them up. Your style is not mine.

Study your religions history instead of what it has been manipulated to become. You might learn something. 

Then take the time to read the thread that I posted about Islam.  All you believers and your same claims are on there, you just have different usernames.
NOTHING that you claim as exclusive isnt used around the world to say the same thing about all other gods.

You religious DJs all play the same broken records that repeat the same song while thinking your radio station is the only one on the airwaves. Time to upgrade.


----------



## Israel (Feb 15, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I do not claim to have insight. I use knowledge gotten from study. There is no need for you to lie and claim that I do not offer information to back up my statements. I do and have done that for many years. I constantly offer links that back up my statements. I don't make claims without the ability to back them up. Your style is not mine.
> 
> Study your religions history instead of what it has been manipulated to become. You might learn something.
> 
> ...



Why would I want to read about Islam? Why would I be interested in any religion?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2018)

Israel said:


> Why would I want to read about Islam? Why would I be interested in any religion?



Exactly.
Stay in your own world.
Keep making assertive claims and use your source as its own source.
And pretend that what you say is unique.

Or

You can check the link out that I've given and you can see the EXACT same claims there that you make here and see that each of you think it is exclusive to your gods.

Learn or dont. Up to you.


----------



## Israel (Feb 15, 2018)

How much do you think a man should read, search out, _research_ in order to finally come to the conclusion "I am just a common man"?

Once one knows that, to what end is all the other educating of oneself in such matters?

Yeah...men make religions. Lots of them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 15, 2018)

Israel said:


> How much do you think a man should read, search out, _research_ in order to finally come to the conclusion "I am just a common man"?
> 
> Once one knows that, to what end is all the other educating of oneself in such matters?
> 
> Yeah...men make religions. Lots of them.


Israel, you cant just say "Yeah,, men make religions" and leave it at that.
Its the religions that tell you what god is, what god says, whats right about your god, whats wrong about their god, what people can do, what people cant do and on and on.

Ive asked this of a number of believers and my question always gets avoided like the plague - 
Tell me exactly what you know about god (in this case God) that can't be traced directly back to religion. Including that a g(G)od even exists.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2018)

Israel said:


> How much do you think a man should read, search out, _research_ in order to finally come to the conclusion "I am just a common man"?
> 
> Once one knows that, to what end is all the other educating of oneself in such matters?
> 
> Yeah...men make religions. Lots of them.


It is up to the individual to decide how much knowledge is enough but ignorance is not an excuse to be uninformed.
The reason I posted that link was to inform anyone who is truly interested in wanting an answer that backed up my claim. Some of you wondered where it was...accused me of not doing what I called you out on....and when I do back up my claim you and others refuse to take the time to read it and then continue on as if I don't put my money where my mouth is. 

Men/man/humans definitely make religions. And as much as you think your gods are unique and your arguments and claims are exclusive there is another "izzy"on another forum making the same factless claims about another god. It's a mirror you refuse to look into.


----------



## Israel (Feb 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Israel, you cant just say "Yeah,, men make religions" and leave it at that.
> Its the religions that tell you what god is, what god says, whats right about your god, whats wrong about their god, what people can do, what people cant do and on and on.
> 
> Ive asked this of a number of believers and my question always gets avoided like the plague -
> Tell me exactly what you know about god (in this case God) that can't be traced directly back to religion. Including that a g(G)od even exists.




"Everything is open and laid bare before Him with whom we have to do"

I took the liberty of using that scripture to this end. I don't know that because the man who wrote that told me that. Or even relayed to me _I have to_ believe that. (Although I do esteem highly the things he was moved to write) I don't know that because a _religion_...which is a mute _thing_ told me that.

I simply know it because I have been made to know it.

There's a consciousness...that knows everything that moves through mine. And all the motions causing them. This I know. My consciousness is _observed._


And in that, I reject also the_ religion_ of materialism. Do I _use_ stuff? Sure. I was made to.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 15, 2018)

bullethead said:


> https://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/39042-message-muslims.html
> 
> Same old claims made by believers in here.


The first thing that I read was "A Message To The Non-Muslims After which they are not Excused by Ignorance".

Where in here has the believer made this claim?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> The first thing that I read was "A Message To The Non-Muslims After which they are not Excused by Ignorance".
> 
> Where in here has the believer made this claim?


I'm pretty certain never. Not many pro muslims in here.

Forgive me if I've missed it but did I say that link was word for word the same as a thread in here?

Unless you stopped reading right after that first thing, you will notice many of the same claims made for Allah are the same as made for god/jesus in here.

I don't want to spoil anything for you, but you may also notice the usernames are not EXACTLY the same as usernames in here either. Just similar claims and assertions.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 15, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I'm pretty certain never. Not many pro muslims in here.
> 
> Forgive me if I've missed it but did I say that link was word for word the same as a thread in here?
> 
> ...


You have already moved from "Same old claims" to "Just similar claims" and without much effort on my part.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 15, 2018)

Israel said:


> "Everything is open and laid bare before Him with whom we have to do"
> 
> I took the liberty of using that scripture to this end. I don't know that because the man who wrote that told me that. Or even relayed to me _I have to_ believe that. (Although I do esteem highly the things he was moved to write) I don't know that because a _religion_...which is a mute _thing_ told me that.
> 
> ...


My friend, I will add you to the list of those who avoided the question.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> You have already moved from "Same old claims" to "Just similar claims" and without much effort on my part.


Included, not moved.
Same, similar, ...they both fit because of the effort of believers in each forum.


----------



## Israel (Feb 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> My friend, I will add you to the list of those who avoided the question.




Do you think because I quoted something from a book that many purport  (and most in this area) represents a christian manifesto of sorts that I have (by their equation, and it seems, your own) incurred an indebtedness to a _thing_ called christianity?

Of course your right to see it that way is unassailable.

But, if there be any debt along those lines it is to the Christians (people, not _a thing_, or _things_) that have, for me, brought to light matters of truth.

But would it shock you (and I only use this as a stellar example) that Joseph Goebbels has also played a part? (I have already briefly mentioned Oppenheimer.)

Men, like Goebbels (may display the strongest of devotions; caring not to live beyond the impending fall of his Fuehrer) killed himself and his wife (and his children).
So much for "devotion" as a stand alone thing given to represent some sort of moral conviction to a superiority. 

I've "lived" there myself...delighting in what I took to myself as signal merit..._my_ devotion. Relishing in myself those things that I believed pointed to a singleness beyond the common. (And God knows what remains of such)

But you may see, or not. In that sense such _men_ who have lived seeking to _ingratiate_ themselves to power (and there have been, and are many), convincing themselves of the _rightness of their way_ by their (to themselves) manifest devotion, have also been invaluable lessons. I am no less indebted for that lesson than any other. (people also crash planes into buildings to show their rightness, _and devotion_)

So, obviously then (though I cannot deny my once love of it) I cannot stand upon devotion, or even _my devotion_, as anything at all. And, O! But I have! Yes, I drank it to the dregs.

So, when a man like Paul says "I am debtor (obligated) both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise." There's a part that wants to interject "No, to _be a christian_ one's debt is always and only to Christ!"

But, how will one repay what is _given for free_, without insult? Do you believe me if I tell you...I have tried? Spent much of my "christian life" in insult?

It's a very odd thing when it is first made clear. But the One who has made this clear (and _not christianity_ as such) has been found and seen in the (once) most unheeded places...just as He has said He would be. Where I do not expect Him, and at a time I do not expect.

“I really only love God as much as the person I love the least.” 

Dorothy Day


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 16, 2018)

Israel said:


> Do you think because I quoted something from a book that many purport  (and most in this area) represents a christian manifesto of sorts that I have (by their equation, and it seems, your own) incurred an indebtedness to a _thing_ called christianity?
> 
> Of course your right to see it that way is unassailable.
> 
> ...


Israel,
You made this comment -


> Yeah...men make religions. Lots of them.


That's a confirmation that you agree that men make religions. I'm pretty positive that you DONT believe men made God.
You separate the two. As in, there is NOTHING about God that is dependent on anything that man may say, make, think, surmise, require or any other descriptive word.
I am making the point that as much as you think you are separating the two...... you aren't, you can't.
That's why I ask this question/request -


> Tell me exactly what you know about god (in this case God) that can't be traced directly back to religion. Including that a g(G)od even exists


.
Everything you think you know about God, INCLUDING AND BEGINNING WITH THAT GOD EVEN EXISTS, is rooted in religion (that we seem to agree is made by man).
Now you my expound upon, add your own thoughts, opinions, beliefs, whatever......
But its all rooted in religion.
That we agree that man makes.
Theres just no getting around that.
Believe me, I tried getting around it. I tried every way I could think of to reject "religion" but hang on to "God".
Now of course, just because I couldn't do it doesn't mean it cant be done.
And that's why I ask/request -


> Tell me exactly what you know about god (in this case God) that can't be traced directly back to religion. Including that a g(G)od even exists.


The only way around it is "I believe in some sort of a "Higher Power". I don't have a clue what it is, what it wants, what it requires,......"
And by doing that you have just rejected Christianity or any other name man has given to a certain set of beliefs.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Feb 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever seen the movie _Inception_?  Good flick.



 I hate that movie - I can't stand movies where you don't know what's real & what isn't.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> I hate that movie - I can't stand movies where you don't know what's real & what isn't.



I like reality where you don't know what's real & what isn't.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Feb 16, 2018)

"I don't know how much fun it would be to bungee off the Eiffel Tower for the 10,000th time. Maybe it never gets old." - Ambush 80

oh great thanks for jinxing it!  
I was going to try to get in the Guiness Book Of Records
by bungee jumping off the Eiffel Tower the most times. 
Lucky for me my airline ticket is refundable!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Feb 16, 2018)

About keeping a dead person (or at least their brain)alive for 24 hours: if they bring them back to life and they have zero "afterlife" stories & experiences it doesn't mean there isn't life-after-death. 

Guarantee some people will say that they didn't go to heaven or Fire Lake because after death our spirit/consciousness remains dormant until Judgement Day - then everyone who ever lived & died will be brought back to life for their eternal reward/punishment.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> About keeping a dead person (or at least their brain)alive for 24 hours: if they bring them back to life and they have zero "afterlife" stories & experiences it doesn't mean there isn't life-after-death.
> 
> Guarantee some people will say that they didn't go to heaven or Fire Lake because after death our spirit/consciousness remains dormant until Judgement Day - then everyone who ever lived & died will be brought back to life for their eternal reward/punishment.



I'll speculate on some reasons that might be given as to why that person din't see Heaven or He11.  

- God's plan was for them to be brought back to life so He purposely didn't let them see Heaven or CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored because bleed is he who believes without seeing.

- They weren't _REALLY_ dead.  Their eternal soul hadn't left the vessel yet.

- The kingdom of Heaven cannot be comprehended by the material body and mind.  Therefore that person can't relate what they saw. 

I don't have any scriptural reasons for these answers, but I've seen many cases where people don't either, yet they come up with similar types of explanations.


----------



## Israel (Feb 17, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Israel,
> You made this comment -
> 
> That's a confirmation that you agree that men make religions. I'm pretty positive that you DONT believe men made God.
> ...





I get chided...ribbed, (and these things go both ways, I have not been not without taking a shot) for being long winded.

But for a moment, you go back (so briefly) and re read what is put in (purple) color above of what you have said. Please.  And think about it for a while.

I am not in any way implying that your comments have not already shown me you have been in the arena, I have long known you as one who has. You have "opened" a book (though some might say a can of worms) by responding to me in patience.

In trying to be brief I will say no more than this. Whether today, Feb 17, 2018, with all that has passed before, with all the _water under the bridge _(so to speak) that makes it seem as though no matter where a man might dip his foot in regards to that "higher power", the best search for head waters that you claim can be seen must always lead to a, or some, small_ religious_ stream.

If in this (your) scenario where God cannot be found as _stand alone_ but must always yield in concept (as can never be _pure_) to what is seen as religious contamination, and is therefore (as many purport thereby a falsifiable _notion_) by such falseness found in the manifold and multitudes of _religious practice_, we are still left with this conundrum.  Such a notion originated somewhere, in someone, as the first "thought" of God, or gods (in keeping with the words of some here). In at least one then ( but arguably many) if it be a _notion_, this _notion_ was endemic to man. It either started _with man_,(and therefore _only in man_) or as some of us hold (in a sense) "came out from the ether".

If, as some purport, it is no more than "man's idea"...well then, I think you see the problem. For all the things that may presently make attempt at refutation (so called science, or materialism, _naturalism_, or whatever may set itself up in opposition) are precisely no less, "man's idea". If man is manifestly "liar" in one place, upon what can he possibly hope to now say "but here..._really_, (through these _things_, no less _men's ideas)_ NOW, I am telling the truth!".  

Now, if you want to go with "all men are liars"...

(But watch what spills out...)


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 17, 2018)

Israel said:


> I get chided...ribbed, (and these things go both ways, I have not been not without taking a shot) for being long winded.
> 
> But for a moment, you go back (so briefly) and re read what is put in (purple) color above of what you have said. Please.  And think about it for a while.
> 
> ...


I think Ive mentioned before that we tend to view/communicate things very differently -
I break things down into its simplest form and you are very philosophical so let me address the low hanging fruit and I'll have to think about the rest 


> I get chided...ribbed, (and these things go both ways, I have not been not without taking a shot) for being long winded.


You being "long winded" which I personally prefer to call being "philosophical" really doesn't matter to me as long as I can figure out what the heck your point is. Which I admittedly often have trouble with but that's probably more my issue than yours.


> we are still left with this conundrum.  Such a notion originated somewhere, in someone, as the first "thought" of God, or gods (in keeping with the words of some here). In at least one then ( but arguably many) if it be a _notion_, this _notion_ was endemic to man. It either started _with man_,(and therefore _only in man_) or as some of us hold (in a sense) "came out from the ether".


Assuming I'm understanding that^ -
Yes for me personally that is a conundrum. I would agree that the notion/thought of a god/higher power had to exist before the notion/thought of "religion" existed.
About as far as I get is that man named that notion/thought as god/God/Allah/Higher Power etc. but that doesn't address the origin or the why of the notion/thought. Ive heard other peoples explanation of the how or why but I'm not personally 100% satisfied with any of the explanations.


> For all the things that may presently make attempt at refutation (so called science, or materialism, _naturalism_, or whatever may set itself up in opposition) are precisely no less, "man's idea".


I think I'm following you on this ^. In that yes, I would agree all those positions would fall into the category of "man made".
So now I'm left with "connecting the dots".
So let me ask you this -
Is it fair for me/us to view you as/do you label yourself as a Christian?
Because if it is fair and you do label yourself as such then I am right back to "what you believe is rooted in religion, in this case Christianity".
If its not fair and you do not label yourself as such then that changes the whole ball game.


----------



## Israel (Feb 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I think Ive mentioned before that we tend to view/communicate things very differently -
> I break things down into its simplest form and you are very philosophical so let me address the low hanging fruit and I'll have to think about the rest
> 
> You being "long winded" which I personally prefer to call being "philosophical" really doesn't matter to me as long as I can figure out what the heck your point is. Which I admittedly often have trouble with but that's probably more my issue than yours.
> ...




I appreciate your response. 
And I understand (or believe I do) that I leave you with very little except more (or the same ) questions.
I also understand (as I believe you already see) that nothing I have offered deals with the matter _to a proof_ of the existence of God, and much less with the matter of Jesus Christ _in particular_ in relationship to that very matter.

Yes, it would appear that even if a theist of sorts _shows up_ (and by that I mean for our common understanding, one persuaded of  a "higher power" but finding himself as like you so aptly described:  





> The only way around it is "I believe in some sort of a "Higher Power". I don't have a clue what it is, what it wants, what it requires...")


 it is not an unfair question to say "OK, but how is the leap made from "a" God...to Jesus Christ?"

This is not even addressing the quagmire of what is seen as "religions in religion" (if narrowing down to Jesus Christ is viewed as _religion_) that is, even in "_christianity_" there appear _hundreds of flavors._

Funny, right? If we have any desire, inward compelling, _drive_ (and I am persuaded each of us does) for simplicity, how infuriating it sometimes is that (it seems) by this very drive for simplicity it invites so many...no...precisely _too many_, complications.

As I said, I am persuaded that inwardly each man wants his compass to always and unfailingly be reliable in "true north". To be _settled in_, so to speak. And from there...feel "free to live" without having to always face adjustments, questions, to be free of the unremitting pressure inherent in "hoping to make _the right_ choice". Or hoping one has made it. In that we are very peculiar...the thing we _seem to desire_..."I want to be absolutely free to make my own choices, find _my own way_..." is so double edged. 

Choices may be shown to have a very particular suffering in them. Especially when we discover that _one choice_ that is always and completely out of our own hands, and has never been ours to make (just as we do not have the option of making a "square circle") and that is: "the _choice_  that is _without consequence_". Yes, we may love it when we have picked the "right" stock, the right horse...but not so much when we say "I went to the wrong doctor". Or, God forbid, chose the wrong one for my child.

Of course we all know this! Who isn't familiar with regret in one form or another? Who hasn't been _a victim_ to his own self? Why blabber on about such apparent things?

Because there is a fundamental matter of the self (and what it perceives as freedom, and_ in _that _, freedom to know_ the truth) that cannot be in any way divorced from this matter of "higher power".  

The carrot and stick is unrelentingly horrid. What has been made to show_ the place _where it has had primacy to the end of showing where it has never been, nor will be, is investigated, or not.


I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 18, 2018)

Walt, I don't know if sharing my personal worldview with you could be helpful, as it relates to your question, or not ... but here goes.

There are some people, a lot of them, who see, hear, and understand, to some degree, things that are not of the material world; and there are some people, a lot of them, who do not see, hear, or understand, to any degree, things that are not of the material world.

Neither will convince the other that they are wrong in their seeing, hearing, or understanding because that seeing, hearing, and understanding is as real to one as to the other.  Neither is a liar, or dishonest; neither is more deluded than the other; neither is more gullible than the other (although there are certainly social, psychological, and emotional issues that come into play when people of different experience interact, they are ancillary; and show themselves as clearly when the subject is politics, sports, or the weather).


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 18, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Walt, I don't know if sharing my personal worldview with you could be helpful, as it relates to your question, or not ... but here goes.
> 
> There are some people, a lot of them, who see, hear, and understand, to some degree, things that are not of the material world; and there are some people, a lot of them, who do not see, hear, or understand, to any degree, things that are not of the material world.
> 
> Neither will convince the other that they are wrong in their seeing, hearing, or understanding because that seeing, hearing, and understanding is as real to one as to the other.  Neither is a liar, or dishonest; neither is more deluded than the other; neither is more gullible than the other (although there are certainly social, psychological, and emotional issues that come into play when people of different experience interact, they are ancillary; and show themselves as clearly when the subject is politics, sports, or the weather).


I can definitely understand and agree with that. There are certainly folks that are "tuned into" things that are others are not.
And that just may have some impact on the whole believer/non believer thing.
But I just cant help but question if ALL these insert religion name here are "tuned in" or just regurgitating what they have been taught.
Particularly when you consider all the different denominations, beliefs etc.
And of course they could all be tuned into "something" and then put their own spin on what that "something" is.
And then there are folks like me. I was a believer and now I'm not.
Was I tuned in and then somebody changed the channel?
Was I never tuned in and just regurgitating what I was taught?
If I was tuned in how could I possibly tune myself out?
I don't know but I do understand what you are saying and acknowledge the possibility of it.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Walt, I don't know if sharing my personal worldview with you could be helpful, as it relates to your question, or not ... but here goes.
> 
> There are some people, a lot of them, who see, hear, and understand, to some degree, things that are not of the material world; and there are some people, a lot of them, who do not see, hear, or understand, to any degree, things that are not of the material world.
> 
> Neither will convince the other that they are wrong in their seeing, hearing, or understanding because that seeing, hearing, and understanding is as real to one as to the other.  Neither is a liar, or dishonest; neither is more deluded than the other; neither is more gullible than the other (although there are certainly social, psychological, and emotional issues that come into play when people of different experience interact, they are ancillary; and show themselves as clearly when the subject is politics, sports, or the weather).





WaltL1 said:


> I can definitely understand and agree with that. There are certainly folks that are "tuned into" things that are others are not.
> And that just may have some impact on the whole believer/non believer thing.
> But I just cant help but question if ALL these insert religion name here are "tuned in" or just regurgitating what they have been taught.
> Particularly when you consider all the different denominations, beliefs etc.
> ...



If I want to hear the trees talk to me I will.  Is that _real_?  What happens when the trees instruct me to do things?  Should people accept that it's real because I say so and abide by the instructions of the trees?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> If I want to hear the trees talk to me I will.  Is that _real_?  What happens when the trees instruct me to do things?  Should people accept that it's real because I say so and abide by the instructions of the trees?



Exactly.
People seem to tune into things that they need or want to tune into. You will hear the answers you want to hear and dismiss the rest. 
Im not pointing fingers.

Take Bigfoot hunters/researchers/"experts". They tell us all about typical bigfoot behaviors.  Every tree branch that falls, groan, howl or yip they hear or log that points in an "intelligent" position is the evidence they Need to keep seeing in hearing in order for them to justify their passion. Whether it really is or isnt evidence....it IS to them.
When an alternative explanation is given to them their first responce is that whoever is offering that other possiblity is unable to discern the clear evidence that they Clearly see. In their minds they know ALL about a creature that none of them has not only ever studied or observed but has never even actually seen. And yet they are convinced they are in tune with the creature. They know it. They can feel it in their heart that it exists.

Sounds familiar.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> If I want to hear the trees talk to me I will.  Is that _real_?  What happens when the trees instruct me to do things?  Should people accept that it's real because I say so and abide by the instructions of the trees?


Since you included me in I'm guessing you are questioning my use of "tuned in". So let me clarify using your use of the tree.
Some people look at a tree and see a tree.
Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark.
Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark and in addition notice the striations in the bark.
That might be clear as mud but I'm hoping you will catch my drift.
Now if that tree starts instructing them to do things they were probably smoking some leaves


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Since you included me in I'm guessing you are questioning my use of "tuned in". So let me clarify using your use of the tree.
> Some people look at a tree and see a tree.
> Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark.
> Some people look at a tree and also notice the bark and in addition notice the striations in the bark.
> ...



I've taken psychedelic drugs before and I've had experiences where I felt deeply connected to living things even to waterfalls and I felt as if in some way they were "talking" to me, or at least revealing something metaphysical.  Now I can induce those kinds of experiences to some degree without the chemicals.  Some might say that I'm opening myself up to another dimension.  I doubt it.  It doesn't diminish at all how powerful those experiences are.


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I can definitely understand and agree with that. There are certainly folks that are "tuned into" things that are others are not.
> And that just may have some impact on the whole believer/non believer thing.
> But I just cant help but question if ALL these insert religion name here are "tuned in" or just regurgitating what they have been taught.
> Particularly when you consider all the different denominations, beliefs etc.
> ...



Those are questions that many very capable men have asked over many centuries.


----------



## Israel (Feb 19, 2018)

> I can definitely understand and agree with that. There are certainly folks that are "tuned into" things that are others are not.
> And that just may have some impact on the whole believer/non believer thing.
> But I just cant help but question if ALL these insert religion name here are "tuned in" or just regurgitating what they have been taught.
> Particularly when you consider all the different denominations, beliefs etc.
> ...



You've shared something of a testimony already.
It was pretty _powerful_ to me to the point that I retain it.
But even beyond _that one_ I continue to hear more.


----------



## Israel (Feb 20, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I've taken psychedelic drugs before and I've had experiences where I felt deeply connected to living things even to waterfalls and I felt as if in some way they were "talking" to me, or at least revealing something metaphysical.  Now I can induce those kinds of experiences to some degree without the chemicals.  Some might say that I'm opening myself up to another dimension.  I doubt it.  It doesn't diminish at all how powerful those experiences are.




And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.


I am learning to take Jesus at His word. Whether He was saying _all material things_ have a voice _toward something_ might be a presumption.  (But also might not)

But I am convinced of this:

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

Is God the _only_ righteous judge? Surely.

Is God merciful? 

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged _by the Law that gives freedom. _For judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. _Mercy triumphs over judgment._


----------

