Beverly Gilmour, 100s of NDE and a New Insight About Consciousness |350|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, May 23, 2017.

  1. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    Hello again Magda! I probably ought to leave it alone at this point, as Kamarling has himself realised. I don't think that anyone of us here can show you our own mental picture well enough that you might see the possibilities within such ideas. I don't know why that should be, in my 'mental picture' it might be something you have to deal with in this life, past karma or who the hell knows? Maybe you are the way you are to teach us to be more accepting of different views? I don't in any way assume a superior position to you, we are all on a path, it makes very little difference if our ego plays childish games. One thing I'd definitely say, is keeping a sense of humour is very important to our health, mental or otherwise. If you can laugh at yourself especially, I'd recommend it!

    The quote I picked out above, seems to show me a glass that's half full, would I be right? To make the statement more correct, you might have added, "we are also potentially amazing inspiring beings."

    We are in the wake of the Manchester tragedy here in the uk. To take this one example, those involved have choices. We can see it as only dark, those with children killed are bound to see it this way, to be devastated at this time, devastated.

    As time passes, they will have a choice to make. Remain in this place of pain, or start to climb out of it. If the former is chosen, the darkness will remain around them, as well as others close to them. Their spouses will be affected, every person they come into contact with will be dragged down a little, if they don't help themselves, they will surely spiral downwards, taking people with them.

    On the other side, if they learn to accept what has happened, grieve appropriately, learn to fully live again. Their spouses will benefit, those around them would not shy away, but would see the light shining through them, the darkness would leave. The sadness would remain in their hearts, but it would be a bright sadness, not a dark one. These are real life choices that the parents of those murdered children will have to face! There's no escaping them.

    This life is tough. But surely you can see, the tougher it is, the greater the satisfaction we feel when we overcome difficulties of whatever nature. And if you believe that this earth is but an incredible place of learning, the people killed in the Manchester tragedy, are just playing their part. There are also those incredible divine moments of joy too, are we to forget them? The birth of a child. The magic of our first sexual encounter. Running free on a beach. Etc. No way, we should love them all!

    Of course, this doesn't give the real impact of one man's deluded actions, the thousands of ripples his actions produce will have huge implications for lifetimes in some cases, 'good' and 'bad'.The good that came out that helped balance the darkness was incredible. People in Manchester feel a heartfelt bond that's tighter than before, that many might not have felt before. The millions of kind deeds that this event brought to the surface that we won't ever hear about.

    And of course, Manchester is but a tiny fraction of what goes on.

    Can't you see this as a possibility Magda?

    Choices. I think we can feel when we've made the right ones.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    Ian Gordon and Typoz like this.
  2. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    216
    Hi Steve (and Kamarling - I'm making this a joint reply to your posts) - believe me, I feel this is futile, too, but I am so stupid that I still persevere in hoping that I will meet a smart hippy who will say something that makes sense :) (Steve, this is meant to be humour but I am not sure you and Kamarling will like it -- that is why I have avoided it so far; English is not my native language either, and I am painfully aware that humour is very culture-bound. That does not make me a bore, in fact I am a very nice and friendly person, or so I'm told. But I try and avoid cracking jokes when there is a good possibility that they would fall flat or even be considered offensive - I've already been told on this Forum that I sound sneering recently :)!).

    Jokes apart (and apologies in advance if you thought that joke was insulting!) - Steve, I appreciate your referring to what you believe in as a "mental picture," I have no problem with that and I have said it so many times: if it makes you happier by all means believe in it -- what I have problems with is when people start assuming that they "know" that their mental picture is the correct one (and maybe as a consequence the genuine "spiritual"/demonic experiences of terrorists are probably "fake" because they don't fit in it), no matter the huge logical AND ethical holes in it, and even kind of resent people for questioning the logical and ethical basis for its unjustified optimism, even though these critics honestly "don't get it". You speak about the possibilities that your (and that of many others' ) TOE offers. But I cannot "choose" to see reality in a certain way just because of the psychological benefits a certain mental picture could give me. Just to try and put you in MY own mental picture :), it sounds like you are telling me "never mind the absurdity of supposedly being here to endure this mysterious material existence full of suffering just for the sake of learning what we -- I'm sure! -- already knew before coming here (i.e.: that it's all about love and light); take this pill and you'll feel better".

    I obviously agree with you that one can turn even the worst tragedy into something better (I underline "can" -- tragedy can simply break people, and I most definitely don't see this as a fault on their part; they are perfectly entitled to refuse making the effort to overcome something they didn't bring upon themselves, like the wanton murder of their child). What I am asking is why tragedy had to be "allowed"/"possible" in the first place, what is the added value of it? As I have written many times before, it seems like digging holes for the sake of filling them again. I am not talking about the aftermath of a tragedy, I am talking about it happening in the first place, and in general the coming into existence of a reality where such bad stuff is even possible (and happening all the time -- I keep referring to nature because to me that's very important, too, even if we hardly take notice unless it affects us directly). It seems a completely futile pursuit. Have I managed to make you understand MY mental picture, Steve? I doubt it (and I'm certainly not holding this against you!!!), but since I have some time to write at the moment I thought I would answer your post -- it seems kind of rude of me to always tell people "there's no point in pursuing this conversation", although it's very probably true. I hope you will appreciate my goodwill at least! :)

    Kamarling wrote "And who is responsible for all that hatred and slaughter? God or people? Your disenfranchised billions might be better off, happier, well fed and in charge of their own destiny if PEOPLE could learn to love and respect each other. I said earlier that this world is tough - it is a survival battle yet nobody and nothing survives. We all die - that should be your clue. This is not the end game right here and now. The end game is something I don't believe we are capable of comprehending. We don't have the vantage point or the perspective to know how our dark but temporary suffering might provide important lessons in compassion and empathy which we need in order to evolve as spiritual beings."

    You are postulating loads of unproven things there : 1) that this suffering is temporary 2) that we are going to evolve 3) that we are spiritual beings 4) that there is a higher perspective (and even if there is, what good is it to us? "God" may be OK with children dying, but I will still disagree with it) 5) There is a "God" (i.e. one single mastermind behind it all) 6) this is not "the end game"
    But this would be fine to believe in, if at least it had logical consistency (but I fail to see it: why the need to evolve through suffering and mystery, if everything was perfect love and light in the first place?). What I am trying to make you realise is that you (and by this I mean all the "love and light people") conveniently keep shifting perspective to place all the blame on "us" (mankind) while at the same time you insist that we are God (I quote you again: "we are the source. There is no separation"). So your sentence above -logically - should read:

    "the source might be better off, happier, well fed and in charge of its own destiny if THE SOURCE could learn to love and respect itself."

    Wait - wasn't the source all "love and light" (see your very first post to me where you wrote this)? So what happened to all that love, exactly? This "mental picture" makes no logical or ethical sense, sadly -- and when I say "sadly" I really mean it, because I would certainly like to believe in it; I guess I would have to become like a battered wife who believes that her husband deeply loves her despite the very strange meaning one would have to attribute to the word "love" to agree with her. Maybe battered wives are happy (or maybe this is their karma from a previous life, Steve -- btw I'm sure you'll agree that this "mental picture" can be dangerous, too....). So if this mental picture makes you and lots of other people happy, by all means keep believing in it, just don't expect me not to question the logic of it. I am certainly not here to convert anybody, I'm only trying to understand the logic behind this theory. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to try to explain it to me, and sorry if I still don't get it -- maybe at least you'll have better understood where I come from (after all this should fit into your world view: "we are here to learn through suffering", including enduring hypermagda's posts ;-)) oops apologies again for my Italian sense of humour which is probably completely out of place in this mainly Anglo-saxon forum.....
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    Laird likes this.
  3. Mediochre

    Mediochre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    And the winner for this years most obvious question dodge goes to...

     
    hypermagda likes this.
  4. Mediochre

    Mediochre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    Yeah I've met spirits who used this exact logic to justify messing with people and getting them killed or destroying their lives for fun. I think I even mentioned it in my introduction posts back when I was super angry. "Hey it's okay it's not like anyone actually got huirt and who cares if they don't understand that death isn't real, we still do, and they'll figure it out eventually. Time is infinite after all."

    S I'd find and attack these people to test their faith in their own stated beliefs, and y'know what? Turned out it was all just bullshit.

    The end justifies the means eh? How very loving of you. I'm sure if I stabbed out your eyes to give you the experience of being blind like me you'd totally just shrug it off as me just playing my part. Or are you saying those people had no free will? They're just deteministic litle robots playing their part for the source? I guess the reactors are also just playing their part too right? But if that's true thennothing is learning nothing because everythings just playing it's part and everythings determined.

    Wait, deluded actions? I thought he was just 'playing his part' before like a good little deteminist object? Did I just watch a person with a religious worldview contradict themselves? That never happens!

    Niether you or Kama even approached a logical answer to the questions, you just restated your demonstrably contradictory, hypocritical beliefs and dodged direct questions with bullshit "oh I guess you're just set in your ways" self projection excuses.

    Your worldviews have no basis in reality and your responses further demonstrate this.

    Pro tip: if you want someone to see your worldview as a possibiliy, maybe you should explain the mechanisms by which it would be possible and explain how those mechanisms paint a more accurate view of reality than the alternative. Everything both of you have said can be more easily explained with a much more neutral, subjective based view of reality. Where things happen, people react to them, and sometimes learn things from their expereinces. No supreme douchebag or source required.
     
    Laird and hypermagda like this.
  5. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    I'm sure that's true. :) Humour? Go for it as long as it doesn't target anyone then I'm all for it. As for any 'sneering' on your part, to be honest, I didn't get it.


    My own writing is so limiting, it's a bit frustrating. I wish that I could 'plug you in' for a while to get what I'm ....thinking...yes...but it's more than that.

    The thing is, that I don't think that we do 'know before coming here', I don't think it's all love and light while we're on the path. Just as we might say that Formula 1 car racing is all about money, that is true, but it's about so much more. (This is a rather poor analogy, but it works at some level) It's not about feeling better, it might be, but I don't think so. But thinking is so limiting....

    Can we be sure that logic and ethics as we know them, can be used to explain the universe? The finest logical thinking is stumped by quantum physics. Ethics is probably limited to our level of consciousness too.

    Is it logic or something else that has brought me to the place I am this second? I think that it might 'pay' to keep things 'light', I think that we are able to do so, while still feeling the depth of things. Attachment to things is a big problem, our ego is attached to things which drag us under. Our job, our health, our finances, our politics etc I am struggling with this ego thing myself. Should we be striving for enlightenment? the dissolution of ego, or should we be authentic, living life fully, taking part in the election process etc I think we should, but without nearly as much ego in attendance.

    What I am certain of, is that I should follow my heart in the way I act. For me, in my situation, that means trying to make choices that make me feel like I'm moving forward. Often that involves trying to be less selfish, less fearful than I am. 'It's a sair fecht' as we say in Scotland. 'It's a sore fight'. As I said before, it's hard. Try not to shackle yourself with attachments and make it even more difficult. Free your mind, it's just a saying but it's probably a deep truth also.

    'It's all in the mind', is probably as true as it's possible to get.
     
    Typoz likes this.
  6. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    Maybe you made a bad choice by reading my post.

    But I'm interested, what does a 'religious worldview' mean?
     
  7. ChadWooters

    ChadWooters New

    Joined:
    May 22, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Hmmm...that's pretty close but not entirely the case. Most of the heresy accusations concerning Swedenborg are either overblown or simple misinterpretations. As a student of Swedenborg for close to twenty years, I can say that, as I read him, it is about relying on what is Good and True, rather than owns own inclinations towards what is evil and false. While it is true that Protestant Reformers have emphasized 'faith', it should be recognized that traditionally, even among Protestants, that has been interpreted to mean trust and not mere intellectual belief (the demons in hell also believe and tremble). Swedenborg follows the very traditional pattern of repentance followed by regeneration.

    That said, I was also struck by the similarities between the guest's experiences and those of Swedenborg. I truly believe that Alex is missing out by not really exploring the life and writings of Swedenborg. They press all the Skeptiko buttons, clairvoyance, life after death, consciousness, even alien life. I cannot think of a better guest than Dr. Jonathan S. Rose would be.
     
    Steve likes this.
  8. chotki

    chotki Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2015
    Messages:
    101
    Thanks. I did talk about influx in my following post, so I hope it's clear I'm not denying the role and, indeed, the priority of divine grace in Swedenborg's theological system. And I agree with you that the best of mainstream Protestantism emphasizes faith as holistic trust (or, as the thesis of a new book puts it, allegiance) and not mere belief. But I think it can be agreed that Swedenborg's approach is more participatory or synergistic, in that one's active response to the Good and True must actually happen - no juridical "imputed righteousness" here.
     
  9. chotki

    chotki Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2015
    Messages:
    101
    Funny synch...I've been sitting in a theological library working on my dissertation. I turned to look at the bookshelves to the right of my carrel and spotted the volumes of the Swedenborg Society Library Catalogue!
     
    oleo likes this.
  10. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    Your anger seems to have clouded your ability to understand what I'm trying to say here. Let me make this plain!!! I am not trivialising the pain and suffering those involved in any tragedy go through!

    However, what I AM saying is that IF the survivors CHOOSE to remain in that state of 'darkness' for longer than is necessary, possibly many years on, allow ego to wallow in pity for a lifetime, I do feel very strongly that this behaviour will have a big negative effect on people they might be close to, as well as themselves! If they die in that state they will not find themselves miraculously free from the darkness that THEY attach to THEMSELVES. Jurgen Ziewe feels that this is a very important point to make, he wrote Vistas of Infinity with this point specifically in mind.

    Your vitriol and anger just jumps from the page here. There is no need for it.

    I too am strong. I have overcome my own difficulties in life. So you are blind? Does that give you the right to be angry at words on a page? I am disabled. Is your anger caused by your own disability?

    I don't even know what you mean when you state "The end justifies the means eh?"

    And yes I am loving!!!! I do have empathy. Have you?

    You are making the mistake of thinking that I don't think this life is very serious, because we're 'playing a part'. We are playing a part, a very serious part! That doesn't mean that I should just shrug off difficulties during this life, it does very definitely mean that I should make the best of this life, and not stay in the strangled darkness of our own making. I believe that 'suffering' is a blessing, a chance for growth, it is up to US, not God, not those around us, to make the best of things, however bad they might be. Yes, I 'believe' this, I'd even go so far as to say I 'know' it to be true from personal experience. Let's say it's MY truth. 'Good little determinist object' couldn't be further from what I think. So calm down and try to feel what I'm saying instead of making half arsed assumptions.

    Religious worldview. Yes, I suppose I could be said to have such a worldview, but I am not dogmatic in my 'beliefs', I couldn't care less what others believe as long as it follows a 'live and let live' type thinking. I think that everything is probably part of 'god' or the universe, divine, source, etc but I can't know this, even if I did, I might doubt it, because that is by nature what I'm like.

    No, I make no apology if what I write doesn't seem logical, possibly it isn't. Reality doesn't demand logic, it might seem to you that it does. We have a difference of opinion -so what? And I don't even remember trying to answer any such 'direct questions'. I was only offering my own thoughts, if you don't like them, leave them! No need to get upset with me. In fact I was only trying to make my thought clear to Hypermagda, trying but obviously failing. Ok, I hear you both loud and clear.

    'Pro tip'? How f'ing patronising.

    Trying to explain what 'would be possible', 'mechanisms' 'more accurate' would, I believe, be displaying an arrogance that I don't have, and have no wish for. I freely admit that I cannot say that there is any validity to my 'ideas', anybody that does say that, I would view with suspicion. We all have to believe something, that is my offering. No douchebag or source? Well, I disagree.

    To get such an aggressive reply was not necessary or helpful. The 'stab your eyes out to give you ....' was ugly and dark. That alone would have prevented me from liking his post.

    I wouldn't have replied, only I saw that Laird had added a 'like' recently. That sort of pissed me off. ;)

    This post is more direct, from the heart. It is not a waffly light hearted reply like my first post. I apologise for writing such a sloppy post, to allow such misunderstanding. Sadly, I'm not able to control the reaction of others. I'm just as capable as mediocre is at getting annoyed, and think that his post reflects his own frailties. I offer my hand of friendship, but I suspect it might be a pointless gesture.
     
    Silence, Ian Gordon, Typoz and 2 others like this.
  11. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,329
    I didn't "like" that post originally because (as you rightly point out) it was full of anger, and I didn't like its tone. I later "liked" it because of the points it made. It may have been a "mistaken like", and I definitely didn't mean to support its aggression, nor its rudeness towards you. You're a kind-hearted soul, and I'm sorry for pissing you off.
     
    Typoz, Obiwan, malf and 1 other person like this.
  12. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    You didn't really p' me off Laird, I just felt surprised and rather disappointed.

    Now I feel slightly embarrassed. God Bless you.
     
    Obiwan, malf and Laird like this.
  13. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,226
    Maybe we need a button that means "some of the points you make are good but OMG the way you make them!!..."
     
  14. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    I would agree, but with the case in point I just I disagree with the whole post.:eek:
     
    Ian Gordon, Trancestate and Typoz like this.
  15. Mediochre

    Mediochre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    Generally speaking a religious worldview is a dualistic belief stating that there is some form of "good" and "Evil" and that only "good" should be strived for despite the simultaneous existence of "evil." This, by definition, comes complete with some form of prescribed life actions and tracks. Certain things you are and are not "allowed" or "supposed" to do due to an external all powerful force/entity doling out some form of reward or punishement for obedience/disobedience. All religious worldviews suffer from the infinite regression problem of causality, unable to explain why the definitions of good and evil are those definitions and not something else. Resulting in a belief that is logically self-contradictory, hypocritical and ultimately only held on faith. As such, all defenses of religious worldviews are emotional, displaying the true nature of the belief, narccissism. Proponents of religious beliefs do not typically respond to reason since their belief itself is not based in reason. As a result standard defensive tactics rely on the emotional dependence of the questioner and include but are not limited to:

    Tone Policing - "You didn't say that very nicely so you're wrong."
    Appeals to Experience - "Well you just don't understand because you don' have my experience but I'm right"
    God of the Gaps - "You don't know how A is connected to B, therefore I'm right."
    And the more direct, honest methods of question dodging, censorship, and violence.

    Definitely true, however one question remains... who gets to decide how long someone can remain in a state of "darkness", whatever that even means, before it becomes "unneccessary?"

    I don't actally care about the words on the page but even if I was angry at them I would have the right merely because I have the ability to be. I would certainly admit that the blindness makes me angry, however I focus that anger into more productive action. So it's hard for me to tell if it's really anger or not.

    If people are just playing their part, if it's all just a "learning experience" that is somehow "neccessary" by some external thing's definition, then you can justify absoplutely anything and call it a learning experience. Thus, the end of learning love or whatever justifies the means of torture that were used in getting there. It is an argument that has been used to justify many things historically, slavery, genocide, general prejudice, by stating that the perpetrators were doing it "for the good" of their victims.

    Assuming you mean empathy a in "the capability to feel someone elses feelings" then yes and that's why I will always attack bad logic. I've seen it used so many times in an oh so loving voice to blame victims for being victims that I no longer bother with the fake niceties of politeness and go right to the heart of the argument.

    If you mean empathy as in "the ability to care about another person's feelings." which I believe is technically the definition of sympathy, then yes. Because no one deserves to have things happen to them merely because they lacked the power to avoid it. I won't patronize people by even suggesting that there could be some external "good" reason for why they are suffering. I won't dehumanize them by suggesting there might be a possibility that they could be some cog in a greater machine chugging towards some ultimate universal purpose. I will instead acknowledge their personal feelings and their personal reasons for those feelings.

    If someone or something believes they are intrinsically superior to others, that they have a right or duty to bestow upon others "life lessons" simply because they have the power to, then as far as I'm concerend, such entities deserve to be stamped down and ground into the dirt the same way they do to others. Surely, if it's what they truly believe, they won't have a problem with taking their own medicine.

    Nobody objectively deserves or needs to go through anything at all.

    Most of this I actually agree with however nothing in here demonstrates that we are in fact playing a part for anything or that there is any seriousness about it. But let's assume for the sake of argument that we are.

    If it's coming from something external then it can't be for our benefit. Only the benefit said outside thing believes would be good for us. Stuff like this is where my problem with love and light rhetoric always lies, it sounds so good, it sounds like it makes sense... until you get to the god or source part. Then its true face is revealed, a glorified master/slave relationship.

    The very fact that you asked me to "feel" your argument demonstrates how little of one you have.

    I will not leave a belief system lay just because the belief holder's precious feelings might get hurt if I ask a few questions.
    People actions are inexstricably tied to their worldviews. Beliefs must be challenged, ripped apart, put through the scrutiny of the free market of ideas. If they are given special consideration because someone's feelings might get hurt those beliefs can fester and mutate into things like jihadism and every other religion on the planet that has ever advocated genocide and world domination, censorship, etc. Effectively putting your own feelings above those of others. Complete narcissism.

    Your feelings are irreleveant. My feelings are irrelevant. I not only expect people to question me as hard and as harshly as I question you and others, I outright invite it. My worldview will be as close to reality as possible or it won't be there at all.

    And yet you seem to take a very neutral stance to the very real events that did actually happen out in the real world that are very much worse than the hypothetical I described. "Ugly and dark" events that those people didn't get the option to just ignore as you did with my hypothetical. Practically apologizing for them by portraying them as people just playing their parts and learning things for "reasons." Yet, I'm the one being patronizing? You didn't even attempt to address my hypothetical for emotional reasons which completely damns your argument. I use such extreme examples for exactly this reason. To point out how utterly ridiculous and insulting it would be to walk up to someone who's just gone through some terrible atrocity and go "Oh hey it's okay, this is all just a big learning experience. It's all so that you can learn to love because you're just part of this source that already knew how to love but boke itself apart to learn how to love again." Or whatever reason you'd like to slot in there.

    And yet you want me to feign politeness for the sake of your feelings regarding an internet discussion? It would be at the expense of someone elses feelings regarding very real, tangible events and I'm not going to do that. You say you're not trivializing it but your arguments don't appear to match with that statement.

    Based on what? You've provided literally nothing to back up this belief, you can say that you "know" it but you could say that for anything. Just as a jihadist "knows" that killing a bunch of kids, raping a bunch of kids, generally killing or raping anyone they don't like is the right thing to do.

    In the end you are left with a contradiction. If there is an external anything influencing/controlling/determining all of this as your "playing the part" god, and source arguments imply then life arguably doesn't even exist. Everything's on a track it can't deviate from. No learning can possibly take place in such a system.

    If however there is no top down entity/purpose at play then these people are acting as individuals from their own individual experiences, values, and goals. and nothing else. Learning may occur but there is no grand spiritual reason or purpose behind it.

    You appear to seek to combine these two diametrically opposed ideas into one. Resulting in an implicit belief that existence is a totalitarian indoctrination center where individual souls with free will are put through specific life events to "teach" them things by an obscenely powerful entity capable of dictating the limits of their reality. Reducing people to machine learning programs that are used as tools by some more powerful entity for its own purposes. And you appear to believe this would be a good thing.

    There's a greek story that I remember that I might've posted on this forum before. I can't remember the exact name of the guy but it goes like this: There's a guy named Pygoras who claims to have a bed that will fit anyone. So people come from all around to try out this guys bed. Some people are too tall for the bed, so Pygoras cuts off their feet. Some people are too short, so Pygoras bind's their arms and legs, breaking them, stretching and maiming them to make them fit. This process continues for every person who tries his bed. The bed fits everyone because Pygoras changes the person to fit the bed.

    External, objective life purposes twist people into broken versions of themselves. Manipulating them into torturous obedience out of the interplay of fear and reward. People will do or say anything to stop the torture. They will even twist their own beliefs until they think that they're not really being tortured. Always at their own expense and/or for the benefit of the manipulator. I will never stand by and allow such a thing to go uncontested. It doesn't matter how nice it sounds, or how good it feels, it doesn't make it true or neccessary.

    People deserve the choice to be free, even though freedom can be messy. They deserve the choice to follow their own desires for their own sake unrestricted even though conflicts may be inevitable. People deserve the ability to care about their own lives simply because they have them, not be reduced to tools or toys for some god, source or anything else. Their existence may not have any meaning or specialness to reality. But they should at least have the capability to decide that their existence is special or meaningful to themselves. If such a capability does not exist, then I'll create it.

    I don't "believe" any of what I said, I don't think there's a reason for any of it, I don't think it's good or would neccessarily result in anything good. I don't think it would have any tangible effect on reality at all, all my efforts would ultimately fade to nothing over time no matter what I acheived. I acknowledge it's nothing but my own personal desires that I follow for their own sake. I may not typically value any individual person's feelings beyond certain close friends but I do value the principle of those feelings. That's who and what I am. I want people to be able to be who and what they are, regardless of what it may be or result in. If there are conflicts, if people's desires oppose to such a degree that one decides the other can't exist, then power will determine who get's their way. Chances are those with the most accurate view of reality will be capable of attaining the most power and utilizing it the most efficiently.
     
    LetsEat and hypermagda like this.
  16. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    216
    No time to post a long comment unfortunately but just wanted to say that though I do not agree with Mediocre 100% I certainly find some of his ideas very interesting and thought-provoking. Certainly I often do not like his "tone", but then again I don't like several other people's tone, including that of many from the "love and light" scene, which I very often find incredibly patronising. So I try to get over my own personal feelings and focus on logic (including "ethical logic") and content, rather than tone.
    Steve, I like you lots as you know and always try not to hurt your feelings, but if you think this through, based on your worldview you should see this exchange with Mediochre as 'a lesson' and be 'grateful' for it instead of getting p***d off....! So how your worldview works in practice is not clear to me. It's easier to preach to others how we all should be, but I would be more impressed by seeing those who say these things walk the talk effortlessly.
    And maybe this personal experience can also begin to make you understand how your worldview does not actually work, unless everybody agrees to be kind to you and not "burst your bubble".....
    I say this with respect and friendship, but if you get so p***d off just because of an Internet disagreement then hopefully you should get Mediochre's point (I copy and paste it here), at least (although in your case you only went through the "atrocity" of Laird liking Mediochre's post !! :)) : "To point out how utterly ridiculous and insulting it would be to walk up to someone who's just gone through some terrible atrocity and go "Oh hey it's okay, this is all just a big learning experience. It's all so that you can learn to love because you're just part of this source that already knew how to love but boke itself apart to learn how to love again.""
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
    Sciborg_S_Patel, Laird and malf like this.
  17. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    In that case you are mistaken. By the criteria you have set, I don't believe I have a 'religious worldview'. I believe the choice is ours to make, the consequences of any such decisions, good or bad, are ours to experience too. It's quite simple.

    The person suffering. They ought be able to tell how long. It's probably different for different individuals.

    It looks to me like you're probably an angry person much of the time. I could be wrong. As you say, it's your choice to be angry, and who am I to criticise you, if that's what I'm doing. What I am saying, is that how you deal with that anger will be recorded, not judged. It is YOU alone who lives with the consequences. That's why I don't think that it's 'all light and love', but it can be - it's our choice.

    ~~~~~~

    I can understand why you think that. That's too bad.

    Very much on the contrary. When Tom Campbell says, it's really all about 'other', I get that. Much to Magda's disappointment, I find it very difficult to 'walk the talk', but this too will change. :)

    Yes, I will admit to a certain 'coldness'. Maybe it's because I'm simply not able to bear the pain of such events that take place daily around the world. Maybe that's god's burden? My job is to make the best of what I have and not embrace the darkness.

    Right there! You seem to imply that you do know what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. You are making a choice, just as the jihadist is making his! That is what it's all about.
    What I'm trying to do, at present, 'where I'm at'. Is to learn how we come to our decision to make apparently bad choices, how every one of us influences, however slightly, that decision. How hate and anger only lead to more hate and anger.

    I prefer not to deal with hate and anger, not to live with people who spend their days inside their head, feeling sorry for themselves because a loved one has been murdered.

    I have an ex-colleague that's a friend on Facebook. He feels certain that Jeremy Corbyn( the leader of our opposition party) is a terrorist sympathiser. He says, and I quote: " I could only let it go when I have seen Corbyn hung, drawn and quartered for his betrayal of all British Forces, all victims of the IRA, and all victims of Hamas and Hezbollah." He says that " you are supporting a man who endorses terrorism."

    I see his views as being extreme, the difference would be that I am relatively content with that until he acts on it. I feel that his views help no-one.

    If there is a god, I will leave it to him to 'judge' me, for I am surely too biased to comment. I can only go on what I feel, yes, feel intuitively, in my gut, to be right. No intellect can be truly trusted I believe, I can't put too much faith in intellect, or logic. I think my friend is hooked, caught up in the past, the darkness has taken part of his ego, and won't budge. He will surely learn, in this life or another, that 'letting go' is a better way. In my experience.

    My Facebook friend and you too, can take my own lessons learned, or leave them, use them or discard them, I don't mind. I know nothing, can not prove anything. We must all have some worldview, I am happy to share mine. My worldview is not intrusive, it does not push my views on others, does not promote violence, but it does require making choices, and taking responsibility for choices made.

    The energy of this post is very different to your last post Mediocre, it is much less aggressive than the previous one and I thank you for that. I have no idea what has led you to where you find yourself, I can have no idea of others suffering. I wish you well.



     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  18. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    :(
    I have tried Magda. :(

    Getting pissed off is human, I'm human. I soon got over it, I do see things as lessons from the universe, as you say. What do you think is behind such messages?

    Read my latest posts properly, you might than be able to see that you have misrepresented my views.

    Show me one individual that can do so effortlessly? They don't exist on earth. I definitely don't preach, though I might be fooling myself. Feel free to bathe in the darkness that you appear to embrace Magda. I get the message. ;)
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  19. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    216
    Steve, you --certainly not me-- clearly embrace the darkness, given that you "know" that it comes from the same source as the light and is therefore something to be welcomed as 'a lesson'. This sentence of yours (above) is enormously patronising, but I now very well that you won't get this and honestly, I'm not going to waste time trying to get you to see this or anything else. I know lots of people who see things like you, and I'm just happy that they are good-hearted people at least.
    I feel you are kind of sweet, like a young child who covers his eyes and thinks that therefore the bad things he didn't like to see are not really out there. I quote you: "Maybe it's because I'm simply not able to bear the pain of such events that take place daily around the world. Maybe that's god's burden? My job is to make the best of what I have and not embrace the darkness."
    Feel free to bathe in whatever makes you happy. I wish you all the best.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel and Trancestate like this.
  20. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    I should have gone with Kamarling earlier. :eek:
     
    Trancestate likes this.

Share This Page