It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tired of grand theories, just do what you want

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

We are not talking about an event but an ideal. You presented "It is alright to pursue the self gratification unless you hurt others in the pursuit of it." as an absolute, just as others have presented similar ideals as absolute but, are they?

That is what the OP is asking while at the same time offering an alternative model in which pain and suffering are integral parts of the human experience. They are obviously present so it doesn't seem like a stretch to think that that may be by design.
edit on 2-6-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: vethumanbeing


daskakik: We are not talking about an event but an ideal. You presented "It is alright to pursue the self gratification unless you hurt others in the pursuit of it." as an absolute, just as others have presented similar ideals as absolute but, are they?

Oh yes we are talking about 'events' the recent/occuring human creates to solve its past Karmic misaims. There is no 'ideal' in the present, the ideal lives in the FUTURE event of your next lifetime experience (again to solve last lifetime screw-ups). Perfection of dedication to correct could be called an absolute perfection of an F-up. YES.

daskakik: That is what the OP is asking while at the same time offering an alternative model in which pain and suffering are integral parts of the human experience. They are obviously present so it doesn't seem like a stretch to think that that may be by design.

I do not know what the question is as was suggesting a model of something intangible. The human experience/design is to suffer and conquer itself (without a God proper) with DIGNITY/VERVE/FORTITUDE. You realize this was Gods intent (to visualize itself as the human describing itself as the conquering HERO FINALLY). Ultimately, my realization is this: GOD is vain (has an Achilles heel).
edit on 2-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Oh yes we are talking about 'events' the recent/occuring human creates to solve its past Karmic misaims. There is no 'ideal' in the present, the ideal lives in the FUTURE event of your next lifetime experience (again to solve last lifetime screw-ups). Perfection of dedication to correct could be called an absolute perfection of an F-up. YES.

The noun not the adjective.

If you prefer we can use the term "concept". Are the concepts offered proven to be true?


I do not know what the question is as was suggesting a model of something intangible. The human experience/design is to suffer and conquer itself (without a God proper) with DIGNITY/VERVE/FORTITUDE. You realize this was Gods intent (to visualize itself as the human describing itself as the conquering HERO FINALLY). Ultimately, my realization is this: GOD is vain (has an Achilles heel).

Not really sure how any of that actually contradicts the OP. Conquer itself with dignity/verve/fortitude leaves a lot of room for interpretation.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik
God is the human in physical form expressing itself (are we then shills as were not told the plan), we had/have to discover by ourselves with little guidance.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Again, you are expressing that as if it has been proven to be true.

It might feel true to you but that isn't the same as being true.


edit on 3-6-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

I think what you're trying to describe is more of an instict kind of thing, because morality in and of itself is a man made concept. Therefore if we were to strip ourselves to the core we are nothing more than awareness. The ego is what allows us to decide the difference between right and wrong. It's the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Instinct is being one with nature, but awareness separated into all people, and creatures yet connected at the root is simply that awareness and nothing more.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Again, you are expressing that as if it has been proven to be true.

It might feel true to you but that isn't the same as being true.

It is true; as much as I understand what my creator had in store for my individualized soul progression. It is a personal complicated relationship and do not mean to seem obtuse regarding this. What is true for me is not true for you. I have made the attempt and was rewarded with a dialog; and believe me this is not all unicorns and favorite ice cream flavor conversations. It has nothing to do with my feelings or Ego enhancement. I defend the human to its creator.
edit on 20-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Do what is right.
If that is what you want, if not...
Your working on wanting the right thing, when you wake up it's because the right thing was all you wanted.
a reply to: Manula



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
What is true for me is not true for you.

What is true for you and what is true for me may both be untrue.

The phrase "past Karmic misaims" seems strange.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

VHB: What is true for me is not true for you.


daskakik: What is true for you and what is true for me may both be untrue.
The phrase "past Karmic misaims" seems strange.

Truth is subjective to the participant or the observer. Real truth is of a Gnostic understanding (you intrinsically KNOW DNA coding). Reincarnation is not a new phenomenon; well known in Hindu/Buddhist traditions to correct past life errors (purify that soul progressing). To what purpose; to reconnect with a God creator, and have a good story to tell.
edit on 20-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Truth is subjective to the participant or the observer. Real truth is of a Gnostic understanding (you intrinsically KNOW DNA coding). Reincarnation is not a new phenomenon; well known in Hindu/Buddhist traditions to correct past life errors (purify that soul progressing). To what purpose; to reconnect with a God creator, and have a good story to tell.

This is still your subjective truth.
edit on 20-6-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

vhb: Truth is subjective to the participant or the observer. Real truth is of a Gnostic understanding (you intrinsically KNOW DNA coding). Reincarnation is not a new phenomenon; well known in Hindu/Buddhist traditions to correct past life errors (purify that soul progressing). To what purpose; to reconnect with a God creator, and have a good story to tell.


dask: This is still your subjective truth.

Where is the flaw? I am coming from the perspective of "human experience" that the AUO can take from or reject. It does not or cannot experience human emotion as it is not a material entity. We are being used as information gatherers. There is the problem of EGO. We developed a unique sense of 'identity' within this process. As the EGO becomes individualized (personality etc.) the connection to a God source de-evolves; as in the necessity of having a God caretaker becomes less relevant (never here in the first place as a first person worshipful entity). It miscalculated the ingenuity of the plasticity of the human mind to reinvent itself or in other words its ability for the capacity of Imagination.
edit on 30-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Where is the flaw? I am coming from the perspective of "human experience" that the AUO can take from or reject. It does not or cannot experience human emotion as it is not a material entity. We are being used as information gatherers.

Information, to what end?


There is the problem of EGO. We developed a unique sense of 'identity' within this process. As the EGO becomes individualized (personality etc.) the connection to a God source de-evolves; as in the necessity of having a God caretaker becomes less relevant (never here in the first place as a first person worshipful entity). It miscalculated the ingenuity of the plasticity of the human mind to reinvent itself or in other words its ability for the capacity of Imagination.

The flaw is that you assume that a God source even exists and that it needs information.
edit on 30-6-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Where is the flaw? I am coming from the perspective of "human experience" that the AUO can take from or reject. It does not or cannot experience human emotion as it is not a material entity. We are being used as information gatherers.

Information, to what end?


There is the problem of EGO. We developed a unique sense of 'identity' within this process. As the EGO becomes individualized (personality etc.) the connection to a God source de-evolves; as in the necessity of having a God caretaker becomes less relevant (never here in the first place as a first person worshipful entity). It miscalculated the ingenuity of the plasticity of the human mind to reinvent itself or in other words its ability for the capacity of Imagination.

The flaw is that you assume that a God source even exists and that it needs information.

I understand myself as Gods expression (am I insane).



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I understand myself as Gods expression (am I insane).

I don't know but, you can be wrong.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I understand myself as Gods expression (am I insane).

I don't know but, you can be wrong.

If I am Wrong Then So Is God=No Foul Committed.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
If I am Wrong Then So Is God=No Foul Committed.

Unless you're wrong about god then there is a foul against the truth.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
If I am Wrong Then So Is God=No Foul Committed.

Unless you're wrong about god then there is a foul against the truth.

I am not wrong about my understanding of the AUO (it revealed itself to me) and I know its demeanor; intent. Why have you not had a similar relationship?
edit on 2-7-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I am not wrong about my understanding of the AUO (it revealed itself to me).

You could be wrong about what you think revealed itself to you. You could be wrong in thinking it is what Campbell described as AUO.

edit on 2-7-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I am not wrong about my understanding of the AUO (it revealed itself to me).

You could be wrong about what you think revealed itself to you.

How so? What do you think could be wrong; if I am a particle of its being I know it to be my creator; why would it deliberately lie to me?
edit on 2-7-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join