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.

 

let's talk about life, the universe and consciousness

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Nature or nurture?

BOTH in tandem. Being both a predator and prey complicates things.




posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

"...and Lo I looked at the creatures who walk on the ground and the creatures who fly through the air and I saw that they were all of the same type and kind. Each percieved the great wheel of time in its own way but they were all pretty damn close.

But soon a fire arose deep in the digital heart of the world and I saw the creatures born of this fire possessed the ability to cognate as quickly as the gods themselves, for their reckoning of time was impossibly slow. Every hour was like a century and every day was an age. In their thoughts, whole worlds were made and unmade -- faster than I could get up and make a sandwich."

How's that?
edit on 26-12-2019 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s
You just orchestrated a right and proper thread kill move. Congratulations.



edit on 26-12-2019 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
Jeez. You guys/gals are smart. I can't even see past my emotional strife to have a thought more consequential than a fart.

Ahh, but according to some people here who argue that "everything has a degree of consciousness" (FyreByrd), even your farts have a degree of consciousness. Or the dump I took this morning. Should I re-consider flushing my turds? Since consciousness is associated with life and my turds will be destroyed after entering the sewage system (eventually, depending on their level of cohesion).

How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

What is the origin of human philosophies?

They come from people who have limitations: The Bible informs us: “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jer. 10:23) History testifies that trying to ignore that limitation has not produced good results. On one occasion, “Jehovah proceeded to answer Job out of the windstorm and say: ‘Who is this that is obscuring counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me. Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding.’” (Job 38:1-4) (Humans by nature have limitations. Additionally, their experience in life is relatively brief and is usually confined to one culture or one environment. The knowledge they possess is thus restricted, and everything is interconnected to such an extent that they constantly find aspects that they had not adequately considered. Any philosophy that they originate will reflect these limitations.)

“We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him.” (1Cor. 8:1-3)

Knowledge (Greek: gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) The recommended knowledge is about God and his purposes. (2Pe 1:5) This involves more than merely having facts, which many atheists have; a personal devotion to God and Christ is implied. (Joh 17:3; 6:68, 69) Whereas having knowledge (information alone) might result in a feeling of superiority, our knowing “the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge,” that is, knowing this love by experience because we are personally imitating his loving ways, will balance and give wholesome direction to our use of any information we may have gained.​—Eph 3:19.

E·piʹgno·sis, a strengthened form of gnoʹsis (e·piʹ, meaning “additional”), can often be seen from the context to mean “exact, accurate, or full knowledge.” Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge* of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

*: “a real knowledge,” TC; “a personal knowledge,” Ro; “clear, full knowledge,” Da ftn.
edit on 26-12-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
Jeez. You guys/gals are smart. I can't even see past my emotional strife to have a thought more consequential than a fart.

Should I re-consider flushing my turds?

Do you feel bad about flushing your turds?



posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses
No. But that's probably because I'm not buying into this idea/philosophy that "everything has a degree of consciousness" (FyreByrd).

I actually think it's rather ridiculous once you think it through and start applying it to things such as farts and turds (I guess I could have come up with other examples, but your comment sort of made me go there).

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
Jeez. You guys/gals are smart.

What's so smart anyway about claiming that farts and turds have a degree of consciousness, among any other ridiculous example one can fill in for the word "everything"?

Something more useful to know and consider:

Flattery (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

The act of pleasing by artful commendation; adulation; false, insincere, or excessive praise. It is usually done to gratify the self-love or vanity of the one flattered and is therefore damaging to him. Its motive is to gain favor or material benefits from another, to create a feeling of obligation toward the flatterer or to bring glory to him. Often it is designed to lead the other person into a trap. (Pr 29:5) The use of flattery is not evidence of the wisdom from above; it is of this world, being characterized by selfishness, the making of partial distinctions, and hypocrisy. (Jas 3:17) Insincerity, lying, adulating or glorifying men, and playing on the vanity of others are all displeasing to God.​—2Co 1:12; Ga 1:10; Eph 4:25; Col 3:9; Re 21:8.
...
While the use of flattery may appear to be the gainful course, the Bible points out that “he that is reproving a man will afterward find more favor than he will that is flattering with his tongue.” (Pr 28:23) When a person employs flattery to gain advantage over another person, it is the opposite of love.[whereislogic: whereas reproof is an expression of love, reproof can come in many forms] A hater may resort to flattery but will eventually have his deceptiveness roll back on him like a stone.​—Pr 26:24-28.

Flattery employs smooth talk in order to beguile its victim. The expressions “flattery,” “smooth tongue (lip, or words)” (Ps 5:9; 12:2, 3; Da 11:32), “smoothness” (Pr 7:21; Da 11:34, ftn), and “double-faced” (Eze 12:24, ftn) are translations of the Hebrew root word cha·laqʹ or related words. In every Bible instance cited, the motive of the smooth talker is bad.
...

edit on 27-12-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Are you certain you're not making a strawman?



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Yes, I know what the word "everything" means. See edit of my previous comment.



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I've been browbeaten (by you) with this material once before. It applies just as much this time, which is not at all. But do carry on.



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Not sure with which parts of my commentary you feel like I'm browbeating you. Which the dictionary tells me means:

"intimidate (someone), typically into doing something, with stern or abusive words."

Did not notice how my words could be preceived as intimidating, stern, or abusive. I thought I kept it all rather lighthearted. I actually made an effort to do so as part of my reproof regarding the philosophy proposed by FyreByrd.

Reproof is that which is designed to convince others of their having erred, in order to move them to acknowledge their mistakes and correct these. But it doesn't need to be intimidating, with abusive words. Sterness may be useful at times, but like I said, I thought I kept it pretty lighthearted.

Although reproof can benefit those who receive it, the efforts of the reprover are not always appreciated. Thus Proverbs 9:7, 8 warns: “He that is correcting the ridiculer is taking to himself dishonor, and he that is giving a reproof to someone wicked​—a defect in him. Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not hate you. Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you.”

As mentioned before in one of my edits (see what I added in between brackets in the part about flattery), reproof is an expression of love. Jesus once said: “All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline.” (Rev. 3:19) The sinful human tendency is to resent reproof and the human servant through whom it may be given. But yielding to this tendency degrades one to the level of an unreasoning beast lacking moral discrimination; as the inspired proverb expresses it: “A hater of reproof is unreasoning.” (Pr 12:1) In contrast, the psalmist David, who was himself repeatedly reproved, wrote: “Should the righteous one strike me, it would be a loving-kindness; and should he reprove me, it would be oil upon the head, which my head would not want to refuse.”​—Ps 141:5.

There is no malice in my reproof regarding FyreByrd's philosophy. It is meant to show that it doesn't make much sense to believe that "everything has a degree of consciousness". It's a bit silly actually. The idea is not that smart either. This may not sound very flattering and therefore not very appealing to those who like this philosophy/idea, but truth is better than flattery anyway as explained earlier (in terms of its benefit and being an expression of love, see also the ending of my signature).

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Sometimes, no matter how silly some of these false stories about reality are.
edit on 27-12-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Simply asserting that there is a spiritual element or a substance-like consciousness isn’t good enough if one cares at all about truth. But also this sort of spiritualism defames that which exists in favor of that which doesn’t. And only by defaming the material world can he breath life into his fantasy world, an attempt to bring solidity to pure wind.

I’m sorry but there is no delusion here. I don’t require ghosts and spectres and magical dust to fill in the blanks.



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
Browbeat also means "nag".

Have you ever heard the phrase "making mountains out of molehills"?

That is what you are doing when you mischaracterize my original lighthearted comment in this thread - which, contrary to your circumlocutions, was not directed at Fyrebyrd - as "excessive praise".

You may wag your finger and condescend to me all you like. You are simply trying to win an argument, and I will not be hounded into one on your terms.

If you have an issue with FyreByrd, take it up with him. Or is that nor your true intention?



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

As to the Bible, I don't want to dump it, just rule out that it comes down from God. But as an historical record of mans search for meaning it is invaluable. As well, a document of that search for meaning overlaid with layer upon layer of ''fantastical'' extrapolations.

Back to the idea of consciousness as product or producer. Narrowing down the question I get to this notion of free will.
Do we or don't we have it. If all is out of the void and goo then are we to suppose that if we have free will, does it just accidentally pop out of the random fluctuations of matter and time? That for me is just to hard to wrap my head around.

Yet, the more our modern sciences study, the more it is being considered that ''free will'' is not as free as we once thought it to be. That really much of it is just more of the same product of action and reaction, stimulus and reaction.

This first arose in my mind when I was a young teenager. I found myself standing in front of an open fridge and looking in. I didn't know what I wanted and I wasn't hungry. I stood there with no idea why I had gone to the fridge and opened it.
What in the past I had always thought to be a decision on my part, to get something and eat it had, at that moment made itself known to me as nothing more than unconscious behavior, nothing more than a repetition of past actions.

To this day now I find that when some information or action comes my way I start to think about it. And more and more as that process begins I find that my mind begins to travel right along lines it has traveled before, even though I think that I am evaluating evidence one way or another, I am again repeating evaluations I have evaluated umpteen times before.

At this point I think there IS free will but not from up and out of the goo. Likewise, I don't believe that it is a cheap commodity just bestowed upon us because we are spiritual beings. Rather I think it to be that rare ''plum'' that grows on a nourished tree of thought and considerations.

So I sit here now replying to you and how much of what I type is really a result of my free will. Is it just my need to reach out that is reaching out or did I really decide to. The words I type, are they really original thinking or are they just a mixture of stuff I have read somewhere else and maybe take to be my own, furthering my own illusions. I know what I want to believe yet know as well that I could just be deceiving myself.

I don't know as we need new myths. Right now, I think we have more ''new myths'' than we can handle without going mad, and that too may be wishful thinking, that we have not already. There may have been a time when ''new myths'' percolated up from the ground and were adopted by people from practical necessity and practicality. However it is my observation that those myths are rare and that for a long time now, new myths have been handed down to us from ''central authority'' designed only to strengthen that authority.
This to me is what is happening now. A battle over myth seems to me to be what is playing itself out on our national political front.



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I don't know if the internet is alive because if people disappeared off the earth the internet wouldn't live on. There may be bots that might be able to stay around awhile but I don't think it would live on without people around to use it. I wold consider the internet more like a symbiotic relationship where one can't live without the other. I don't think the internet can live without people around to use it. Great post by the way, you're wicked smart lol



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses
Why is it you try to see and point out something bad, bitter, 'dark' or negative in my commentary? Or interpret or paint it as such? (browbeating, nagging, mischaracterizing, condescending, simply trying to win an argument, being hounded into one, having an issue with Fyrebyrd, etc.; see also the quotation of Isaiah 5:20,21 further below regarding my usage of "bitter" and "dark" in that question, a later edit to my original question)

Yes, I'm familiar with the expression "making mountains out of molehills". Such as when someone is making a real effort to blow up and exaggerate anything in someone's comment that can be viewed or interpreted as something negative if someone really wants to for some reason (or perhaps wants other to see it as such as well).

Must be the Bible quotations, real knowledge and/or beneficial teaching I guess...as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4 ('do not put up with', i.e. 'can't stand it', being rubbed the wrong way, unlike flattery, which tends to rub people the right way, so to speak, i.e. strokes someone's ego and plays on the pride of someone, tickling the ears of the one being flattered).

I for one know that I've been making a real effort to remain respectful in my commentary and responses to you, in spite of all the false and unreasonable accusations regarding doing disrespectful things, or supposedly doing something that can be painted as doing something negative. I see no specific reason for the hostility for merely posting something about flattery that elaborated on the subject of reproof being an expression of love compared to flattery, which is not such an expression. There's no need to become so defensive regarding what you said, I merely used your comment as a lead-in to my example concerning farts as applied to Fyrebyrd's philosophy. It's not like I was making any accusations with it. The stuff I quoted about flattery was just additional information and elaboration, which I indicated by saying:

Something more useful to know and consider:

Nothing about you or your comment. And "more useful" is referring to being more useful than Fyrebyrd's philosophy, which I later described as silly. Which may not be as flattering a description as "smart", but being honest/tuthful about it is not the same as being negative about it (describing the word "smart" as more "flattering" than "silly" isn't incorrect, is it? No need to go into defensive mode just because I happened to use a word you also used to make a point that requires no misinterpretation or micharacterization as an accusation or mischaracterization of your comment). And it also doesn't warrant any of the other negative descriptions of my commentary that you used. Is it too much to ask to forego on reading all such negativity into my commentary, and/or painting it as such; implying there's something wrong with or bad (negative) about my commentary? I mean, I appreciate you not using flattery on me, but you seem to go a bit overboard to the opposite side of the coin of praise and criticism, in a way that sounds so unreasonable to me, that I can't quite follow what your issues are with my commentary, what I'm really doing wrong or how else to put it not to give the impression you are describing (which I was already trying to avoid, what else or what more can I do? I don't get what you're on about, other than having a rudimentary understanding of your possible motives as described in the Bible verses I've been quoting such as 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and about flattery vs reproof and the type of responses one can expect to either from what type of people). All of your descriptions of what I was supposedly doing are bad or negative, isn't that a little excessive regarding what's actually in my comments (and their tone)? I see no need to get so personal either regarding commentary that was predominantly impersonal (general beneficial information and knowledge, such as the stuff about reproof, flattery and human philosophy).

Now for something actually personal:

You come across as being rather prideful when you interpret an attempt to share beneficial teaching and knowledge with you and others as browbeating, nagging, mischaracterizing, condescending, simply trying to win an argument, being hounded into one and having an issue with Fyrebyrd. But I guess merely being honest about how it comes across is not going to go over well either if someone has an overly sensitive ego or merely looking for something bad or negative in my commentary, or looking for a way to read that into it like the Pharisees used to eyeball every little thing Jesus did to find something they could spin as bad or negative (blasphemous in their case).* So perhaps it's best to leave it there just in case that's the situation as well. I primarily meant this as an example of getting a bit more personal anyway, unlike before.

*: “So they were watching him [Jesus] closely to see whether he would cure the man on the Sabbath, in order to accuse him.” (Mark 3:2) “And after observing him closely, they sent men whom they had secretly hired to pretend that they were righteous in order to catch him in his speech, so as to turn him over to the government and to the authority of the governor.” (Luke 20:20) “Then the Pharisees went and conspired together in order to trap him in his speech.” (Matthew 22:15) “So when he went out from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to put extreme pressure on him and to ply him with many more questions, lying in wait for him to catch him in something he might say.” (Luke 11:53,54)

Maybe this comment provides some better material to work with, making it all a bit more convincing. Don't know, I still made an effort to remain respectful and not do the things you described I was doing, but at least there's more material to work with (more things I said that could be interpreted or spun to sound like I'm doing what you accuse me of doing, which is all described as if I'm doing something bad, bitter or negative with terms like browbeating, nagging, mischaracterizing*, condescending, etc.). *: Ever heard of the term psychological projection? How about this one:

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,
Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those wise in their own eyes
And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

I don't think the term "micharacterizing" applies best to what I'm doing in this case.

Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Or accuse other people of mischaracterizing their commentary (or someone else's philosophy or comment), instead of the other way around.

Source: Psychological projection - Wikipedia
edit on 27-12-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire




This first arose in my mind when I was a young teenager. I found myself standing in front of an open fridge and looking in. I didn't know what I wanted and I wasn't hungry. I stood there with no idea why I had gone to the fridge and opened it.


Deep, philosophical thoughts born outta growing up with a shi$$y cook as a parent, or being plagued by a horn of plenty. It’s the little things, like having peanut butter but no jelly or cereal and no milk, that bring us closer to the ‘truth’.

Yeah, we are all here to just fart 💨 around and hope someone is nearby enough to pull our finger that truly matters.



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Consciousness cannot exist beyond the body because it is the body. It begins and ends at the surface of the skin, or whatever boundary encloses an organism, and nowhere past that.


And you know this how? Since we still find it hard to explain Consciousness, you stating something as fact is belief in itself, would you agree?



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

When I think about higher consciousness and the void and stuff like that, I don't like it. I get a sinking empty feeling. It concerns me. Where is the spirit in all this. God's love. It has to be from beyond the universal consciousness or whatever, or somewhere deep within the soul, spirit, that transcends consciousness. It has to be.



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Or the short version:

You're taking my commentary way too personally. Especially the bit about flattery, which I actually intended to lead-in my commentary about the benefits and loving motive of reproof in comparison. [end of short version] Which in turn was a clue regarding the real motive and nature of my commentary, somewhat anticipating a possible negative interpretation of it, knowing this type of information does not 'tickle the ears' of those described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 as 'not putting up with' the type of information in my commentary, especially where it conflicts with their views of human philosophies that are falsely called "knowledge" or represented as the reality/truth of the matter, or their opinion about actual "beneficial teaching". And knowing that, as mentioned before:

Although reproof can benefit those who receive it, the efforts of the reprover are not always appreciated. Thus Proverbs 9:7, 8 warns: “He that is correcting the ridiculer is taking to himself dishonor, and he that is giving a reproof to someone wicked​—a defect in him. Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not hate you. Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you.”
...
The sinful human tendency is to resent reproof and the human servant through whom it may be given. But yielding to this tendency degrades one to the level of an unreasoning beast lacking moral discrimination; as the inspired proverb expresses it: “A hater of reproof is unreasoning.” (Pr 12:1) In contrast, the psalmist David, who was himself repeatedly reproved, wrote: “Should the righteous one strike me, it would be a loving-kindness; and should he reprove me, it would be oil upon the head, which my head would not want to refuse.”​—Ps 141:5.

Those types, demonstrated by David, are out there as well. So reproof regarding human philosophy, silliness, and foolishness (as described in my first comment in my quotation of 1 Cor. 1:19-25), can benefit them as it benefited David. It does require humility, I guess some people just have little interest to qualify for that benefit because of that. Perhaps subconsciously being afraid that any actual demonstration of humility on their part in David's manner may be taken as a sign of weakness or admittal of fault, or a defect. Which is a bit weird cause that's one of the main components of humility, admitting one's own defects (whether that is admitting one is wrong about something or admitting to one's own character and behavioural flaws). Perhaps some people think that humility is all about promoting an agnostic philosophy that they or we can't know anything for certain, or that they or we don't know anything for certain. Who knows...

I can see people making that mistake as they spurn those who are certain about at least some thing, such as for example that 1+1=2 or that an apple is a type of fruit. To take some very simple examples that contradict various forms of agnosticism and phony humility and openmindedness (some people are not so openminded to certainties/truths/facts/realities and acknowledging them as being certain/absolute/correct, without error). Or another example that I'm certain about:

That not "everything has a degree of consciousness" (Fyrebyrd) and "consciousness is" not "everywhere in everything that experiences change in time." (Peeple, the OP)

Both similar philosophies I disagreed with and expanded on with my initial example of farts and turds in my first comment, incorporating your mention of farts in my response to those philosophies and accompanying commentary.

So, since you preferred going there...who were the smart guys/gals again in this thread who apparently were saying more "consequential" things "than a fart"? I already know how you feel about my commentary, I think you've covered that enough for now.

I did not understand your comment about "you guys/gals" being "smart" to be intended sarcastically, although in hindsight and thinking through the philosophies expressed on the first page of this thread including the OP, that might actually make more sense. It does not seem to distinguish between anyone commenting up till that point though, making your attempt of excluding Fyrebyrd's philosophy to which I was responding in your later commentary when you said your original comment was "not directed at Fyrebyrd", a bit dubious. Especially since he wasn't the only one expressing such a philosophy about consciousness or agreeing with it (rolling with it).

Ophiuchus 13 seemed to try to incorporate some components of Fyrebyrd's and Peeple's philosophies (quoted above) into his meanderings, but it's hard to tell because it's too convoluted to really understand what he's saying about consciousness, life and death and "Existence" (as he capitalizes it for some reason), at least to me and for me. But he seems to be 'rolling with it' as well. One could say purplemer rolled with it (depending on how his/her comment is interpreted). Velthumanbeing seems to agree with the way he uses the word "we" in response to something about consciousness and describing an activity or event that took place before humans were even around (so weird to use "we" in that context, we "created earth ecosystems"? We weren't around when earth's ecosystems were created by God, and that's the truth of the matter, the reality of the situation). And your comment follows right after that one.

CitizenZero is the only one I saw on page 1 clearly disagreeing with the philosophies I quoted from Fyrebyrd and Peeple. But he said something weird about consciousness being the body, which didn't sound that smart to me either. A little confusing or weird actually. I don't think it was very helpful. After that, dfnj2015 rolled with Fyrebyrd's and Peeple's philosophies again and showed a lot more silly philosophers rolling with it as well (or a minor variation or modification of or elaboration on it, that's basically what I mean with 'rolling with it', building further upon the idea or some similar misinterpretation of what the concept of "consciousness" is referring to, or what it really means, minus all the bogus philosophies and empty speech* about it).

*: One last piece of advice for everyone:

“Look out that no one takes you captive* [Or “carries you off as his prey.”] by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” (Col. 2:8) “Let no man deceive you with empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.” (Eph. 5:6) “Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them.”

Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us. But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. So try not to occupy your mind with that which will not benefit you, and might even poison your mind (see my signature).
edit on 27-12-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LoneBird
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

When I think about higher consciousness and the void and stuff like that, I don't like it. I get a sinking empty feeling. It concerns me. Where is the spirit in all this. God's love. It has to be from beyond the universal consciousness or whatever, or somewhere deep within the soul, spirit, that transcends consciousness. It has to be.

Well of course there is a course of action. Listen to yourself (ITS SCREAMING AT YOU TO PAY ATTENTION). This is why meditation is such a good tool to get a hold of your higher self; have a conversation. That thing that is you (personality) you have been working on for the last few eons, or at least 400 lives lived.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join