Soulfire

Nice word... The God of the Bible is portrayed that way, but that's only because people, throughout holy Scriptures generally, seem to put their own words into God's Mouth. The Divine has no hate, no envy, no preferences. So the whole idea of God's favour is erroneous, I think, because it's really just the favour of other people and of their own culture that these kings and warlords seek, I think.

Why is there "us" and why is there "other"? Objectively speaking, there can be neither, as I am "me" to me, but I am "you" to you. I am my own subject, but I am your object. You are your own subject, but my object. As these roles are mutually exclusive, I believe they cancel one another out, at least in terms of pure perspective. Why have we not evolved to believe this objective truth when it is so plain, and so plainly helpful? If we cease to create the "other", we cease to create conflict too. All is as is, rather than all being as we wish it to be to suit our purposes and our motivations, either selfless or selfish. To see a thing as it is, is truly to see it. To see the self in the other is to falsify the dichotomy, and to falsify the dichotomy is to cease being afraid of that which is, in reality, not foreign.

The sort of "morality" (I use that very loosely) attributed to God in the Bible is that It keeps Its promises to the people It chose, I guess, but I don't see genocide, homophobia, racism, envy, misogyny, and all that other shit as being justified by the whole "I protect my chosen people" thing, because, as we can see, the God of the Bible didn't protect them when the Romans destroyed the second Temple and forced them off of their ancestral land, which really wasn't the best land to begin with: rather arid and surrounded by extremely powerful empires for almost all of its history. And besides that, even the people can't exactly agree on where the boundaries are meant to be, hence the split into the northern and southern kingdoms, as well as the current conflict in Gaza. The only thing that Judaism has going for it in terms of having retained God's protection is the fact that it still exists and can call itself the forerunner of the other Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam. But I have to say, I'm not partial to the God of the Bible, mostly for the aforementioned sins and heresies that It commits in Its own Name, which is blasphemy and hypocrisy anyway, but also in the fact that having such a God would make us separate from what God is, which is impossible. We are indivisible from God. We are God. Not God's creators, nor are we Its creation: we are one and the same thing. When things started existing, God started existing, and, upon the heat death of the Universe, God will cease to exist in this Universe, though I believe in Multiverse so that's more or less a nonissue anyway. So God is only moral insofar as we are moral. Are we doing a good job?

Again, you fall to the "us versus them" dichotomy. By "we" I mean the human race generally. Also, please don't insult my intelligence. I'm not a stupid woman. But you're CLEARLY a troll and I don't know what you're still doing here, so I'm ignoring you from now on. Toodles, cutie-pie! ♥ Would anyone else like to talk to me as if I were a human being rather than a subhuman animal? Thank you.

Erwin, firstly, "you're" (as in "I take it YOU'RE still single), and secondly, no, I'm not, if that's any of your (YOUR) business. Your = Possessive, "your blanket, your house", etc. You're = "You are". Okay, grammar lesson over, but for the cowboy, what do you mean by "snowflake"? I suppose that would be a reference to the so-called "snowflake generation", where they're all told that they're "special" and all that shit. Nope. I'm just educated, but by very liberally-minded people. I've always been very liberal myself, so for all of you conservative people, I suppose that would explain everything, yes? Stefan is always arguing against "the left", which just perpetuates the time-honoured "us versus them" bullshit. If we can't find a way to work together, we're fucked. We're just going to keep making the same mistakes as our ancestors, and honestly, don't we know better by now? With all our knowledge, with all our technology, STILL, after thousands of years, we have not solved the "us versus them" dichotomy. How boring, really...are we no better than children? I'd like to work WITH all of you, rather than against all of you, so how shall we reconcile this without either so-called "side" having to compromise their beliefs?

I'll be as brief as I can here... 1. Erwin, you're hilarious! Keep up the comedy; I like your style. Also, don't "Not an argument" me. Yes, I'm using that as a verb but that's Stefan's method for when he isn't smart enough to directly address an issue. Don't make yourself look ignorant. It's a bad look on anyone. 2. RichardY, since I like you, I'll be kindest to your criticisms (I don't mean negative criticism; I mean the scholarly kind, I'm sure). Yes, if Mexicans cross the border illegally, that does make them criminals in that regard, I won't contest that. I'd want to get myself the f*ck out of there, to be fair, but I wonder what the approval rate would be for someone trying to do it legally (i.e. how likely would they be to get the go-ahead from the American side of things)? They can't ALL be drug-smuggling, gun-toting criminals, eh? Just do it legally and see how far you get; it's not that hard. As for the "Fall to your knees" thing, that's creepy coming from any guy and I don't care how old they are. 3. Jim, that's my dad's name, so, again, I'll be nice (I'm a daddy's girl, LOL). To address your first point, alright, I'll be humble enough and say that I don't know THAT much about it, but it just sounds so ugly coming from Trump and especially after Obama never actually implemented that policy. Yes, maybe he did have a list but he never implemented it. Trump did. On your second point, what I said to Rich applies here as well, but I think "flood across our borders" is an overstatement. I think. How many migrants from Mexico do you guys get a year? I'm Canadian, see, so I don't know the American stats. On your third point, like you say, nonissue, and I'm sure you could find a mountain of evidence to support either side's argument now, so who cares? Number four, abortion is actually illegal after a certain amount of time (I think four or five months...?) because it's way too dangerous after a baby has reached a certain size. That's in Canada, mind you. I don't know the law on that in America. But that's for safety reasons. If we're talking about morality, I already explained where I stand on that and I'm not taking any of it back. On your last point...still f*ckin' creepy. There you are, lads (and lasses?). You can dispute with me all you like but I'm not changing my opinions without a solid reason for doing so.

1. Blanket MUSLIM ban. Just Muslims. Mildly prejudicial if you ask me because you can't paint an entire religion with the "terrorist" brush, I'm sorry. 2. Same with Mexicans, but swap "terrorist" for "criminal" generally. 3. The only reason for insulting someone is because you can't think of an intelligent and inoffensive remark. That entire thing about him going after Obama for his birth certificate was bull, because he was using the whole "potential Muslim, OH NO!" thing, thereby feeding the needless and senseless fear of Muslims in America. As if it were a BAD thing to be a Muslim. True, people who aren't born on American soil can't be president, I know that much about your politics, but that was just a smear campaign. Sorry to play the race card on Obama's behalf, but I honestly think that, if he were white, Trump wouldn't have dared to pull that move. I mean, even Obama's laughing at him! 4. With the abortion issue: this is a REALLY heavy issue, and I'm not going to go all, "Oh, he's a man so he has no right to talk about t." No, he does, and he's a father too, so he does, but I really don't think that anyone should bring their private beliefs into public policy. That's not how a democracy works, not for a person in office, or, as it was at that time, potentially to be in office. And now that he is in office, I wonder how that will play out? Abortion is only safe if it's legal, because women would have to resort to illegal, and therefore potentially harmful techniques through which to undergo the procedure. No one has any right to tell anyone else, either through words or through laws, what they can or can't do with their own body. This is the sole decision of the woman and the man who was with her. It's not a matter for public process, or at least I don't think so. 5. The whole "dropped to your knees thing" is a little bit...odd...yes, that's a good word for it. Like, she shouldn't be advertising the fact that she did that, and he shouldn't be getting off on it, or at least not on national television. Creepy much? ...And I'm done. Oh nay-sayers! Pray, do your best.

Yes, but the fact that he can seem to fall in with bankruptcy so easily isn't the best sign in the world for my poor neighbours to the south. And I've got family in America too (who did NOT vote for Trump, I'm happy to say), so this could negatively effect them as well. And yes, spell-check, the word "neighbour" has a U in it. That makes me think: Stefan's a Canadian. If he made this website, shouldn't it have Canadian spelling settings?

And it would likely take less time for you to summarize than for me to go scrolling through our various conversations.

Proof? Gladly! One moment, I will link you. ...Actually, I was looking for individual videos to get my points across (namely the ableism, misogyny, and xenophobia), but I think this one embodies all three pretty nicely. Except for the one where he's doing the ice bucket challenge. I don't think that's misogynistic. That's actually a good idea; put himself to good use, anyway. Mind you, he could just donate a few million to the cause, but anyway... Also, he's not that wonderful a businessman either. Hasn't he been bankrupt a few times? Four or five, I think I heard? But anyway, video:

Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He's NOT a politician; he has no political background whatever, and I don't care that he's the newest celebrity president. Sorry; I'm not a fan of Trump. He's a misogynist, ableist, and racist. And that pig has his finger on the button, for God's sake! I understand why people voted for him: it's because he had the most extensive media coverage during his campaign, and because he literally shouted down any possible opposition. He appeals to the rednecks and to the gun-crazed morons down in the southern part of the country. And Stefan sanctioned him, which, really, to me, just goes to show how even the most intelligent people can make hideously misinformed decisions. I'm not saying that, of necessity, I would have preferred Hilary (I'm Canadian, not American, so I can't REALLY talk), but she did strike me as the lesser of two evils.

Oh...Lord..."side, side, side", this only intensifies the "us versus them" dichotomy! I'm sorry, but it's utterly senseless. Going with that view will only pull the chains in which we are bound more tightly. We MUST change our views to change the world. There is no other way. In terms of North Korea, I'm reminded of Orwell: "The Proles could not rebel until they had become conscious, and until they had become conscious, they could not rebel". It's a circle of ignorance, but, fortunately, we have not gone so far as the Orwellian world had been taken. We still have potential for intercession, as well as for freedom. If you want to know the truth, I liken the global situation, in terms of its conflicts, to a playground: toys and play equipment, and bigger kids and smaller kids. Well, at the moment, America, Russia, and China are the big kids, but they were poorly treated by their parents and their neighbours, and so now, they victimize the little kids, and especially the ones who don't look or speak like them, in order to steal their toys (weapons and resources) as well as the play equipment they're using (I liken that to the lands themselves). So, toys for resources, equipment--slides and swings and such--for land. Well, at the moment, everyone seems to want to play with the toys rather than the play equipment, whereas, back in the day, it was more about the land, but such fights are rather sweeping and costly and long-drawn, so there is really no point to them now when the three great superpowers already hold enormous amounts of land on their own. So all they're after are toys: that is oil, material, water, and people as well, including their ideologies, which such nations as America especially seek to sweep off the map. Islam at least is not in danger, and is in fact growing far more rapidly than any other religion out there. In terms of North Korea, though, what strategic advantage would there be in a war there, other than to secure China's trust, given that North Korea is at times too crazy even for China? But I personally see no real advantage to war, because, given the nature of war now, which is all guerilla warfare with drone and missile strikes, there can be no preventing massive civilian losses. "Collateral damage"? Would anyone here call their families "collateral damage" if they were threatened by such a strike? What is true in this sense for one is true for all, because we all care for the same kind of people in the same ways; we all have people we want to protect. To say "that's war" is to delude yourself, because all suffer in the same way as you. Not "you" specifically, mind. That was a general statement.

"A Clockwork Orange", Rich? What about it? I've never seen it or read it so I don't get the reference. Sorry, Dylan, what WERE we talking about? Remind me. I've got exams on the brain. Just a little synopsis, please? And then I'll attempt to address your point in such a way as to satisfy your desire for a response. Just bear in mind that what I say and believe is what I say and believe and I'm not going to change it at the drop of a hat. It took me almost ten years to get where I am now in terms of my faith and my reasoning and I've got a long way to go still. If I'm not smart enough to answer you in a conclusive way, I'm willing to admit it, but yes, a synopsis would be appreciated at this time of year when my mind is more than a little bit preoccupied. Thanks.

Also, not to be a bitch, but may I point out the rather obvious use of "God of the Gaps" here...?

Hey, so I went and asked my scientifically-minded friend Marty about this and I'm going to quote him here directly, if you don't mind. "Life does not equal cognition. We don’t know exactly how life got started, but what we know is that the building blocks can form naturally. It’s just chemistry, albeit very advanced chemistry. Life can essentially be described as the reaction L+N->2L+W, where L is living matter, N is nutrients and W is waste. A living cell takes in nutrients and grows, ultimately producing a copy of itself. All such reactions we know of involves L including carbon (although in principle, it doesn’t have to). This is because carbon can form long chains; without this property, amino acids, proteins and DNA could never exist (there are other elements than carbon that have this property, such as silicon). Cognition is information processing; the ability to take in, process, store and react to information. You can have life without cognition (e.g. plants), and you can (at least in principle) have cognition without life (e.g. a really advanced AI)." And that's pretty much the best I can give you at this time.

Evolution really CAN explain this though, I promise, because it's not like, one day, there was no such thing as consciousness, and then the next day there was. It was so gradual a process that you and I can't even fathom how slow it was. I do maintain, being the Pantheist I am, that God is that evolution, and continues to be, and I would say that that is where life comes from. I know that carbon is an extremely "vital" element in terms of its capacity to somehow produce life, but...I don't really understand this myself, to be honest. I mean, the dirt is mostly carbon, a piece of wood is mostly carbon, but there must, I think, be something ALIVE in those things in order for humans to have it too...cognition, though, arose due to evolution. There can be no doubt of that. I'm just not so sure about the LIFE thing. I don't know whether any scientist is, even. I'd have to ask my friend Marty. He's smart like that and he'd know. Or, if he doesn't know, he can at least tell me the theories we have now. I'm more spiritually-minded than he is and not quite as in to biomechanics and all that stuff as he is. If I look like I'm sticking my foot in my mouth, I MIGHT be. At least on the life point, though not on the cognition point. You can't convince me that that didn't come from the course of evolution. And we're talking billions of years here, hon, not just it popping into existence one day.

Consciousness came from Evolution. Period. I will not argue Creationism versus Evolution with you or anyone else because I refuse to fight a battle that's already lost to people who won't see sense. Begging the pardon of Creationists here, mind you. It's just, I'm sorry, but here's one thing: God is literally ALWAYS portrayed in the Abrahamic religions as male. Islam steps away from this in that they at least know that God can't be described in or through any human understanding, of which gender is a mere archetype, but to stick with the more literalistic form of the argument, how could God have created females if "He" had never seen a vagina or breasts? I'm being flippant but I hope you understand what I mean. There can't have just been one archetype. Either God is all or God is at least many, as Hinduism would imply, and the Devis (Goddesses) also had a hand in creation. But this entire discourse presupposes an external God, and I don't believe in that kind of God. God is everything there is and so cannot be apart from anything.

Yes, I meant "seem", though we're all entitled to a few mistakes and I just used one of mine up. Hitler was too much in line with his own Yang force, much to in line with it, not allowing for any Yin. That's not a safe frame of mind to have if you're trying to do good in the world, obviously, because Yang is the "push" force, and, combined with the level of mental illness he had, it can raise some real shit. Unfortunately, when too much Yang is in one place, it will fuck shit up because Yang and Yin are meant to work together, but not Yang and Yang. It's like putting two positives or negatives of magnets together. They'll repel rather than uniting. So, in this case, we had a positive-positive overbalance, as Yang is the (in terms of magnetics, not morality) the positive force. It's just a metaphor, but work with me here. A good Daoist would know to balance all the Yang that was out there at the time with a good, healthy dose of Yin, but he wasn't thinking like that, of course. I doubt that anyone in power at that time was really thinking with their heads and hearts so much as they were thinking with their asses and muscles, and that's how wars happen. Yin: Black, female, down, pull, take, feel Yang: White, male, up, push, give, think You MUST balance those in order to live a healthy life. Even in ordinary life now, there is far, far too much emphasis put on the Yang, not the Yin. There has never, ever, in the course of all human history, been a time at which Yin was the universally dominant force, and THAT is a problem. I'm well aware that none of these people were Daoist, probably hadn't even heard of it to be fair, but trust me, it's helpful.

Eh? What do you mean, exactly? The thing is, when abuse and the like are in the picture, that denotes an overbalance of Yang, which is the harder, push force. Hell, the entire reason Daoism was invented was to deal with the extremely long-lasting of the Warring States Period in China (475BCE-221BCE), in which Lao Tzu believed that Yang had become far too powerful a force, and sought, through his philosophical approach, to inject a little bit of Yin into the situation. Neither of the energies are good or bad, but if one is too dominant over the other, imbalance occurs, and Wu Wei (the way of the Universe, the way of nature) is lost. Confucianism was also created during this time period and sought, through different means, to deal with the same issue. Though Confucianism became the more popular of the two amongst the Chinese aristocrats of the time, as it dealt with what the height of society ought to be like, I personally much prefer Daoism to Confucianism because it's just more natural. Confucianism isn't even one of my "big seven", or the seven religions that I practice, though under the banner of Pantheism, all at the same time. I'll also switch what religion I practice depending on the day of the week. I'm very easygoing when it comes to stuff like this, as I'm sure you can tell.

Evolution. God evolves as we evolve. That which does not change dies, and God's not dead, so God must change. God lives as long as change happens. God IS the change, one with it.

Oh, have you been to Canada? I do like living in a country that isn't important enough to cause giant wars around it, either for territory or resources, though, when water starts running out, America is going to be on us like white on rice. Daoism is the practice of maintaining the forces of Yin (soft, female, black, moon, left, down, take) and Yang (hard, male, white, sun, right, up, give) in perfect balance. Note that I do not include "good" or "evil" in the description, and neither does philosophical Daoism. The two forces are intertwined, equal, and opposite in every way, but they are both neutral in affiliation. Daoism is the way of nature. Think of your own breath: there is always an in, and always an out. The "in" is Yang and the "out" is Yin. However, note that, in the above descriptions, none of the individual traits within the two sections have much to do with one another. I mean that "take" and "female" are not related. It's the "take" to be related to the "give" and the "female" to be related to the "male", you see? You want an excellent philosopher whose lectures are found on YouTube. Alan Watts. My own personal spiritual guide, despite, you know, being dead and all. He's phenomenal and much smarter and gentler than Stefan could ever be, if you ask me. But then again, I love Watts, so I'm biased. I can admit that.

If the people are not so held down by ignorance, fear, and the general nastiness that comes with a totalitarian state, I would agree with you fully. But then, you are, I believe, describing the ideal government for any nation, not just North Korea.

Longer than five seconds, yes. But the time will vary, depending on my level of mental clarity at the time. Oddly enough, it sometimes helps to be exhausted, because my mind is more silent, which allows me to dive into my subconscious more easily, but usually it's best to be sharp mentally. If you want to test it, though it may not work for you because everyone's brain works differently, my personal method is to concentrate on the insides of my eyelids. Traditionally, one would concentrate on the breath, but that isn't constant enough, I find, because the breath fluctuates, in and out and in. The insides of your eyelids don't change, though, and you have to focus on something constant in order to get your mind "there", wherever that exactly is. Concentrate not on your lack of vision with your eyes closed, but on the presence of vision: I don't know why this works for me, but to think "I can see, I'm seeing the insides of my eyelids, my eyes are working on that" works for me. And then you start seeing beyond your own eyes. Or "eye" in my case since I'm blind in one of them.

An empty room? Yet we are both still here. Jokes, but Pantheism doesn't really have a God. Not "a" God, mind. Everything is God so it's more like "being" God, not "having" God, and certainly not in the singular. I worship in all the individual ways of all the individual faiths: I've been far enough into meditation trance to induce visual, auditory, and tactile hallucination (no drugs), I've prostrated on the ground and proclaimed the greatness of God as a Muslim would, I've prayed to Christ and to Buddha, I've lived as a Daoist lives, I've sung "Hare Krishna" up to the sky. It's all of one piece to me. The only true love, in my view, is love of the whole, is love of all that is, because there is ONLY God. Remember from now on: I'm a Pantheist, not a Buddhist. Though I do agree with the idea of detachment, it's only so that you can love God, that is, everything, equally and properly. I think so anyway. Please disagree to your heart's content. I want you to if you do.

No, I won't read any of Stefan's literature. Unfortunately, intelligent though he is, brilliant though he is, I don't agree with a lot of what he talks about. The way he talks about women is appallingly disgusting to me, and his views on other cultures is rather too medieval for me. Is he not himself an immigrant, or a descendant of immigrants? No one who lives in North America can claim otherwise unless they're First Nation, which he is not. At any rate, firstly to you, GoldenAges, as I said, those who are Enlightened see no difference between good and evil, but merely see other people's capacity to suffer due to the fact that they are unaware that the dichotomy is false. Esoteric though it may be, UPB and all other modern codes are based on this original understanding, as previously mentioned. Secondly, RichardY, I am personally a monist, though I don't hate the Daoist view which at any rate is a form of monism anyway, since the Yin and Yang contain one another and move through each other. Do you know that you and I are related by blood? The closer you are to someone geographically, the higher the consanguinity, but you and I are very, very distant cousins, as you and I are with literally everyone and everything else on Earth. We're all connected. Everything came from the "singularity" at the start of things anyway. We all have a common root. And that's pretty badass.