The Crucifixion

[chefranden]

If Jesus was God the only way that the crucifiction could be logical is that God was paying for his own sin. God had already declaired that no one dies for the sin of another and that one dies for one's own sin. (Zeke18)

 

Let's face it. If God is real, his secret name would be "George W. Bush". While attending Universal University he was passed though World Creation and Management 101 after flunking 3 times. The falculty was sick of him. God had much sin to die for.

[NotBlinded]

But that's the point, isn't it? It sounds so much like an idea (a myth) that surfaced as the result of humanity's changing ideas about what God is like. Nothing wrong with that, but at least be honest about it rather than insisting that it is something that really happened. Because it just doesn't make sense when taken literally.

IMO, the symbology is still there but when taken literally, it is missed. Myths are symbolic in nature and the crucifixion is no different. That is why many myths have this death and resurrection theme. Heck, there is no power in honesty!

 

All symbols and metaphors in myth are to be taken as an inward sign about our own nature, not an outward, literal occurance.

 

I see two ways that this can symbolically be taken (there are probably more):

 

1) An awakening to a deep spiritual truth through suffering (suffering will happen).

 

2) I love this one... When a person becomes enlightened, that person dies to being in the world and awakens to their God nature. Also, when the person awakens, God dies to being a person in the world and can longer experience life in form. A paradox of opposites that has a profound meaning. This is the death of the God-Man and the Man-God.

 

I have my own favourite interpretation of the symbolism. (apologies in advance to atheists, since this interpretation involves belief in God, or at least an entity or phenomenon that for sake of argument can be called God)

 

God is in some way goodness personified, right?

 

God gives us Free Will, thus allowing evil to occur in the world.

 

By allowing evil to exist in the world, God gives up some of his goodness.

 

This can be seen as God allowing himself to die, that we might live

 

The purpose of Free Will is that we make mistakes so as to learn from them

 

If/when we learn from our mistakes (as individuals or the entire human species - it works on both levels), then we enter a higher awareness and understanding where we don't need to make those mistakes again because we've learnt from them.

 

We have thus been made anew and our evil has been overcome or banished.

 

Then God is resurrected through us.

 

So God dies and is resurrected through our death and resurrection.

 

This interpretation fits my belief that all things are one - that God exists in all things and all things are part of God (though I prefer to think of God as an impersonal process or energy rather than a person or being)

You are speaking my own heart EB...

[Amanda]

Evolution Beyond, I like the way you think. You have a wonderful way with words.

 

If Jesus was God the only way that the crucifiction could be logical is that God was paying for his own sin. God had already declaired that no one dies for the sin of another and that one dies for one's own sin. (Zeke18)

Chefranden, remember this one too?

Isaiah45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[mwc]

God is in some way goodness personified, right?

 

God gives us Free Will, thus allowing evil to occur in the world.

 

...

 

This interpretation fits my belief that all things are one - that God exists in all things and all things are part of God (though I prefer to think of God as an impersonal process or energy rather than a person or being)

If these things are true then the way I see it "god" could be, at best, a neutral, and we would introduce a random element (perhaps "chaos" assuming "god" were "order" but "god" being everything that exists even in "chaos" so it would have to have no effect or state and therefore neutral is a better choice).

 

And to all of you who follow this line of reasoning (you know who you are) about "god" the energy blob guy...

 

Why is it we're always the "bad" guys and "god" is always the "good" guy? Perhaps it's the other way around...if any way at all? Why is that never an option? Maybe we're really damn good but "god" is mucking it all up from his perch and we're just not seeing our full potential as a result (it's a perception thing)? Think of as many of these as you like since I'm not going to put a whole lot of energy into the various scenarios.

 

mwc

[Evolution_beyond]

God is in some way goodness personified, right?

 

God gives us Free Will, thus allowing evil to occur in the world.

 

...

 

This interpretation fits my belief that all things are one - that God exists in all things and all things are part of God (though I prefer to think of God as an impersonal process or energy rather than a person or being)

If these things are true then the way I see it "god" could be, at best, a neutral, and we would introduce a random element (perhaps "chaos" assuming "god" were "order" but "god" being everything that exists even in "chaos" so it would have to have no effect or state and therefore neutral is a better choice).

 

And to all of you who follow this line of reasoning (you know who you are) about "god" the energy blob guy...

 

Why is it we're always the "bad" guys and "god" is always the "good" guy? Perhaps it's the other way around...if any way at all? Why is that never an option? Maybe we're really damn good but "god" is mucking it all up from his perch and we're just not seeing our full potential as a result (it's a perception thing)? Think of as many of these as you like since I'm not going to put a whole lot of energy into the various scenarios.

 

mwc

 

 

Come to think of it, 'good' and 'evil' are human concepts that make sense and are useful on a human level but at a universal level don't really make any sense at all.

 

When a human being is killed, humans view it as bad. It's quite good for those organisms that feed off the dead though.

 

All things are one. This is the truth of the Universe. There is only nature in all its ominpotence and inscrutability. Spiritual systems of belief are human attempts to understand the mystery and wonder of the Universe (and also find a moral system that works for us).

 

God may well be morally neutral. Morality only exists on a human level, but it is still important for humans to try and make sense of the world in moral terms.

[Amanda]

And to all of you who follow this line of reasoning (you know who you are) about "god" the energy blob guy...

 

Why is it we're always the "bad" guys and "god" is always the "good" guy? Perhaps it's the other way around...if any way at all? Why is that never an option? Maybe we're really damn good but "god" is mucking it all up from his perch and we're just not seeing our full potential as a result (it's a perception thing)? Think of as many of these as you like since I'm not going to put a whole lot of energy into the various scenarios.

 

mwc

MWC, you're the best! I love your style of diplomacy... lots of pressure with class.

 

IMO, everything is part of God. All there is, is the one. God is experiencing all things through all things. The only possible 'evil' might be disrespect.... however, probably needed to experience all there is. Opposites define each other. We would not know happiness without sorrow, courage without fear, compassion without tragedy, or appreciate life without death. Opposing forces are needed to experience anything, physically and emotionally. Yin and Yang.

 

Egos allow us to experience the world as we do, yet I wonder if all nature does so... or do they lack self awareness, just living at one with nature... organs in the one organism... through instinct? People, becoming more cerebral instead of instinctual, and leaving the nomadic lifestyle, may have caused us to suppress that sense of being at one with nature.

 

Once one becomes single minded, there is no evil... only understanding inappropriate coping skills. Accountability and responsibility direct all in the same direction, and there is really very little free will. We can choose to go the easy way or the difficult way, but we are going the way we must... back to recognizing we are all one. Natural repercussions of our own actions ultimately guide us all to be like-minded. We are all just where we are suppose to be, no one evil and everyone is good. Even the bible says that god is not 'perceiving' any 'sins' in us. We are seen perfect just the way we are.

 

2Co 5:19

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

However, no rush to become like-minded, IMO, because we lose a lot of companionship that way. What is there to talk about when everyone becomes like-minded? Boring. I see this happening so often, even in marriages. Once people discuss things so completely, being understood, they learn a lot from each other and usually both tend towards the middle. I think that is what is meant in the bible myth that says something like... when two or more are gathered to seek the way, the truth, and the life, the christ nature will be there in the midst of them.

 

Viewing the world through the perspective of all things are one, and the one is God, gives a reverence to all things. It causes me to ultimately see the world in a manner that all physical things deserve respect and honor dispite their behavior, which may not.

 

I always appreciate your input MWC.

[NotBlinded]

If these things are true then the way I see it "god" could be, at best, a neutral, and we would introduce a random element (perhaps "chaos" assuming "god" were "order" but "god" being everything that exists even in "chaos" so it would have to have no effect or state and therefore neutral is a better choice).

 

And to all of you who follow this line of reasoning (you know who you are) about "god" the energy blob guy...

 

Why is it we're always the "bad" guys and "god" is always the "good" guy? Perhaps it's the other way around...if any way at all? Why is that never an option? Maybe we're really damn good but "god" is mucking it all up from his perch and we're just not seeing our full potential as a result (it's a perception thing)? Think of as many of these as you like since I'm not going to put a whole lot of energy into the various scenarios.

 

mwc

God, to me, is nothing more than the stream of consciousness that everything draws from everyday. I believe that consciousness is a fundamental part of nature and is in everything.

 

David Chalmers, consciousness philosopher, sees it this way:

 

There are two possibilities here. First, it could be that consciousness is itself a

fundamental feature of the world, like spacetime and mass. In this case, we can say that

phenomenal properties are fundamental. Second, it could be that consciousness is not itself

fundamental, but is necessitated by some more primitive fundamental feature X that is not

itself necessitated by physics. In this case, we might call X a protophenomenal property, and

we can say that protophenomenal properties are fundamental. I will typically put things in

terms of the first possibility for ease of discussion, but the discussion that follows applies

equally to the second. Either way, consciousness involves something novel and fundamental

in the world.

Consciousness and its Place in Nature

 

David Bohm, the quantum physicist sees it this way:

 

"Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it."

Bohm and Peat 1987, 185-186 and Weber 1986, 215

 

"One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general" (Bohm, 1980, p. 208).

 

What this means to me is that we all are this source. To take it even further, we are god experiencing life as forms. It's an illusion that we are separate from each other. A fun illusion yes, but ultimately, everything is one.

[Evolution_beyond]

If these things are true then the way I see it "god" could be, at best, a neutral, and we would introduce a random element (perhaps "chaos" assuming "god" were "order" but "god" being everything that exists even in "chaos" so it would have to have no effect or state and therefore neutral is a better choice).

 

And to all of you who follow this line of reasoning (you know who you are) about "god" the energy blob guy...

 

Why is it we're always the "bad" guys and "god" is always the "good" guy? Perhaps it's the other way around...if any way at all? Why is that never an option? Maybe we're really damn good but "god" is mucking it all up from his perch and we're just not seeing our full potential as a result (it's a perception thing)? Think of as many of these as you like since I'm not going to put a whole lot of energy into the various scenarios.

 

mwc

God, to me, is nothing more than the stream of consciousness that everything draws from everyday. I believe that consciousness is a fundamental part of nature and is in everything.

 

David Chalmers, consciousness philosopher, sees it this way:

 

There are two possibilities here. First, it could be that consciousness is itself a

fundamental feature of the world, like spacetime and mass. In this case, we can say that

phenomenal properties are fundamental. Second, it could be that consciousness is not itself

fundamental, but is necessitated by some more primitive fundamental feature X that is not

itself necessitated by physics. In this case, we might call X a protophenomenal property, and

we can say that protophenomenal properties are fundamental. I will typically put things in

terms of the first possibility for ease of discussion, but the discussion that follows applies

equally to the second. Either way, consciousness involves something novel and fundamental

in the world.

Consciousness and its Place in Nature

 

David Bohm, the quantum physicist sees it this way:

 

"Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it."

Bohm and Peat 1987, 185-186 and Weber 1986, 215

 

"One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general" (Bohm, 1980, p. 208).

 

What this means to me is that we all are this source. To take it even further, we are god experiencing life as forms. It's an illusion that we are separate from each other. A fun illusion yes, but ultimately, everything is one.

 

Blinded by the blight - you rock!!!

[mwc]

MWC, you're the best! I love your style of diplomacy... lots of pressure with class.

Pressure? Me? No...

 

IMO, everything is part of God. All there is, is the one.

Now let me see if I've got this straight. You claim this is only your opinion but then you say we're all part of this god. So then wouldn't this then be our opinion? Hmmm?

 

God is experiencing all things through all things. The only possible 'evil' might be disrespect.... however, probably needed to experience all there is. Opposites define each other. We would not know happiness without sorrow, courage without fear, compassion without tragedy, or appreciate life without death. Opposing forces are needed to experience anything, physically and emotionally. Yin and Yang.

Could this then become a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? How can one part of something disrespect another part of that same thing? It logically doesn't follow (unless the "thing" in question is a little, oh lets just say, "nuts" then all bets are off).

 

Egos allow us to experience the world as we do, yet I wonder if all nature does so... or do they lack self awareness, just living at one with nature... organs in the one organism... through instinct? People, becoming more cerebral instead of instinctual, and leaving the nomadic lifestyle, may have caused us to suppress that sense of being at one with nature.

Well, this all depends. How "instinctual" were we really? How "cerebral" have we become? What has the trade-off been? This is all based on speculation. The sense of "one-ness" we lost could be more in our minds than was truly in reality. Most certainly we have romanticized many of the "things" we've lost in our past. Those by-gone eras usually are seen through rose colored glasses. This sense of loss between us and "nature" seems to be just another in that long list. That is not to say we haven't changed but us homosapiens are pretty much the same based on what I've read so the loss would have to be fairly small.

 

Once one becomes single minded, there is no evil... only understanding inappropriate coping skills. Accountability and responsibility direct all in the same direction, and there is really very little free will. We can choose to go the easy way or the difficult way, but we are going the way we must... back to recognizing we are all one. Natural repercussions of our own actions ultimately guide us all to be like-minded. We are all just where we are suppose to be, no one evil and everyone is good. Even the bible says that god is not 'perceiving' any 'sins' in us. We are seen perfect just the way we are.

 

2Co 5:19

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

No one is "good" and everyone "evil." It works both ways. Which is my point. There is an assumption that "god is good." As I said above, this "god," at best, might be neutral. So if we go with your thinking and god is good, once all things are collected into the "good" pile then what is there? Good? No comparison can be made so the pile cannot be determined to be good or bad. Neutral would perhaps be your next best choice. To apply the "good" descriptor" to "god" would mean we would need another like object to compare "god" to. None exists (according to you) and therefore no comparison can be made. Your "god" must be neutral. To compare this "thing" to us seems unfair. Apples to oranges as it were. Even if we are parts of "god" to compare a part to another part or a part to a whole is unfair. Is the foot better or worse than the head? The kidney more "evil" than the lung? What is the liver to the whole? Surely not good or evil. To think it corrupted requires more information than the liver could possess. No. The liver is just that. A liver. Neither good nor evil just as the whole is neither. It simply "is."

 

And none of these need to learn to take their place among the whole. They simply do their part. The need to learn a place means we're out of place. We don't fit. Why would we be in the wrong place? We are where we are. Surely that must be the proper position?

 

However, no rush to become like-minded, IMO, because we lose a lot of companionship that way. What is there to talk about when everyone becomes like-minded? Boring. I see this happening so often, even in marriages. Once people discuss things so completely, being understood, they learn a lot from each other and usually both tend towards the middle. I think that is what is meant in the bible myth that says something like... when two or more are gathered to seek the way, the truth, and the life, the christ nature will be there in the midst of them.

 

Viewing the world through the perspective of all things are one, and the one is God, gives a reverence to all things. It causes me to ultimately see the world in a manner that all physical things deserve respect and honor dispite their behavior, which may not.

Then based on what you've said above we've already lost. If all things are "god" then we are doomed to like mindedness. An eventual convergence. We are falling towards apotheosis as it were (let's see who can catch the reference...without looking ). The only escape would be to resist "god," and seeing that we a part of "god," that seems unlikely.

 

I always appreciate your input MWC.

And I yours of course.

 

mwc

[mwc]

God, to me, is nothing more than the stream of consciousness that everything draws from everyday. I believe that consciousness is a fundamental part of nature and is in everything.

So, then, "god" to you would be a neutral? Our brains mere "antennae?" If one gets an injury does that mean they are simply getting the signal incorrectly at that point? Or am I to assume this is more something that is to be "tapped" into is one so desires and is separate and distinct from one's own personality (I'm guessing it's like this one so free will can function but I want to be sure)?

 

What this means to me is that we all are this source. To take it even further, we are god experiencing life as forms. It's an illusion that we are separate from each other. A fun illusion yes, but ultimately, everything is one.

Ahhh...a variation on the universe trying to figure itself out. I also see a little of "we are both the dream and the dreamer" in there too.

 

In a way what you describe makes me think of the shape shifters from Deep Space 9. When they joined into "The Great Link" (I believe that's the name) it was roughly described in one episode when one joined the link as "the drop becomes the ocean" and when one left the link "the ocean becomes the drop." Very much an intermixing of the "all" but the ability for "individuals" to exist. If you're not familiar with the series I'm sure some Star Trek fan site can clue you in with all the minute details.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

MWC, you, NBBTB, and Evolution Beyond seem better at articulating ideas than I. I agree with Evolution Beyond in NBBTB rocks. She has a more diverse and detailed understanding to the same ideas as I. Maybe I should just defer to her? However, I love what you said too... that we are the dream and the dreamer. That's quite poetic.

 

Now let me see if I've got this straight. You claim this is only your opinion but then you say we're all part of this god. So then wouldn't this then be our opinion? Hmmm?

Well, I thought it could only be my opinion if I can't prove it. It seems obvious to me, but hey... it is still a debate and not an obvious fact to everyone else.

Could this then become a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? How can one part of something disrespect another part of that same thing? It logically doesn't follow (unless the "thing" in question is a little, oh lets just say, "nuts" then all bets are off).

EXACTLY! Disrespect is like an infection/cancer/disease in the overall body of "God".

 

Well, this all depends. How "instinctual" were we really? How "cerebral" have we become? What has the trade-off been? This is all based on speculation. The sense of "one-ness" we lost could be more in our minds than was truly in reality.

I agree. This may have been a byproduct of becoming self aware. I can't even imagine NOT being self aware, so I can only guess at these things. I think language did something also, as well as the ability to imagine the future, etc. Yet, I think this is part of the overall journey set forth by the laws of the nature of our universe.

Most certainly we have romanticized many of the "things" we've lost in our past. Those by-gone eras usually are seen through rose colored glasses. This sense of loss between us and "nature" seems to be just another in that long list. That is not to say we haven't changed but us homosapiens are pretty much the same based on what I've read so the loss would have to be fairly small.

I agree. I have no desire to go back in the past. Hopefully we homosapiens have learned some lessons that we don't need to learn again. It seems to me, we are progressively getting better, yet maybe not steadily.

No one is "good" and everyone "evil." It works both ways. Which is my point.

Oh, I'm sure some of us have gone through our "evil" period... that little walk on the wild side, learning from those repercussions. Of course, I never did anything like that in my life.

There is an assumption that "god is good." As I said above, this "god," at best, might be neutral. So if we go with your thinking and god is good, once all things are collected into the "good" pile then what is there? Good? No comparison can be made so the pile cannot be determined to be good or bad. Neutral would perhaps be your next best choice.

God is everything, so god is good and evil... if there were such a thing. I think we attribute what has ultimately pleasant outcomes that manifest peace, joy, and love... then that is good. If it does not, then that is "evil." It seems to me, there is an evolution towards establishing what is good amongst us, so I tend to be more inclined to say god is good.

To apply the "good" descriptor" to "god" would mean we would need another like object to compare "god" to. None exists (according to you) and therefore no comparison can be made.

What is the benefit to know evil? To know and appreciate good, therefore evil can be good?

Your "god" must be neutral. To compare this "thing" to us seems unfair. Apples to oranges as it were. Even if we are parts of "god" to compare a part to another part or a part to a whole is unfair. Is the foot better or worse than the head? The kidney more "evil" than the lung? What is the liver to the whole? Surely not good or evil. To think it corrupted requires more information than the liver could possess. No. The liver is just that. A liver. Neither good nor evil just as the whole is neither. It simply "is."

I suppose you're probably right about the neutral. These laws creating the nature of our universe are already established, dictating ultimate directions and outcomes. I don't think there are supernatural influences that over ride these, perhaps just the mastery of influences we have not discovered yet.

There is nothing evil about the kidney or the lungs, just maybe the infection/cancer/disease in them?

And none of these need to learn to take their place among the whole. They simply do their part. The need to learn a place means we're out of place. We don't fit. Why would we be in the wrong place? We are where we are. Surely that must be the proper position?

I agree. Yet, don't you think it is best for each independent organ to be concerned for their own welfare as much as possible, AND to be as interactive with the other organs, instead of reactive, and help each other the best way possible for the betterment of the whole body? A kind of all for one and one for all, to provide optimum health for the entire body? All these organs should benefit each other since they are all part of the ONE, right?

Then based on what you've said above we've already lost. If all things are "god" then we are doomed to like mindedness. An eventual convergence. We are falling towards apotheosis as it were (let's see who can catch the reference...without looking ). The only escape would be to resist "god," and seeing that we a part of "god," that seems unlikely.

Who knows what new levels of being likeminded will bring? Perhaps it will be the development of... ESP capabilities... and other explorations beyond our wildest dreams at that point. I do think it will only get better, as it seems to have been doing all along. However, I think it may be that the journey is more enjoyable than the actual destination.

[NotBlinded]

So, then, "god" to you would be a neutral? Our brains mere "antennae?" If one gets an injury does that mean they are simply getting the signal incorrectly at that point? Or am I to assume this is more something that is to be "tapped" into is one so desires and is separate and distinct from one's own personality (I'm guessing it's like this one so free will can function but I want to be sure)?

I think I'm going to have to answer no to both.

 

I going to post a little bit from quantum physics in order to answer your question. I am in no way any kind of expert or anything remotely close to it, but I'm going to post it anyway.

 

I don't believe that consciousness is separate from matter so I probably phrased my post incorrectly. We can only tap into it because it isn't separate from what we are. I probably should have said that what we draw from is a necessary part of everything. So, it's not really tapping into it but we could not live without this "source" of energy. I really don't know how else to explain it.

 

I also don't think that there is "no cause" in the indeterminism in quantum physics. But, these causes arrise from a quantum potential that exists in the implicate order of the universe. There is a vast amount of pontentials to draw from and our own choices are made from our own self-conscious minds. It could be called soft-determinism.

 

To answer your question, yes, god would be a neutral to me because there is no difference between good and evil except from the standpoint of perception. But, this neutral essence is a complete state of peace not knowing good or bad.

 

Ahhh...a variation on the universe trying to figure itself out. I also see a little of "we are both the dream and the dreamer" in there too.

 

In a way what you describe makes me think of the shape shifters from Deep Space 9. When they joined into "The Great Link" (I believe that's the name) it was roughly described in one episode when one joined the link as "the drop becomes the ocean" and when one left the link "the ocean becomes the drop." Very much an intermixing of the "all" but the ability for "individuals" to exist. If you're not familiar with the series I'm sure some Star Trek fan site can clue you in with all the minute details.

 

mwc

I don't recall the episode, but yes indeed, I think that way too. Star Trek had an amazing ability to make predictions about the possiblities of the future don't you think?

 

This seems to be saying, in quantum terms, that this thought could be reality.

 

The quantum potential carries information from the whole environment and provides direct, nonlocal connections between quantum systems. It guides particles in the same way that radio waves guide a ship on automatic pilot -- not by its intensity but by its form. It is extremely sensitive and complex, so that particle trajectories appear chaotic. It corresponds to what Bohm calls the implicate order, which can be thought of as a vast ocean of energy on which the physical, or explicate, world is just a ripple. Bohm points out that the existence of an energy pool of this kind is recognized, but given little consideration, by standard quantum theory, which postulates a universal quantum field -- the quantum vacuum or zero-point field -- underlying the material world. Very little is known about the quantum vacuum at present, but its energy density is estimated to be an astronomical 10108 J/cm³ (Forward, 1996, pp. 328-37).

Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics

 

See how even here, this field can be misunderstood as being something that is separate from us just by discussing it? It's a language problem, IMO. We are not a entity set outside the forces of nature, but just by discussing things, the implication is that we are outside observers...the same with God. We are observing ourselves.

 

I don't think so much that the universe is trying to figure itself out (there is that implied division again...), because I try not to separate the universe from the forms in it. "We" are just it but on a different order of existence. But, if you look at it as we are it, then yes we are trying to figure it out.

 

So, we have no control over the form of our bodies, but we do have control over the choices we make to move our bodies. Do we have the ability to actually choose what potentials we draw from in order to shape-shift? I don't think so...I think that is a random combination of pontentials that worked. But, because we are aware, we do have the choice to do as we wish with our determined bodies, but I don't think we can just reach out and pick a different potential that may exist in this quantum potential to cause miracles such as shape-shifting (that's Hans' fault...he's the one that threw the little thorn of miracles in!).

 

We don't have free will apart from nature but we do have free will within it. We don't have the free will to be the first cause and force our body's atoms to rearrange, but we do have the will to move the form that those atoms have taken, on this level, or order, of existence.

 

Definition of free-will that I am trying to use is this:

 

Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of options, thoughts, feelings,... That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an "autonomous mind", i.e. a principium individuationis.

Quantum mechanics and free will: counter arguments

 

This definition doesn't consider doing what one wants to do an an example of free will; that is a given.

 

I also don't agree that free will exists in this understanding.

 

Okay, so since there is nothing outside of nature and there are causes in quantum mechanics, where is the first cause? If we are not separate from from this chain of causality, then our cause is self-caused. The mind can take that notion on a very long trip!

[NotBlinded]

Blinded by the blight - you rock!!!

Awwwww....thanks EB. You do too.

 

And thank you too Amanda.

 

Y'all are making me blush...

[Ouroboros]

NBBTB,

 

Let it be official: I U.

 

Awesome post.

[NotBlinded]

NBBTB,

 

Let it be official: I U.

 

Awesome post.

Thank you sweetie! Who says ESP doesn't exist because I was just going to post the same thing about you on infotheorist's thread after that last post of yours! I'll just post it here.

 

I U too!

[Ouroboros]

Thank you sweetie! Who says ESP doesn't exist because I was just going to post the same thing about you on infotheorist's thread after that last post of yours! I'll just post it here.

 

I U too!

 

Maybe it's Quantum Entanglement?

 

(Oh, do I have some ideas related to that subject too, combined with chaos theory and astrology! )

[chefranden]

IMO, the symbology is still there but when taken literally, it is missed. Myths are symbolic in nature and the crucifixion is no different. That is why many myths have this death and resurrection theme. Heck, there is no power in honesty!

 

All symbols and metaphors in myth are to be taken as an inward sign about our own nature, not an outward, literal occurance.

 

I see two ways that this can symbolically be taken (there are probably more):

 

1) An awakening to a deep spiritual truth through suffering (suffering will happen).

 

2) I love this one... When a person becomes enlightened, that person dies to being in the world and awakens to their God nature. Also, when the person awakens, God dies to being a person in the world and can longer experience life in form. A paradox of opposites that has a profound meaning. This is the death of the God-Man and the Man-God.

 

1. I've looked for this "deep spiritual truth" for a long time and by several different means. Each of these means claimed that it could supply "the truth". I never found it, though there were fleeting moments when I though I had. Why didn't I find it? My conclusion is that there is nothing to find.

 

"Thou art That" is the claim of the pantheists. It sounded spiritual but it really doesn't mean anything beyond what you see is what you get, or is that all there is? You bet! Maybe that is enlightenment like Satori: everyday life only one foot off the ground. Well there is everyday life for sure, but what is the "one foot off the ground" bit? More on this in part 2.

 

Other than it being a universal experience, why is suffering special? What makes it a road, a means, or a gate? Why isn't pleasure the road to the spiritual? Why didn't Jesus teach the Kama Sutra? Perhaps the Tantra is the narrow way, since most spiritual people seem to revel in suffering. Sure the Crucifixion is a myth, but is it a friendly myth?

 

2. Do you know this by experience or is this a hope of what will happen when you figure it out?

 

There is no God nature unless it is the nature you have right now: that faint itch between your eyes, the stink from the garbage can, the rose on your desk, the little hand wrapped around your finger. Suffering is not the road to truth. It is the truth. Pleasure is not the road to the truth. It is the truth. Remember the Zen master that threw that fellow of the bridge? Well he could have just as easily handed the guy a cookie.

 

While there are moments of being one foot off the ground that is not enlightenment There is nothing special about an infusion of joy though it appears to rarer than infusions of pain. And there is nothing special about pain either. This God nature thing is also a myth, but it is a myth that points to nothing I've been able find.

 

Ok, To be fair here is some good fodder for cosmic mouse consciousness

[mwc]

MWC, you, NBBTB, and Evolution Beyond seem better at articulating ideas than I. I agree with Evolution Beyond in NBBTB rocks. She has a more diverse and detailed understanding to the same ideas as I. Maybe I should just defer to her? However, I love what you said too... that we are the dream and the dreamer. That's quite poetic.

I think you're getting your ideas out just fine. You answered most of my points so that even I could understand things.

 

As for the dream and dreamer thing...I wish I could take credit for it but I can't. I'm not sure where I picked it up but it's been rolling around in my head for years.

 

EXACTLY! Disrespect is like an infection/cancer/disease in the overall body of "God".

Or maybe it's not? The reason I'm saying this is because I'm seeing a basic assumption on how "god" should work. That it should be "good" and it should be this and that. I'm just asking a few questions to say "but what if?" We KNOW that cancer is a FACT of human existence. We like to THINK it is something that should not be. An imperfection in an otherwise perfect being. But, we must die. Cancer is just a non-preferable way of achieving this goal. Who's to say that "god" doesn't require this "cancer" and therefore cancer is as "perfect" as the rest? Whether or not I'm articulating this properly is really beside the point. The point is that if it is part of "god" then it must be something that "god" wanted for itself. Who are we to determine that it is "good" or "bad?" It is what it is. We're making judgment calls from a skewed perspective it seems.

 

Think about it this way. I'll even try to expand your metaphor a little further. The universe is much like "god." That being the case then the sun alone sends out a lot of radiation that can kill us in a heartbeat. Why? Because we need to be dead. We're not welcome here but we found a temporary safe-haven. We're trying to figure out ways to spread, like a disease, throughout the universe ("god") but by and large it has protected itself against us. We are the disease and we're just about eradicated. What we think about someone, another bit of the "cancer" seems to be of little concern really when you think of how little danger we present to one another when we compare that to how much danger we're in if the universe could have access to us (and a little gamma ray burst would simply wipe us out...not to mention any incoming asteroids or meteors). If "god" liked us so much we wouldn't be the "cancer/disease" to all these "t-cells" and we'd be free to move about the "body."

 

God is everything, so god is good and evil... if there were such a thing. I think we attribute what has ultimately pleasant outcomes that manifest peace, joy, and love... then that is good. If it does not, then that is "evil." It seems to me, there is an evolution towards establishing what is good amongst us, so I tend to be more inclined to say god is good.

So this then is a subjective rather than an objective attribution?

 

What is the benefit to know evil? To know and appreciate good, therefore evil can be good?

Again, this assumes "god" is good. This further assumes that there is a reason that anyone must know and appreciate "good." By association this would mean that there is a reason that we must know and appreciate "god." But "god" is everything. So there is a reason that we must know and appreciate "everything." But "evil" is part of everything so we must know and appreciate "evil." You say this is so we will appreciate "good." Now I've just made a circular argument because we can follow this all day long.

 

The other thing about what you've said is that "god" is "good" but "god" possesses both "good" and "evil." We also seem to possess both, but yet, we seem to get categorized, more often than not, as "evil." Why is this? Is it because we truly are the cancer I describe above and we really aren't welcome? I don't think so. I think it's because people think the worse of themselves (and by extension all people) and idealize this concept known as "god" (which is just humanity "perfected"). But that's just me. I claim no special knowledge.

 

I suppose you're probably right about the neutral. These laws creating the nature of our universe are already established, dictating ultimate directions and outcomes. I don't think there are supernatural influences that over ride these, perhaps just the mastery of influences we have not discovered yet.

There is nothing evil about the kidney or the lungs, just maybe the infection/cancer/disease in them?

So how did the cancer come to infect "god?" We have a good idea of how cancer is caused (in general). If the universe ("god") was in a perfected state then we came along and we were expected as a part of "god" (whatever piece you wish to assign) then how did we mutate? Cells don't free will mutate into cancer in a perfect being. Now the concept of "evil" needs to come into play but this means evil already existed in the "perfect" state that was the "god" and so it was at risk without us. As such we're not "bad" at all. Perhaps we came along to carry the "evil" throughout the body and we're just doing our job? This is our task? We're not some glorious form set for a wonderful end but a worker set on a path to kill the host? We're here to "kill" this "god?" We see it everyday right here at home in our own bodies. Why not us? Because it's not appealing? Being a parasite that kills the host rarely is...but we're on our way. It still doesn't make us "evil." It makes us what we are. The only difference is that, we will be aware of what we're doing to the host, as opposed to other parasites and we'll still do it.

 

I agree. Yet, don't you think it is best for each independent organ to be concerned for their own welfare as much as possible, AND to be as interactive with the other organs, instead of reactive, and help each other the best way possible for the betterment of the whole body? A kind of all for one and one for all, to provide optimum health for the entire body? All these organs should benefit each other since they are all part of the ONE, right?

See what I wrote above. Parasites care about themselves and kill off the ones that get in the way. It's their nature.

 

Now I know this all sounds quite pessimistic, but it's supposed to, since you're taking the more optimistic side (and I'm trying to see how this whole thing works).

 

Who knows what new levels of being likeminded will bring? Perhaps it will be the development of... ESP capabilities... and other explorations beyond our wildest dreams at that point. I do think it will only get better, as it seems to have been doing all along. However, I think it may be that the journey is more enjoyable than the actual destination.

ESP? Uh oh. Ummm...Is that someone at the door? I have to go now.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

IMO, the symbology is still there but when taken literally, it is missed. Myths are symbolic in nature and the crucifixion is no different. That is why many myths have this death and resurrection theme. Heck, there is no power in honesty!

 

All symbols and metaphors in myth are to be taken as an inward sign about our own nature, not an outward, literal occurance.

 

I see two ways that this can symbolically be taken (there are probably more):

 

1) An awakening to a deep spiritual truth through suffering (suffering will happen).

 

2) I love this one... When a person becomes enlightened, that person dies to being in the world and awakens to their God nature. Also, when the person awakens, God dies to being a person in the world and can longer experience life in form. A paradox of opposites that has a profound meaning. This is the death of the God-Man and the Man-God.

 

1. I've looked for this "deep spiritual truth" for a long time and by several different means. Each of these means claimed that it could supply "the truth". I never found it, though there were fleeting moments when I though I had. Why didn't I find it? My conclusion is that there is nothing to find.

 

"Thou art That" is the claim of the pantheists. It sounded spiritual but it really doesn't mean anything beyond what you see is what you get, or is that all there is? You bet! Maybe that is enlightenment like Satori: everyday life only one foot off the ground. Well there is everyday life for sure, but what is the "one foot off the ground" bit? More on this in part 2.

 

Other than it being a universal experience, why is suffering special? What makes it a road, a means, or a gate? Why isn't pleasure the road to the spiritual? Why didn't Jesus teach the Kama Sutra? Perhaps the Tantra is the narrow way, since most spiritual people seem to revel in suffering. Sure the Crucifixion is a myth, but is it a friendly myth?

Hi Cheffy!

 

First I just want to say that I have always respected you and I always will. I just felt I needed to say that because you have such profound insights that I worry what I will say will not sound the way I want it to. Anyway.....I'm goin' for it!

 

The deep spritual truth, IMO, is that we are all connected and to understand that without a doubt gives me an greater ability to forgive and have deeper respect for everyone and everything else. It's an inner understanding that humbles me...okay...well, sometimes.

 

There is exactly nothing to find, you are correct. It is this lack of something that is the truth. When we find that material things, and thoughts about who we are, are not our identity, we can see that searching for an external being or an external source of happiness is moot. We already have it. I've heard it put something like a fireman standing outside a fire with a hose in his hand screaming for a fireman to come put out the fire. The source of joy and happiness is within us already and searching outside for what we have already is pointless. The truth is silent and formless.

 

When Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find" I think that it is very misleading when taken alone and without the context of his other thoughts...don't seek yourself in the world. This seeking is an inner seeking into one's own being. But, many people (myself included for years) went seeking this peace and happiness in another being that was apart from us. Just like the fireman, we stood there with the answer all along yet we called out for help from somewhere else.

 

2. Do you know this by experience or is this a hope of what will happen when you figure it out?

I do experience this when I find myself no longer holding grudges and I can forgive myself and others with little to no effort. Some cases takes more effort than others, but I have found that the suffering I create for myself has no effect on the person/s that I bear a grudge against.

 

It's all in the way I view life now. A small example of this is that my dryer broke (remember, I did say small example ) and I was expecting a bonus at work that I might be able to buy season passes for a couple of amusement parks for my daughter and myself. At first, my old way of thinking popped into my head and I thought, why is it when I get a little extra money, something always breaks? That was a fleeting thought because I suddenly realized how amazing it is that when something breaks, I seem to have a means to get by. The first reaction causes me suffering while the later reaction brings me peace. I try not to create suffering for myself any longer.

 

I know that is a little detail, but there are more examples that I could mention about the suffering I caused myself, but I think you can understand me.

 

Suffering isn't needed to someone that can understand spiritual truths, but for the ones that can't, suffering can be an opening for that person to find peace. It was for me. Not physical suffering, but mental anguish that left me with nothing inside and nothing outside that could fulfill me. I spent most of my teen years trying to drown the pain with alcohol and drugs which landed me in the hospital for a suicide attempt. I went from psychiatrists to doctors that prescribed so many drugs to me that I was a walking zombie. This "God" I believed in was nowhere to answer any pleads for help.

 

I once sat on the bed with a gun in my hand while I was pregnant trying to find the nerve to pull the trigger. Two years ago, my mother died and my search for something ended when a friend steered me towards some spiritual speakers. The words they spoke hit me like a ton of bricks and I then realized who I wasn't. I wasn't this angry depressed person that keep looking for peace, but a person that already had that peace inside her. I awakened and understood that peace is always with me. I also understood that it wasn't the religion that caused me suffering, it was my understanding of it. I could now see it for what it is. A myth about a group of people that told their story about what they thought God was in their society. How on earth could it be anything more? Is it the books fault that I took it literally? No. Was it the people's fault for teaching that it was the only truth? How could it be when they are just like I was?

 

See, when I rejected religion (in the middle of those examples above), I had the same mindset that held me to it. I didn't just reject it on emotional reasons, but it was a process of understanding that it was nonsense. I still had no peace because what I was searching for remained elusive and I continued to see it as something it wasn't. It wasn't the Truth™ and it wasn't nonsense. I went from all to nothing with that same understanding. I was wrong both times.

 

Just on the radio this morning, there is a little spot that they let a methodist minister give a thought for the day. I missed the first part, but he ended saying, "I have found that the people that take the bible literally don't take it seriously."

 

Well, I went on anyway didn't I? I never did put up a extimony so there it is! Oh well...

 

Notice my signature from Joseph Campbell. This is profound truth to me. If someone would have just came along and gave me a cookie, I would still be the same lost person with a few extra pounds. Outside satisfaction is fleeting; only inner satisfaction is lasting.

 

The cross represents all the people that do go through suffering. But, they have to understand that resurrection isn't something that you have to wait until you die for. It is an inner state that is supposed to happen while you're living. If it is taken literally, one just prolongs their suffering in hopes for salvation later. No....now is the message.

 

There is no God nature unless it is the nature you have right now: that faint itch between your eyes, the stink from the garbage can, the rose on your desk, the little hand wrapped around your finger. Suffering is not the road to truth. It is the truth. Pleasure is not the road to the truth. It is the truth. Remember the Zen master that threw that fellow of the bridge? Well he could have just as easily handed the guy a cookie.

I guess I put my cookie answer above.

 

Suffering blinds us to the truth, yet opens a narrow passage to the truth at the same time. Another coincidence of opposites. It's not the only way, but a way for those like me.

 

While there are moments of being one foot off the ground that is not enlightenment There is nothing special about an infusion of joy though it appears to rarer than infusions of pain. And there is nothing special about pain either. This God nature thing is also a myth, but it is a myth that points to nothing I've been able find.

I agree that these moments of joy is not enlightenment. I think enlightenment is understanding that those moments come from within, not without. This allows us to see the world with greater clairity. The trees sparkles with light and I notice the smiles on people's faces more than the snears. It's all an inner journey that has nothing to do with what is on the outside. I can feel my daugher's hand in mine with much more meaning than I used to. I feel her hugs with much more intensity than just a squeeze and then back to what I was doing.

 

Yes, it is a myth that points to a truth about ourselves. That's what myths do, IMO.

 

 

Ok, To be fair here is some good fodder for cosmic mouse consciousness

I don't know if you are jesting or serious, but nevertheless, that is awesome. It has been said for a very long time that we are just a small version of the universe. I believe it.

[chefranden]

[...]

I don't know if you are jesting or serious, but nevertheless, that is awesome. It has been said for a very long time that we are just a small version of the universe. I believe it.

 

Just practicing my skillful means.

[NotBlinded]

[...]

I don't know if you are jesting or serious, but nevertheless, that is awesome. It has been said for a very long time that we are just a small version of the universe. I believe it.

 

Just practicing my skillful means.

 

 

 

 

[NotBlinded]

Thank you sweetie! Who says ESP doesn't exist because I was just going to post the same thing about you on infotheorist's thread after that last post of yours! I'll just post it here.

 

I U too!

 

Maybe it's Quantum Entanglement?

 

(Oh, do I have some ideas related to that subject too, combined with chaos theory and astrology! )

You are going to wear me out!

 

But, please do put your ideas forth. The more information the better.

[Amanda]

Or maybe it's not? The reason I'm saying this is because I'm seeing a basic assumption on how "god" should work. That it should be "good" and it should be this and that.

MWC, I don't think "god" "should" be anything. It is what it is.

I'm just asking a few questions to say "but what if?" We KNOW that cancer is a FACT of human existence. We like to THINK it is something that should not be. An imperfection in an otherwise perfect being. But, we must die. Cancer is just a non-preferable way of achieving this goal. Who's to say that "god" doesn't require this "cancer" and therefore cancer is as "perfect" as the rest? Whether or not I'm articulating this properly is really beside the point. The point is that if it is part of "god" then it must be something that "god" wanted for itself. Who are we to determine that it is "good" or "bad?" It is what it is. We're making judgment calls from a skewed perspective it seems.

I can agree with that. It is part of what is meant to be, perhaps repercussions to our actions sometimes. Such as smoking or being exposed to asbestos, and I wonder if our emotions don't often assist many diseases. Many doctors will say they think many illnesses have psychosomatic origins. When we are happy and at peace, we tend to feel more energy, and more energy may help us stay healthy. Maybe we have subconsciously suppressed issues that fester at a level below conscious awareness...

Think about it this way. I'll even try to expand your metaphor a little further. The universe is much like "god." That being the case then the sun alone sends out a lot of radiation that can kill us in a heartbeat. Why? Because we need to be dead. We're not welcome here but we found a temporary safe-haven.

I think a layer in our atmostphere (ozone) protects us and/or by virtue of evolution we have evolved to have safegaurds to this, didn't we?

We're trying to figure out ways to spread, like a disease, throughout the universe ("god") but by and large it has protected itself against us. We are the disease and we're just about eradicated. What we think about someone, another bit of the "cancer" seems to be of little concern really when you think of how little danger we present to one another when we compare that to how much danger we're in if the universe could have access to us (and a little gamma ray burst would simply wipe us out...not to mention any incoming asteroids or meteors). If "god" liked us so much we wouldn't be the "cancer/disease" to all these "t-cells" and we'd be free to move about the "body."

I don't think "god" is an outside entity. IF we are more or less the mind of this body, hopefully we learn to respect the rest of our body. It seems many people today, spend a lot of time on what their mind wants to do and avoid the welfare of the rest of their body (literally). Yet it is the mind that is responsible to assure the heart/circulatory, kidney, liver, and the rest receive care and attention they deserve also. Perhaps we have been given dominion of this planet, not to use it up for what we want, not for it to serve us, but for us to serve it. Maybe we are to take care of it, as our mind is to be oriented to take care of the rest of our own body?

So this then is a subjective rather than an objective attribution?

Good and evil subjective? IDK, except perhaps if one considers the ultimate outcome. If it leads to the demise of life, could that be considered bad? If we pollute our planet so that nothng survives, that seems to be a tragedy to me. Yet, I also think there is a stream of consciousness that connects all things. I suppose the only thing that separates how I think than the Atheist is that I think it is important to acknowledge a reverence for life.

Again, this assumes "god" is good. This further assumes that there is a reason that anyone must know and appreciate "good." By association this would mean that there is a reason that we must know and appreciate "god." But "god" is everything. So there is a reason that we must know and appreciate "everything." But "evil" is part of everything so we must know and appreciate "evil." You say this is so we will appreciate "good." Now I've just made a circular argument because we can follow this all day long.

I don't think there is really good and evil, as all things probably work towards the enrichment of an underlying consciousness in all things. I would only say "god" is good in that we collectively are inclined towards what we determine is ultimately a pleasing outcome for all things. "God" would be that "spirit of reverence" for all life, just like there is a "patriotic spirit"... not a ghost-like figure. I suppose if the dream comes to an end, does the dreamer also end? I don't think so, as a dreamer must dream if that is all it knows or has to do. Even in our own dreams, we wake up before we die... only to dream another night.

The other thing about what you've said is that "god" is "good" but "god" possesses both "good" and "evil." We also seem to possess both, but yet, we seem to get categorized, more often than not, as "evil." Why is this?

How can we be categorized as evil if all are just doing the best they know? Maybe there are more appropriate coping skills, which accountability for our actions lead us?

So how did the cancer come to infect "god?" We have a good idea of how cancer is caused (in general). If the universe ("god") was in a perfected state then we came along and we were expected as a part of "god" (whatever piece you wish to assign) then how did we mutate?

Perhaps through the concept of evolution, we are created to overcome challenges, and in doing so we become stronger. Perhaps through being accountable for our actions by the mere repercussions of our actions, we are then guided into better skills. Perhaps through learning and knowing is better for self empowerment and a progressive sense of maturity, instead of remaining as an infant. How much free will do we actually have if we find that if we do this, the distasteful repercussions is that. If we continue to do this, these unwanted repercussions becomes more intense until we say we're not going to do that anymore. I don't think we are the virus intentionally, but through ignorance, till eventually we see the detrimental effects and then we want to change. Sometimes we don't know how to do so, but it seems our evolutinary drive to survive... we eventually seem to figure something out to save ourself. Now we are finally realizing, to save ourself, we must take care of the rest of our body too.

ESP? Uh oh. Ummm...Is that someone at the door? I have to go now.

Thanks for the laugh MWC! I always appreciate your classy diplomacy! All I'm saying, is that once we are like-minded, we may then know pretty much what the other person is thinking, and not have to speak so much. Not that it is a supernatural event, but that like-mindedness could bring a subconcious level of symbiotic understanding of each other, with less words. How this could evolve, I do not know. It seems we do give off "energy" and perhaps we subconsciously become more aware of this as well as our body language.

[Ouroboros]

You are going to wear me out!

I hope not.

 

But, please do put your ideas forth. The more information the better.

I'm not even sure how to put them into words, and it probably would come out more confusing than usual. But it does relate back to the idea that the Universe is like a supercomplex fractal, where patterns are re-occuring throughout. Also consider that when Big bang happened, many particles split up and came out entangled. Is it completely impossible to think that all the particles in my body are entangled with other particles somewhere else in the Universe, and when events happens there it affects my particles and when something happens to my particles, something else happens over there? As you can see, it's just an extremely wild speculation.

[Amanda]

You are going to wear me out!

I hope not.

 

But, please do put your ideas forth. The more information the better.

I'm not even sure how to put them into words, and it probably would come out more confusing than usual. But it does relate back to the idea that the Universe is like a supercomplex fractal, where patterns are re-occuring throughout. Also consider that when Big bang happened, many particles split up and came out entangled. Is it completely impossible to think that all the particles in my body are entangled with other particles somewhere else in the Universe, and when events happens there it affects my particles and when something happens to my particles, something else happens over there? As you can see, it's just an extremely wild speculation.

HanSolo, you know I love all your posts too... yet I never looked at being all one as coming out of the blender of the universe.

 

Actually, I don't think what you've said is such wild speculation, as I've heard some of that theory too... and I'm certainly not the physics buff many of you are in the science forum. It seems to be a popular one. I wonder how they came up with the entanglement theory?