Now, there's a GREAT word... APPLICATION.

As soon as I'm "applying", I'm back in my Ego, forcing an outcome.

you mean like in the beginning, there was a big bang, tow iniverses cloiding creating the one, but the pieces of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED ARE AS GONE IN THE BAND, but all mnkind was created as also in the same way, and a big bang of explosiuon of all truth, disperced all the truth, as individual pieces carried by each human, down thru time, allowing truth to be lived, not just heard by the ear, and all truth comes back together, all the missing pieces each bring, as what else could make all mankind see ALL WAS EQUAL, AND NONE COULD HAVE EVER KNOWN ALONE, BUT ONLY AS ALL TOGETHER COULD THE TRUTH BE REASEMBLED, AND FINALLY KNOWN.........

as if science is full of holes, and relgion fills them in, and religion is full of holes, and science fill in all these, and all data as once two sides streams now as one, pulling all mankind together with proof that is irrefutable by all mankind......

all were sayinbg the same things, but thru different sayings and teaching, and all different traditions of all relgiions were actually all fortelling of the same thing, and all that the opposite side held, as one sect as right, and as another as left, are joined making for straight ahead, to all knowing thru all wisdom, and the ALL TRUTH IS SEEN NONE COULD HAVCE EVER KNOWN, AND THE FACT THAT WHEN IT IS SEEN MAKES EASILY APPARENT BY ALL THAT IT WAS AS PURPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBEL TO FIGURE OUT BY ONE, BUT ONLY BY ALL AS ONE, CREATE WORLD PEACE, AND ALL MANKIND TO WALK AS ONE, AND IN UNITY, AND WHAT MORE PROOF IS THERE IF A GREATER TRUTH EXCEPT IT ITE ALL RELIGIONS AND PEOPLES TOGETHER......

impossible for any ONE to make up such a truth that all relgions in the world would agree show to all mankind, there was not any as greater than the next, and all is as equal, and peace reign thruout the land, and mankind speaks as childen with honesty ot all the other, and the two realms, one as the immortal, one as the mortal, each opposites but the same in half, are completed, and the immortal realm with immortal wisodm spoken is overtaken by mankind, and all the potenial all mankind ever shown thru individuals of phenomenon is made known and available to all, that was in all ways as opposite the mortal, and why mortal imagination could only as guess, and peace is good, and wisdom is all knowing, and there is not one that does not cry, great peace, great peace, that none could have achieved except unless ALL THAT HAD HAPPENED IN TIME had been purposed, and fulfilled, and all writings are revealed as one, and all are one, and there is no dispute, just as was planned from the start, as all was as all learning, even from the beginning to the end..........

just ideas......peace and unpeace

All divide will recognize how opposites complete their opposites.

Reassembled... a completed puzzle.

OP:




Actually...

ALL words spoken by ALL "apply".

Every single one.

this reminds me of my dad's question


Which is worse

believing in God all your life and dying to find out there is none?

Or believing there is no God all your life and dying to find out there is?

No disrespect intended to you dad at all here...

I've heard that story before and I always assumed that its purpose was to lead one to believe in god. I'd just like to point out that, if it accomplished that goal, it would be as a result of fear of not love for god - at least, from the context in which I've always heard it. And personally, I have a hard time believeing that any god would prefer us to fear him more than love him.

If I spent a lifetime NOT believing and got to the end of my life to find there was a god all along...

I would expect a friendly reception. Not any wrath for having not believed.

Please... who would want any part of a god so egotistical to punish those who didn't believe?

Ok, so you've got this question: "What if 'all words ever spoken or written by anyone and everyone throughout all of time' is some sort of 'playbook for humanity'?"

So here's my answer to the question: "Everyone has their own piece of the playbook that they're using and no one is operating off the same piece, much less the entire book."

What's your answer to the question?

the question is legitimate. it is only a question. different people will have different answers

that was yours

True

All are contributing to the play book of humanity without knowledge of any other plays. They are contributing based on their own points of reference. Every individual piece or contribution fits together with every other...

My answer to "What if..."

It would seem that, if all contributed, no one could be more "right" than any other and ALL would be equal.

Its the interpretations of text that reflect a need to be right... Not the text itself.

Here's another:

What would the world look like if all humans simultaneously lost the obsession with being right?

I think you’re asking the wrong question.

No, all seriousness aside…

With as sweeping a question as that, you really need to define exactly what “right” is. So I’ll give you my definition and then answer based on that definition.

First and foremost is the postulate that “good”, “bad”, “right” and “wrong” are relative, not absolute. If you don’t accept that postulate, then there is no reason to read any further.

“Right” is that which assists one in achieving their goals. And the corollary; “wrong” is that which hinders one from reaching their goals.

So within those definitions, if everyone lost the obsession to be right, it would result in a pretty much aimless, goalless world. Not a good thing in my opinion.

But my original statement about the question being wrong actually has some relevance. If you asked something more like “What would happen if everyone lost the obsession to think of anyone who didn’t agree with them as being wrong?” then I think you would have what you are really looking for, without nullifying the relative nature of right and wrong.

I don't know where it went in relation to my head, but it missed it completely.

It would be worse to believe in God all your life and dying and finding out there is none.

But in order to do that you would still have to find some sort of awareness after death where you could realize that there was no God, or if there was, you still can't find him.

Perhaps you just found yourself alone in some vast void or among a bunch of other lost souls all still looking for a God that does not exist. I think that would be a great disappointment.

On the other hand, if you lived your life not believing in God and then died and discovered yourself face to face with your loving creator, I would think you would be quite happy.

That is unless your loving creator God was not so loving after all. If he was mad at you for lack of belief and lack of worship.... oh well.... oops. Is that angry God someone you want to spend eternity with? I don't think so.

jb

If the bible is some how morphing, then we should be studying it!

Right. I tend to agree with this notion. If in fact there is something to this, once we die, it seems god might have some kind of understanding or even respect for those that questioned his existence? I dont see why not. All we had to go on during this life was a convoluted book that everyone misinterprets in a different manner. Why do we need to assume that god is going to punish us with eternal damnation and wrath simply because we chose to question whether or not he actually exists? In the clouds no less...

Interesting....

course it really does not matter which you believe.

You won't know the answer by more than faith till you are there.

Happy journey.

it's just a thought question

you'll get as many different answers as people you ask it to

I absolutely accept the postulate that “good”, “bad”, “right” and “wrong” are relative, not absolute.

Yes... we need to feel "right" about what we are thinking/saying/doing to be able to carry any plan through to attain a goal.

I agree.

Your rewording of the question fits the meaning quite well. People seem more driven by an obsession with not being wrong. Fear of being wrong can be paralyzing.

Do we not first question ourselves prior to taking action in order to reach a goal? I believe we do.

Our minds stream constant information/ideas... we say yes to some and no to others. Hence, the context of the phrase "passing thought".

When one's concept of "right" is obscured with abject fear of being "wrong", one may tend to become highly defensive of one's position (being "right" becomes the main focus... the goal). This is where the phrase "being stuck on a position" may fit.

Do I have a position here? I guess I do. I wish to ask questions that may possibly invoke a desire to see a common thread (let's call it "divide") that may foster breakdown in communication between people of different ideologies.

That made me think of something. If "right" is "the achieving of or making progress toward, personal goals", and if one has all one's attention on "what is wrong", then there is no attention left for "what is right", which is equivalent to "no attention on achieving goals". No wonder the obsession with not being wrong is such an unhappy state.