What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

reply to post by NorEaster


"By their fruits you will know them."

I would not need to ask any questions at all. I would just need some time to observe his actions. Truth is something that resonates with others who hold the same values. "The Spirit bears witness."

Originally posted by NorEaster
And this would validate his claim to possessing the thorough knowledge of who and what we are, why we exist, the nature of reality, and the truth about God?

And what if the Truth moved you further from mankind? What if the Truth was nothing at all what you've always assumed it to be? And yet, it was indeed the Truth. What if the technical aspects of it were somewhat disappointing? How would you know that your rejection of it was not due to your own preconceived notions and established expectations?

This is why a series of specific questions seems important. Besides, most folks haven't spent years with enlightened teachers. This effort is on their behalf.

My friend,

God is the great unknown. In my view, it is everything known and unknown in this existence as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely beyond any one man to define. This is a truth of all religions as represented in the ineffable name. Sadly, most religions have forgotten this and have resorted to idolotry, worshipping their names and titles rather than loving this existence.

There is an obvious law of Man given to us by God, or nature, or (insert word for giver of this truth). This law is simple, we need each other. Not one man can be all things needed for his own survival. His arrogance may lead him to think he is all that he needs, but eventually he will find himself in a position where he will need another or die.

Since we need each other, we must learn to love and forgive each other. We have devoted generations of human endeavor judging one another. Now we stand on the precipice of annihilating each other over our judgements. Will reason prevail and Man learn to love one another, share this planets resources to raise the lives of all, or will we wipe the earth clean of Man? It is my hope that Mankind will come to reason.

The truth is no man knows the whole truth. All one man can ever know is his version of the truth based on what he has observed in his short span of time in this existence. It does not matter who is right and who is wrong. What matters is will we allow our perceptions to tear us apart, or will we find those that bring us together?

God is waiting patiently.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by NorEaster
The person simply cannot be the message. The message itself has to be the focus.

Again, I believe that you are wrong, at least as regards the role of the messenger. They are an inherent part of the validation, and, if they claim no basis for their belief other than themselves, they are the only testimony of their credibility. If someone is asking me to put my faith in them, solely because they say so, they need to demonstrate that there is a reason to do so, and they are an integral piece of that.

If they have evidence to point to outside of themselves, like stone tablets or something, that's a somewhat different matter, but if all they're saying is "trust me", only a gullible person would say "sure!", rather than "who are you, and why should I trust you?"

To what extent are you married to your own definition of reality, then?

Well, I'm an Orthodox Christian, and I hold those beliefs because I think that they are right, obviously. I am not so closed minded that I think I cannot be wrong, but I've yet to see any indication that I am (by the evidence and threshold I have, of course.)

So, what's the difference between the thousands of years before (let's say) the advent of Christianity, and the thousands of years since? One difference is that humanity's entire grasp of what is definitely real (sub-atomic structure, physics, cosmology, intra-cellular biology, mirco-biology) and a definitive means to accurately test these aspects of reality that were not known before. If anything, the more advanced a civilization, the better shot it has at figuring out its own existential nature.

Actually, I think that the technological level of a civilization does an increasingly good job of answering the "how" and "what" of reality, but it does little or nothing for the "why", which is what I think you're getting at with this whole thing. I've seen a number of New Age types who use their limited knowledge of quantum mechanics to make all sorts of ridiculous and unsubstantial claims, and that's where the whole "credibility" piece comes into play -- quantum physics is confusing enough for those who study it, much less someone who dreams something up, and then attempts to use the field to "prove" that they are right, safe in the knowledge that no one can prove anything, so their pseudo-science is sufficient to fool others.

As far as "why them?". You could also ask "Why not them?"

Well, again, it depends on the nature of what is being discussed and what its source is. If this person is claiming insights from something external (God, past lives, the Universe, Madness' teapot, etc) then the "why them" is a salient point. Why would God have chosen to grant this insights to this person, as opposed to that? Are they persuasive? Unusually pious? If there is no apparent reason, it once again calls things into question. Doesn't mean it can't be so, of course.

If this person is just saying that they "figured it out", the "why them" becomes, again, what is their credibility? Do they understand the issues that are involved? Demonstrate knowledge of the general landscape? How can one be trusted to discovered the truth if they clearly are ignorant of different options? For example, someone who claims that they know the truth about Judaism, but demonstrates that they don't even understand the basics of Torah and the Talmud, or the Judaic view of the material world, how can their "truth" about Judaism be considered?

As far as information having been overlooked, when was the last time that anyone actually bothered to look any harder than to choose an established premise and accept it? Monotheism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, alien-theism, All-ism, we-are-the-All-ism; it's all pretty worked over, and has been for at least hundreds of years (even though the alien wrinkle is fairly recent, it's not a true explanation of reality, but just a rationale for why humans believe in any theisms at all) Since the Theory of Relativity, no one's touched the issue of reality other than to suggest that its origins can't be known by either theologists or scientists.

I can't believe that you are unaware of the New Age movement, as well as the alternative realities that have been proposed in the past 50 years, but you may rest assured that plenty of people have made these sorts of claims recently. Some more successful than others, but nothing super significant, because, again, it demands a break from tradition without any compelling reason to do so.

As a theist, I have a difficult time believing anyone who claims to know something about God, which is fundamental, and which has been unknown for any reasonable length of time, for the simple reason that I fail to see the sense of God either allowing his plans to be thwarted, or just not caring enough to correct the ship for thousands of years. That's a personal opinion, of course.

No questions will be needed. You will be in awe and overcome with the energy of love, the energy may drop you to your knees, or you will cry in the splendor of love uncontrollably for a period of time. It is after the energy has left you, when your linear brain questions. Deep inside your heart you will know without a doubt you are never alone, and you have been given a blessing for a lifetime. This is when you will seek within, not outside of self for answers for your lifetime. We all are on different journeys, but yet we are all one. Love

Originally posted by Condemned0625
1. Who are you, exactly?

Irrelevant.

2. Can you prove your identity?

No. Descartes could not even prove that the 'thinker' exists.

Neither can you.

3. Where did you come from?

Irrelevant.

4. Can you prove your origin?

No. As I said, Descartes could not even prove that the 'thinker' exists.

The 'thinker' has never been seen, for example.

In any case, I can tell you that the Revelation of the "resurrection" includes the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives, but that is not proof. That is something that is received through Revelation. It does not attain to the level of proof until you receive either that Revelation or those memories yourself or a close member of your family receives those memories, as is related in the book Soul Survivor about a 2 year old boy who had nightmares of being shot down as an American pilot during World War II. His Christian Fundamentalist father resisted for YEARS before he finally accepted the reality of the living of more than one life.

5. What is the purpose of this information you call truth?

To resolve the duality, to diminish violence, and to accomplish Justice and Peace in the world.

Then I would tell him to tell me everything and go on from there.

And I fully suspect that you would not believe ONE word of it merely on the basis of the questions you have already asked.

Michael Cecil

If in a search for "the ultimate truth" I have to question the validity of putting "GOD" into the equation because it then begs the question of what was His motives and reason. That may not be important.

If we assume GOD built this Disneyland then go about trying to deduce his reason we miss the point altogether. Enter savage Man with his ability to assign logic and purpose to all he sees, after some moments of wonder and fascination he is likely single out a particular attraction and question, "What is the purpose of this contraption?" He will single out a particular roller coaster and try to deduce the reasoning behind its design. He will notice it has a means of locomotion but determine it goes nowhere but around in a circle. Searching for an answer as to its purpose will create a conundrum that his efforts to solve will take him further from obtaining an answer to and will miss the point completely.

Such is life, I reckon.

Originally posted by electricalpup
No questions will be needed. You will be in awe and overcome with the energy of love, the energy may drop you to your knees, or you will cry in the splendor of love uncontrollably for a period of time. It is after the energy has left you, when your linear brain questions. Deep inside your heart you will know without a doubt you are never alone, and you have been given a blessing for a lifetime. This is when you will seek within, not outside of self for answers for your lifetime. We all are on different journeys, but yet we are all one. Love

Truth you can believe in.

Thanks for sharing my friend!

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul Evidence, reason, testable claims.I'm not going to just accept anything without evidence, I'm not going to accept anything that cannot be supported by reason, and I'm not going to accept a claim so profound if it is entirely untestable.

What is the evidence that the metaphysical duality exists and that it is not merely a 'perturbation' in reality which is 'caused' by the observer?

What is the evidence that the 'thinker' exists?

And don't say "thoughts". The 'thinker' is merely another thought.

The existence of the 'thinker' is, of course, untestable.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NorEaster What questions would you ask of the Truth itself?

What is consciousness?

What is the origin of the duality; and, thus, conflict and violence?

Is the resolution of the duality possible in reality, or can it be acquired only through the imagination of a "self" or the thoughts of a 'thinker' as a pleasurable illusion?

Michael Cecil

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


No one on this board knows any truths.

I tell the truths that go on in london and all the time people are complaining lol.

No one on this board wants truths.

Originally posted by andy1033No one on this board knows any truths.

This statement shoots itself in the head.

You are claiming, on the one hand, that the statement itself is the "truth"; but, then, you are denying that anyone on this board knows any truths; which, of course, means that your statement cannot possibly be the truth after all.

So why did you say it?

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Well, to be honest, the design of the overall ride is a form follows function type situation (if what we already know to be true about the parts is any indication about the whole) so examining the "machine" could be seen as critical to determining the software, I suppose. After all, the machine and the software would need to be compatible, so maybe asking some questions about the machine - as a means of determining the software (ghost in the machine) would be a good idea? If the guy knew the macro nature of the machine, and what he described related directly to the parts that we already know, then that'd be a start.

Originally posted by Alethea
reply to post by NorEaster

 

"By their fruits you will know them."

I would not need to ask any questions at all. I would just need some time to observe his actions. Truth is something that resonates with others who hold the same values. "The Spirit bears witness."

Would that everyone was so gifted. They aren't, though. What questions would you have someone who isn't as equipped ask such a man about the nature of his information? Surely something specific would alert you to whether his premise was plausible enoiugh to warrant further investigation. At least it would alert you to whether it wasn't plausible. Most people are not very observable, and many are natural performers.

Besides, what does a man who's had the truth concerning the whole of reality dumped in his lap look and act like? Keep in mind that information is not identity, and this doesn't have to be a holy man. In fact, what if "holy" is a manmade concept? Just a "what if". They say that Lucifer means "the Morning Star", a bad Latin translation of a word referring to a brilliant and beautiful being of light in the Book of Isaiah. This is why people consider Satan to be Lucifer, the fallen angel. Regardless of how sloppy that whole juxtaposition ended up, the point is that Lucifer was a really attractive character, and probably was absolutely capable of maintaining that attractiveness over a longer period of time than you'll ever exist as a corporeal human being. With that in mind, how good is your go-to plan for the average person?

No, I think I need a better plan than that. I know damn well that I wouldn't be able to tell a princess from a frog, even after making out with the damn thing all night long.

reply to post by IAMIAM


I'll put you down as "I really don't have any questions that would work". Thanks anyway.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster
The person simply cannot be the message. The message itself has to be the focus.

Again, I believe that you are wrong, at least as regards the role of the messenger. They are an inherent part of the validation, and, if they claim no basis for their belief other than themselves, they are the only testimony of their credibility. If someone is asking me to put my faith in them, solely because they say so, they need to demonstrate that there is a reason to do so, and they are an integral piece of that.

If they have evidence to point to outside of themselves, like stone tablets or something, that's a somewhat different matter, but if all they're saying is "trust me", only a gullible person would say "sure!", rather than "who are you, and why should I trust you?"

You should challenge their information. Don't you think? The internal logic - does it hold up? How does it dovetail with what we have been able to establish as being true? Does it immediately clear up any lingering mysteries, resolve long-standing inconsistencies in other theories? Wouldn't an examination of the premise itself help establish its own credibility?

Why would you place faith in any human being at all in connection with such an assertion?

To what extent are you married to your own definition of reality, then?

Well, I'm an Orthodox Christian, and I hold those beliefs because I think that they are right, obviously. I am not so closed minded that I think I cannot be wrong, but I've yet to see any indication that I am (by the evidence and threshold I have, of course.)

So, what's the difference between the thousands of years before (let's say) the advent of Christianity, and the thousands of years since? One difference is that humanity's entire grasp of what is definitely real (sub-atomic structure, physics, cosmology, intra-cellular biology, mirco-biology) and a definitive means to accurately test these aspects of reality that were not known before. If anything, the more advanced a civilization, the better shot it has at figuring out its own existential nature.

Actually, I think that the technological level of a civilization does an increasingly good job of answering the "how" and "what" of reality, but it does little or nothing for the "why", which is what I think you're getting at with this whole thing. I've seen a number of New Age types who use their limited knowledge of quantum mechanics to make all sorts of ridiculous and unsubstantial claims, and that's where the whole "credibility" piece comes into play -- quantum physics is confusing enough for those who study it, much less someone who dreams something up, and then attempts to use the field to "prove" that they are right, safe in the knowledge that no one can prove anything, so their pseudo-science is sufficient to fool others.

I see the same bunch of people, and it irritates me too. The thing is that these "theories" are absolutely incomplete and some are even wildly irresponsible when you simply challenge them to make sense with what we already know to be true about basic reality. To be honest, the theoretical physicists aren't so much New Age, as they are sideshow carnies who've decided to cash in on how confusing their "science" can be, and how desperate millions of people are to have anything make sense. The world now knows that Heaven isn't "up" and Hell isn't "below", and they know that yes, dinosaurs actually did exist. That calls plenty into question for the average individual, and these hucksters are clogging the market with whatever screwball theory they can get a book deal with.

All the more reason to formulate a means to quickly challenge such nonsense.

As far as "why them?". You could also ask "Why not them?"

Well, again, it depends on the nature of what is being discussed and what its source is. If this person is claiming insights from something external (God, past lives, the Universe, Madness' teapot, etc) then the "why them" is a salient point. Why would God have chosen to grant this insights to this person, as opposed to that? Are they persuasive? Unusually pious? If there is no apparent reason, it once again calls things into question. Doesn't mean it can't be so, of course.

I don't know. Maybe a lot of people get tapped, but most of them have to work in the morning? Maybe it's not a case of being pious or persuasive? Maybe it's just about being the one who doesn't think it's a stupid idea to see where it all goes once it starts? Maybe we turn people into saints after we've decided that we like what they delivered, and have completely forgotten the ones who showed up with stuff we didn't like? Maybe there have been thousands of these people over the centuries, and they've been ignored, sidetracked, shut down, ridiculed, or whatever else can happen to one person in the span of a lifetime to derail what might've been a life that makes a difference in how we see things?

If this person is just saying that they "figured it out", the "why them" becomes, again, what is their credibility? Do they understand the issues that are involved? Demonstrate knowledge of the general landscape? How can one be trusted to discovered the truth if they clearly are ignorant of different options? For example, someone who claims that they know the truth about Judaism, but demonstrates that they don't even understand the basics of Torah and the Talmud, or the Judaic view of the material world, how can their "truth" about Judaism be considered?

Again, what's the criteria? The person's resume or the information itself?

The story goes that Jesus was some carpenter's son, and didn't say "boo" until he was 30 years old. I would imagine that folks that knew him had a good laugh when he started making out like he was some holy man all of a sudden. And what landscape are you referring to? Religion? Theology? Which religion? Which theology? Quantum Physics? You mean the junk science that's being peddled as fact on the Discovery Channel? That stuff? Or would this guy need to be steeped in Buddhist philosophy and its Hindu roots? Perhaps all the offshoots of that basic premise - the New Age stuff that the kids are all worked up over these past 40 years or so. That stuff?

What if the Truth has absolutely nothing to do with that stuff? Then what? Of course, you'd have to allow for the possibility that your own version of the Truth is based on versions that have been kicking around for a very long time, and may not be related directly to a breakthrough reveal - if such a reveal existed. Would you be capable of that? If the Truth were very different than what's been determined to be true, then what sort of resume would such a person need to have?

As far as information having been overlooked, when was the last time that anyone actually bothered to look any harder than to choose an established premise and accept it? Monotheism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, alien-theism, All-ism, we-are-the-All-ism; it's all pretty worked over, and has been for at least hundreds of years (even though the alien wrinkle is fairly recent, it's not a true explanation of reality, but just a rationale for why humans believe in any theisms at all) Since the Theory of Relativity, no one's touched the issue of reality other than to suggest that its origins can't be known by either theologists or scientists.

I can't believe that you are unaware of the New Age movement, as well as the alternative realities that have been proposed in the past 50 years, but you may rest assured that plenty of people have made these sorts of claims recently. Some more successful than others, but nothing super significant, because, again, it demands a break from tradition without any compelling reason to do so.

The New Age movement is based solidly on Eastern religious tenets and philosophy. There's nothing at all new about that movement. Just a rearrangement of the chairs, and new names for the same concepts. Yes, the New Agers give themselves a bit more latitude in some respects and tighten up in others, but no more than the variety of Christian denominations do amongst themselves. It's really just blends of Buddhism and whatever else they've acquired from the many other varieties of Hinduism that have emerged in the East. I guess that some have incorporated pantheism and panentheism into their blends, but again, it's just mix and match. Nothing new.

As a theist, I have a difficult time believing anyone who claims to know something about God, which is fundamental, and which has been unknown for any reasonable length of time, for the simple reason that I fail to see the sense of God either allowing his plans to be thwarted, or just not caring enough to correct the ship for thousands of years. That's a personal opinion, of course.

I can appreciate that. Then again, if one looks about, one has to admit that if God's plan is anything other than billions of people who think that everyone other than them and their small cluster of chosen ones are going to either burn in hell forever or keep on recycling until they finally stop being stupid, then God's plan has already been thwarted.

A reasonable length of time. To a time-less God, what is a reasonable length of time? How does this time-less God even access the notion of time, and adjust Himself to the progressive requirements of time so that He can even perceive and etermine whether His plan is progressing as expected? Wouldn't the fact that He (as a fully conscious and dynamic being with the capacity to interact with physical reality) would have to somehow reconfigure His elemental essence to become "time-centric", so as to affect the corporeal realm, cause Him to have to choose a specific slice of progressive Time to slip into? And who's to say which slot of time God would see as the proper slice to penetrate? Probably not anyone we know.

My question was "what questions would you challenge such a guy with?" Don't you have any questions that would clearly cripple a bogus claim that don't involve your own subjective judgment of the character or resume of the guy himself?

Originally posted by electricalpup
No questions will be needed. You will be in awe and overcome with the energy of love, the energy may drop you to your knees, or you will cry in the splendor of love uncontrollably for a period of time. It is after the energy has left you, when your linear brain questions. Deep inside your heart you will know without a doubt you are never alone, and you have been given a blessing for a lifetime. This is when you will seek within, not outside of self for answers for your lifetime. We all are on different journeys, but yet we are all one. Love

So then that South Carolina stripper really did have the Truth, then.

Glory be! I still see her in my dreams. Hallelujah!

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NorEaster What questions would you ask of the Truth itself?

What is consciousness?

Easy enough to answer, but does it cause your other questions to stand or fall in relative context to how it is answered? Does it set any other answer up to fail in logical juxtaposition? Let's see.

What is the origin of the duality; and, thus, conflict and violence?

This would be a good question for him after you've determined the internal consistency of the premise. However, it has no contextual alignment with your first question, and therefore teaches you nothing about the validity of the premise.

Is the resolution of the duality possible in reality, or can it be acquired only through the imagination of a "self" or the thoughts of a 'thinker' as a pleasurable illusion?
Michael Cecil

While generally bridging the first two questions, this question doesn't introduce the potential for logical conflict between question 1 and question 2. It allows the premise the logical escape of suggesting that duality is subjective, and that allows all three answers plenty of room to avoid getting snagged as a result of logical failure.

Also, what have you brought with you to compare his answers with? What well-established fact of sub-structural reality have you chosen to compare his assertions to? This person has claimed to know the entire nature of physical reality. How do you challenge his premise directly? Remember, there is plenty that we already know to be true. Yes, it's mundane and not very glamorous to use the most basic of elemental facts, but you're trying to debunk this person in less than 5 questions. If his Truth clashes with what we already know is true, then his premise is toast.

Originally posted by NorEaster
My question was "what questions would you challenge such a guy with?" Don't you have any questions that would clearly cripple a bogus claim that don't involve your own subjective judgment of the character or resume of the guy himself?

No, it's too contingent on what the person is claiming, and what their basis for it is. If someone came along, proclaiming that a truth which was contradictory to my own beliefs, had nothing but his own word for it, and nothing to establish his credibility for being closer to the truth than me, I wouldn't even waste my time debunking him. Barring evidence to the contrary, you, I and everyone else is as much of a claimant to enlightenment as that sort is.

There are plenty of such claimants around now who would meet that criteria, on ATS and elsewhere -- how much time do you give them?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster
My question was "what questions would you challenge such a guy with?" Don't you have any questions that would clearly cripple a bogus claim that don't involve your own subjective judgment of the character or resume of the guy himself?

No, it's too contingent on what the person is claiming, and what their basis for it is. If someone came along, proclaiming that a truth which was contradictory to my own beliefs, had nothing but his own word for it, and nothing to establish his credibility for being closer to the truth than me, I wouldn't even waste my time debunking him. Barring evidence to the contrary, you, I and everyone else is as much of a claimant to enlightenment as that sort is.

There are plenty of such claimants around now who would meet that criteria, on ATS and elsewhere -- how much time do you give them?

I guess I'd ask him a few questions about his claim.

What consitutes physical existence? Can you describe it specifically?
Why did physical existence emerge? What brought it into existence?
What sits at the very base of physical structure and provides any sort of consistency at all?
Is there anything that exists that isn't physical? If so, what is it? Describe its nature.
What do we see that you can point to as directly connected to your premise? How is it associated?

These are specific, but I still am not that thrilled with their ability to cross confirm each other. What I need are 5 questions that literally tie such a premise up in a nice red bow. Or kill it in its crib if it's not true.

Originally posted by NorEaster Originally posted by Michael Cecil What is consciousness?

Easy enough to answer,

Then answer it.

Michael Cecil