100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: My Epiphany | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
OK. for the sake of argument. let's assume for one second that reincarnation is true. And if it's true its purpose is for the being to learn from his/her experiences. correct? if that premise is truth, I also need to understand that such being must be aware of his/her incarnation, so he/she can summarize his/her experiences in prior lives, and from where he/she sttoped in the last life carry on in his/her actual life. I did this silogism since you put as example the kid going to school. each year before starting they make a summary of last year's knowledge, and from there they start the new year. All that makes sense, assuming reincarnation really happens. However, when all this reasonings loses its logic is the part when we need to be aware of our prior lives' experiences in order to really learn, and not to make the same mistakes. As far as I'm concern I have no recolection of such thing. I only have this life's experiences with me. And if I have heard or read a book of somebody who has such recolection most of the time the author of the book or whomever state such thing ends up being a person who uses allucinogenics. Please don't think I'm suggesting you do such thing. I'm just talking about those who actually write books about it or hold conferences about it. The Mind is not the Soul. i missed ur deep comments. 
Incorrect. The soul includes the mind, thoughts ,emotions, affections, and will of man. You might have meant to say the spirit, instead of the soul.. 
Tsk, tsk.... I hardly think it appropriate to correct someone on an esoteric facet of a spiritual philosophy. It's not as if there is a certified manual dealing with the spirit world. Regardless, I stipulated neither inclusivity nor exclusivity; I merely stated the the Mind is not the Soul - they are not equivalent. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow...this thread has been really interesting. I'm so glad I stumbled upon it! Was wondering something, though. (I have had notions about God and the 'beginning' that have wandered about in my head for years, but I've never had the words or ability to fully conceptualize the bits & pieces of what I think I think.) But what if God is a 'spirit' in the way that we are? And what if all that 'is' is God in the way that our various cells, vessels, organs, spirit, etc, comprise us? What if all that is was a product of developement, differentiation & specialization in the way a fetus develops? And what if the whole of all that 'is' is God? Is it possible that God developed all by a division of cells or something akin to cells? But my thinking is that those initial 'cells' were actually God...which means all that exists is the complete God...of which we are part - Like our skin & lungs are parts of us.
If this were the case and all of existance developed (as a fetus does) from God (a spirit), would these beliefs be truly pantheistic? Are there really only 2 choices? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there still remains a third choice abra - that is that neither pantheism or atheism is true, you or i can't defend it either way but it is a 3rd option. Right now at present - it's the one i choose.
JB - though you have every right to believe as you do about reincarnation, just as abra does about his 2 choices, i ask you this - are you or anyone you personally know of aware of any of your reincarnations? and if so - who do you think you or they were in any of your previous / simultanious lifes? any clue? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Epiphany I just realized that there can only be two possibilities. Life either arose from spirit, or it's an accident. In other words, the only two choices are either pantheism or atheism. Believers in an external godhead may argue that there is are other choices,... that some external God created us as its pets. However, I just realized that even if that scenario is true, all they are really saying is that their God is pantheistic in its nature, and that they are just pets of this pantheistic being. In other words, they just hold that their God always was and always will be. Well that's just the pantheistic view being applied to their God. So all they are ultimately saying is that their explanation of reality is that the true nature of God is ultimately explained by pantheism. And then they go on to claim that this pantheistic God went on to create is as lesser beings from itself. So even if that's true, then the ultimate true nature of existence is pantheistic, since the God who runs the show is ultimately pantheistic in its true nature. In other words, my epiphany is that all religions that claim to have external deities must ultimately collapse to become the pantheistic picture in the nature of their very deity. So all deity-based religions are nothing more than complex subsets of the pantheistic view. This leaves us with ultimately only two choices for reality. 1. Atheism - we have a non-spiritual essence - Life is all just some sort of accident. 2. Pantheism - we have a spiritual essence - Life arose from spirit. I think I did well.
I got it down to just two possibilities. I'm not saying that this is profound. I'm sure other people have already been aware of this. I just found it rather profound for me. The sudden realization that all ideas of external-deities must ultimately reduce to pantheism. Their deities themselves would then have a pantheistic nature. I should have realized this years ago. Just to clearly,... I have always realized that it's redundant to demand that an external God exists as an explanation for reality, because then we would have no explanation for that God. And those people just kept saying, "But God always was and always will be!" It never actually dawned on me that what they were really saying is, "But my Godhead is pantheistic!" But that's truly what they are demanding. They are demanding the existence of a pantheistic Godhead to use to explain that our existence can't be pantheistic. It's a totally redundant argument. They need pantheism in order for their original Godhead(s) to exist. So it's ever more redundant than I first realized. They aren't just proclaiming that they need a Godhead to explain reality, but in the same breath, they are demanding that the true nature of their Godhead is already pantheistic in its true nature. It's redundancy beyond redundancy. They need to demand the existence of a pantheistic deity in order to deny that our true nature is pantheistic. It's totally circular. There can be nothing other than pantheism if there is any spiritual nature to reality at all. All religions that claim to have godheads ultimately must reduce to pantheism in that this must be the true nature of their Godhead. It's ultimately either pantheism or nothing. I am so sorry abra this was not an Epiphany.....you had a drug induced deranged dream.... that is not nice!!!!!!!!! i'm very surprised u said such thing. i absolutely disagree with abra pretty much in everything, but disagreeing does not mean to be rude!!!!!! So who asked you???? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Epiphany I just realized that there can only be two possibilities. Life either arose from spirit, or it's an accident. In other words, the only two choices are either pantheism or atheism. Believers in an external godhead may argue that there is are other choices,... that some external God created us as its pets. However, I just realized that even if that scenario is true, all they are really saying is that their God is pantheistic in its nature, and that they are just pets of this pantheistic being. In other words, they just hold that their God always was and always will be. Well that's just the pantheistic view being applied to their God. So all they are ultimately saying is that their explanation of reality is that the true nature of God is ultimately explained by pantheism. And then they go on to claim that this pantheistic God went on to create is as lesser beings from itself. So even if that's true, then the ultimate true nature of existence is pantheistic, since the God who runs the show is ultimately pantheistic in its true nature. In other words, my epiphany is that all religions that claim to have external deities must ultimately collapse to become the pantheistic picture in the nature of their very deity. So all deity-based religions are nothing more than complex subsets of the pantheistic view. This leaves us with ultimately only two choices for reality. 1. Atheism - we have a non-spiritual essence - Life is all just some sort of accident. 2. Pantheism - we have a spiritual essence - Life arose from spirit. I think I did well.
I got it down to just two possibilities. I'm not saying that this is profound. I'm sure other people have already been aware of this. I just found it rather profound for me. The sudden realization that all ideas of external-deities must ultimately reduce to pantheism. Their deities themselves would then have a pantheistic nature. I should have realized this years ago. Just to clearly,... I have always realized that it's redundant to demand that an external God exists as an explanation for reality, because then we would have no explanation for that God. And those people just kept saying, "But God always was and always will be!" It never actually dawned on me that what they were really saying is, "But my Godhead is pantheistic!" But that's truly what they are demanding. They are demanding the existence of a pantheistic Godhead to use to explain that our existence can't be pantheistic. It's a totally redundant argument. They need pantheism in order for their original Godhead(s) to exist. So it's ever more redundant than I first realized. They aren't just proclaiming that they need a Godhead to explain reality, but in the same breath, they are demanding that the true nature of their Godhead is already pantheistic in its true nature. It's redundancy beyond redundancy. They need to demand the existence of a pantheistic deity in order to deny that our true nature is pantheistic. It's totally circular. There can be nothing other than pantheism if there is any spiritual nature to reality at all. All religions that claim to have godheads ultimately must reduce to pantheism in that this must be the true nature of their Godhead. It's ultimately either pantheism or nothing. I am so sorry abra this was not an Epiphany.....you had a drug induced deranged dream.... that is not nice!!!!!!!!! i'm very surprised u said such thing. i absolutely disagree with abra pretty much in everything, but disagreeing does not mean to be rude!!!!!! So who asked you???? r u being cute now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this were the case and all of existance developed (as a fetus does) from God (a spirit), would these beliefs be truly pantheistic? Are there really only 2 choices? That's a tough one LouLou, I'm not really sure about that one. You might be onto a third kind of idea. A 'god' or 'spirit' that mulitplies akin to something like cell-division only in a spiritual sense. That's an interesting idea. Quite interesting. 
Owl have to think about that one for a while in terms of pure spirituality. In fact, I was just going to comment on the reincarnation idea with repspect to some of the things that Miguel and JB were discussing, but you're fresh vantage point here has shed a whole new light on the matter. One thing that has always troubled me about pure pantheism is indeed the idea of 'individual' spirits or 'souls' and how they are kept track of. I think that even within pantheism (especially within an idea of incarnation) there must be some way to differentiate between individual spirits. I've always felt there must be a 'spiritual mechanism' to facilitate this. Otherwise the whole talk of reincarnation is rather meaningless. I think the spirit does indeed have a way to divide itself up spiritually. It's my own personal view that this division is ultimately dissolved again at the end of the unviverse when all spirit returns to one. I've always understood that this is uliamtely the pantheistic view. But I think pantheism does indeed allow for spirits to be individualized during the "larger incarnation process". In other words, during the life span of the physical universe itself. It would have to if it wants to speak about individual reincarnations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there still remains a third choice abra - that is that neither pantheism or atheism is true, you or i can't defend it either way but it is a 3rd option. Right now at present - it's the one i choose.
JB - though you have every right to believe as you do about reincarnation, just as abra does about his 2 choices, i ask you this - are you or anyone you personally know of aware of any of your reincarnations? and if so - who do you think you or they were in any of your previous / simultanious lifes? any clue?
I have never been interested in exploring any past incarnations or finding out who I may have been in any former lives, although I do have a few "memories" which may or may not have been a past life incarnation, or they may have just been a tapping into the implicate order of the holographic matrix and the accessing of a particular experience. I have no way of knowing what the memories are all about. At this time, I am not interested in looking at the past. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
sam53
on
Thu 06/19/08 07:26 PM
|
|
there still remains a third choice abra - that is that neither pantheism or atheism is true, you or i can't defend it either way but it is a 3rd option. Right now at present - it's the one i choose.
JB - though you have every right to believe as you do about reincarnation, just as abra does about his 2 choices, i ask you this - are you or anyone you personally know of aware of any of your reincarnations? and if so - who do you think you or they were in any of your previous / simultanious lifes? any clue?
How did you come to the conclusion that you live about 1500 lives ?. Can you please provide me with some insights and this is to refer to one of your past posts . .
I have never been interested in exploring any past incarnations or finding out who I may have been in any former lives, although I do have a few "memories" which may or may not have been a past life incarnation, or they may have just been a tapping into the implicate order of the holographic matrix and the accessing of a particular experience. I have no way of knowing what the memories are all about. At this time, I am not interested in looking at the past. JB Can you please let me know how did you come to the conclusion that you have 1500 lives or so ?. .
( This is to refer to one of your past posts ) . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Thu 06/19/08 07:24 PM
|
|
Jeannie wrote:
So you are living many lives all at once. This could get really difficult if you were aware of all your lives, so a curtain is drawn between lives so that you can live each one separately. LouLou, Actually what Jeannie wrote above is probably the most popular interpretation of pantheism. We are all one. There is no true division between anyone and there's no need to divy up the spirit. This it probably the most widely accepted pantheistic view. But it's certainly not free of problems. Because it it's true there there is no such thing as an 'individual' spirit. And therefore the whole idea of 'learning' from one incarnation to the next wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be senseless to talk about 'progressing' through incarnations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notion of reincarnation is an interesting one but it does not make sense to me that souls remain intact to live many lives over and over ... mainly because if that were true there would not be hundreds of people claiming to have been Cleopatra and a host of other 'famous' people ... and why is it that we never hear about the guy that used to be a plumber?
If one soul lives on individualized then hundreds of people cannot have lived the life of Cleopatra ... What makes more sense to me is the notion ...which is not my notion but that of Indian philosophies ... which involves a collection of all the unresolved stuff from lives lived. The theory is that if I die with work or experiences unfinished or if I have unresolved emotion... that energy remains and goes in to a pool....it still has to be dealt with ... When we incarnate, we scoop up a bunch of marbles from the pool to 'handle' in this lifetime in addition to anything else we decide to do ... Philosophically that notion makes more sense to me because in the Cleopatra example ... many people could be picking up pieces of her unresolved stuff ... all with her energetic thumbprint on it ... I also question the idea of one soul living many lives ... I have always though about it more with the analogy of the ocean ... If the ocean represents this creative source from which all things come, then I view us as waves ... connected to the source but individualized for a time as these distinct personalities. When I die, I would sink back into the all ... elements of this 'me' may be reborn into another manifestation but not this particular complete package. I have no answers but I like the questions ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did you come to the conclusion that you live about 1500 lives ?. Can you please provide me with some insights and this is to refer to one of your past posts
That is just an estimate, and it is lives as a human on the planet earth. I don't know how true or accurate it is. It sounded reasonable to me is all. I got the information from the Leading edge research group. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 06/19/08 07:51 PM
|
|
Jeannie wrote:
So you are living many lives all at once. This could get really difficult if you were aware of all your lives, so a curtain is drawn between lives so that you can live each one separately. LouLou, Actually what Jeannie wrote above is probably the most popular interpretation of pantheism. We are all one. There is no true division between anyone and there's no need to divy up the spirit. This it probably the most widely accepted pantheistic view. But it's certainly not free of problems. Because it it's true there there is no such thing as an 'individual' spirit. And therefore the whole idea of 'learning' from one incarnation to the next wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be senseless to talk about 'progressing' through incarnations. I have thought of this too, but there are separations at the lower levels of information retrieval, and I think it is just for the purpose of having more order, rather than having a chaotic mass of information merging into one big blob. As individuals ascend and combine with the whole you will have a larger mass of information with each combining which will be very well organized into groups of individuals. So, for the sake of order within the universal mind each individual life or higher self is contained within the larger body directly 'above' it. There is not just a single higher self incarnating as humans on the earth. There are many of them. They each experience many lives on the earth. This of course is JUST MY OPINION.
JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notion of reincarnation is an interesting one but it does not make sense to me that souls remain intact to live many lives over and over ... mainly because if that were true there would not be hundreds of people claiming to have been Cleopatra and a host of other 'famous' people ... and why is it that we never hear about the guy that used to be a plumber?
If one soul lives on individualized then hundreds of people cannot have lived the life of Cleopatra ... What makes more sense to me is the notion ...which is not my notion but that of Indian philosophies ... which involves a collection of all the unresolved stuff from lives lived. The theory is that if I die with work or experiences unfinished or if I have unresolved emotion... that energy remains and goes in to a pool....it still has to be dealt with ... When we incarnate, we scoop up a bunch of marbles from the pool to 'handle' in this lifetime in addition to anything else we decide to do ... Philosophically that notion makes more sense to me because in the Cleopatra example ... many people could be picking up pieces of her unresolved stuff ... all with her energetic thumbprint on it ... I also question the idea of one soul living many lives ... I have always though about it more with the analogy of the ocean ... If the ocean represents this creative source from which all things come, then I view us as waves ... connected to the source but individualized for a time as these distinct personalities. When I die, I would sink back into the all ... elements of this 'me' may be reborn into another manifestation but not this particular complete package. I have no answers but I like the questions ...
that sound's more thesible to me right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did you come to the conclusion that you live about 1500 lives ?. Can you please provide me with some insights and this is to refer to one of your past posts
That is just an estimate, and it is lives as a human on the planet earth. I don't know how true or accurate it is. It sounded reasonable to me is all. I got the information from the Leading edge research group. JB Jeannie...just something to ponder..no need to reply: Why be so WILLING to ACCEPT what the Leading edge research group has to say about reincarnation.....but yet be so UNWILLING to ACCEPT what the bible has to say ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did you come to the conclusion that you live about 1500 lives ?. Can you please provide me with some insights and this is to refer to one of your past posts
That is just an estimate, and it is lives as a human on the planet earth. I don't know how true or accurate it is. It sounded reasonable to me is all. I got the information from the Leading edge research group. JB Jeannie...just something to ponder..no need to reply: Why be so WILLING to ACCEPT what the Leading edge research group has to say about reincarnation.....but yet be so UNWILLING to ACCEPT what the bible has to say ?
Because it sounds more reasonable to me than the Bible does. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this were the case and all of existance developed (as a fetus does) from God (a spirit), would these beliefs be truly pantheistic? Are there really only 2 choices? That's a tough one LouLou, I'm not really sure about that one. You might be onto a third kind of idea. A 'god' or 'spirit' that mulitplies akin to something like cell-division only in a spiritual sense. That's an interesting idea. Quite interesting.
Owl have to think about that one for a while in terms of pure spirituality. In fact, I was just going to comment on the reincarnation idea with repspect to some of the things that Miguel and JB were discussing, but you're fresh vantage point here has shed a whole new light on the matter. One thing that has always troubled me about pure pantheism is indeed the idea of 'individual' spirits or 'souls' and how they are kept track of. I think that even within pantheism (especially within an idea of incarnation) there must be some way to differentiate between individual spirits. I've always felt there must be a 'spiritual mechanism' to facilitate this. Otherwise the whole talk of reincarnation is rather meaningless. I think the spirit does indeed have a way to divide itself up spiritually. It's my own personal view that this division is ultimately dissolved again at the end of the unviverse when all spirit returns to one. I've always understood that this is uliamtely the pantheistic view. But I think pantheism does indeed allow for spirits to be individualized during the "larger incarnation process". In other words, during the life span of the physical universe itself. It would have to if it wants to speak about individual reincarnations. I'd like to talk about this further at some point. I've never had anyone to bounce these sorts of mind wanderings off of before. I really don't think of it as 'reincarnation' as such, but more as our bodies work when functioning properly. Cells die off, replaced by fresh new ones...debris is collected, filtered, the usable restored to circulate to where it is needed, and the refuse eliminated. In it's turn the refuse is used by other organisms to enhance their growth. Vague notions of it all being a circle and physics - particularly, the Law of Conservation of Energy...with bits of the Chaos Theory thrown in ('the butterfly effect') fleet across my mind when I ponder all of this. In my mind it is more that all that exists is connected in a much more profound way than each part (we) realize...just as my foot is not truly conscious of the existance of my heart. An interconnectedness that makes up the whole of God. We are God. Everything is God. And just as a mother does not choose how/which cells of her unborn child differentiate/specialize, God, the spirit, doesn't either. That development may very well occur based on laws of physics, survival needs of the whole of all that exists/God, or serendipidously. Thanks all, for making me think and listening to my ramblings. G'nite. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
scttrbrain
on
Thu 06/19/08 09:37 PM
|
|
My Epiphany I just realized that there can only be two possibilities. Life either arose from spirit, or it's an accident. In other words, the only two choices are either pantheism or atheism. Believers in an external godhead may argue that there is are other choices,... that some external God created us as its pets. However, I just realized that even if that scenario is true, all they are really saying is that their God is pantheistic in its nature, and that they are just pets of this pantheistic being. In other words, they just hold that their God always was and always will be. Well that's just the pantheistic view being applied to their God. So all they are ultimately saying is that their explanation of reality is that the true nature of God is ultimately explained by pantheism. And then they go on to claim that this pantheistic God went on to create is as lesser beings from itself. So even if that's true, then the ultimate true nature of existence is pantheistic, since the God who runs the show is ultimately pantheistic in its true nature. In other words, my epiphany is that all religions that claim to have external deities must ultimately collapse to become the pantheistic picture in the nature of their very deity. So all deity-based religions are nothing more than complex subsets of the pantheistic view. This leaves us with ultimately only two choices for reality. 1. Atheism - we have a non-spiritual essence - Life is all just some sort of accident. 2. Pantheism - we have a spiritual essence - Life arose from spirit. I think I did well.
I got it down to just two possibilities. I'm not saying that this is profound. I'm sure other people have already been aware of this. I just found it rather profound for me. The sudden realization that all ideas of external-deities must ultimately reduce to pantheism. Their deities themselves would then have a pantheistic nature. I should have realized this years ago. Just to clearly,... I have always realized that it's redundant to demand that an external God exists as an explanation for reality, because then we would have no explanation for that God. And those people just kept saying, "But God always was and always will be!" It never actually dawned on me that what they were really saying is, "But my Godhead is pantheistic!" But that's truly what they are demanding. They are demanding the existence of a pantheistic Godhead to use to explain that our existence can't be pantheistic. It's a totally redundant argument. They need pantheism in order for their original Godhead(s) to exist. So it's ever more redundant than I first realized. They aren't just proclaiming that they need a Godhead to explain reality, but in the same breath, they are demanding that the true nature of their Godhead is already pantheistic in its true nature. It's redundancy beyond redundancy. They need to demand the existence of a pantheistic deity in order to deny that our true nature is pantheistic. It's totally circular. There can be nothing other than pantheism if there is any spiritual nature to reality at all. All religions that claim to have godheads ultimately must reduce to pantheism in that this must be the true nature of their Godhead. It's ultimately either pantheism or nothing. I am so sorry abra this was not an Epiphany.....you had a drug induced deranged dream.... that is not nice!!!!!!!!! i'm very surprised u said such thing. i absolutely disagree with abra pretty much in everything, but disagreeing does not mean to be rude!!!!!! So who asked you???? Stepper........ Okay...I tried again to mail you but, it doesn't let me because of your settings. It isn't whether we are friends or not... rather than this : (((Quikstepper is only accepting messages from users that meet the following criteria: Must not be looking for an intimate encounter Must not be married Must not smoke ))) Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(((Quikstepper is only accepting messages from users that meet the following criteria: Must not be looking for an intimate encounter Must not be married Must not smoke ))) Kat No problem Kat! Just go into your personal profile, and uncheck that you are looking for an intimate enounter. Uncheck that you are married. And uncheck that you smoke. Then you can send her an email.
|
|
|
|
|
