The Moral Superiority of God (within the confines of Christianity)

[Soulfire]

It may be relative in the grand scheme. We don't know what's beyond our own perspective: that's the whole problem. Also, don't get snippy with me, eh? It's a complicated issue. But think of it in the sense that the bad guys don't see themselves as bad guys. They think that what they are doing is right for them and for others. An extreme example would be Hitler but I don't want to go there, for obvious reasons. Mind you, how do either you or I know what is really evil and what is really good? I would assume that you and I don't have the exact same code or morality, and I can only assume that you would agree with that. So, from your perspective, what is good, and what is evil? I mean your personal perspective.

[Donnadogsoth]

9 hours ago, Soulfire said:

It may be relative in the grand scheme. We don't know what's beyond our own perspective: that's the whole problem. Also, don't get snippy with me, eh? It's a complicated issue. But think of it in the sense that the bad guys don't see themselves as bad guys. They think that what they are doing is right for them and for others. An extreme example would be Hitler but I don't want to go there, for obvious reasons. Mind you, how do either you or I know what is really evil and what is really good? I would assume that you and I don't have the exact same code or morality, and I can only assume that you would agree with that. So, from your perspective, what is good, and what is evil? I mean your personal perspective.

Evil is that which reduces man, in terms of survival and happiness.

 

By survival I mean man's ability to master the Universe and thus increase his power to exist.

 

Happiness is therefore divided into three: happiness associated with contributing to such survival, happiness associated with things neither helping nor hindering survival, and happiness associated with things which detract from survival. The first category of happiness should be promoted, the second let be, and the third suppressed.

 

We know this to be true by our nature as potential masters of the Universe, located by the measurement of progress referred to as increases in potential (potential, not actual) population density, something only we humans are capable of doing. So, we have the potential, in principle, to discover principles of nature, in order to increase our power to survive in the Universe, potentially immortally, for billions of years, and beyond.

 

The closer we can align our happiness with that, the more felicitously will our happiness be aligned with our highest nature, just stated in the previous paragraph. If neutral things help us survive, then we allow neutral things as well. But, things which actively go against our survival, which reduce our dignity as men, reduce our minds, addict us to distractions, or otherwise wound us or kill us, are evils we must militate against if possible, or else seek to mitigate.

 

That is good and evil as best I understand it.

[Soulfire]

Man and woman, dear, man and woman. Sorry, just "man" as the default has always kind of bugged me, and no, I'm not a feminist in the militant sense. Just a moderate. Anyway...

You assume that survival is the best thing for us, then? If that were the case, then nature would not have made it so that we should all of us one day die. I think that people have a habit of clinging to that which is in fact worse, not better. I mean, would you really like to live for a thousand years, or even five hundred, one hundred? I don't want to live forever, personally. You'd get bored of it after a while, you know? No matter how spectacular ice cream is, if you ate only ice cream, you'd get bored of it. I'm sticking to that analogy because ice cream is awesome.  I'm not afraid to die either, so it's all good. That's not a self-destructive mind set, or at least I don't think it is. It's more an acceptance of the fact that I'm mortal, fallible, and all that good stuff that makes me a human being. I want to be a human, not a goddess. And that means that I'm going to die. I mean, I don't want to die NOW, but I'm just not going to shy away from the fact that it's going to happen. And if there's an afterlife, sweet. If not, then I won't know the difference anyway, so who cares? I honestly used to think that that view was cynical, but it really isn't.

However, if eternal life is something towards which you personally strive, I wish you the best, and all power to you! Many will thank you if you can find the way to avoid death. No, by the way, I'm actually not being sarcastic.

[Donnadogsoth]

14 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Man and woman, dear, man and woman. Sorry, just "man" as the default has always kind of bugged me, and no, I'm not a feminist in the militant sense. Just a moderate. Anyway...

You assume that survival is the best thing for us, then? If that were the case, then nature would not have made it so that we should all of us one day die. I think that people have a habit of clinging to that which is in fact worse, not better. I mean, would you really like to live for a thousand years, or even five hundred, one hundred? I don't want to live forever, personally. You'd get bored of it after a while, you know? No matter how spectacular ice cream is, if you ate only ice cream, you'd get bored of it. I'm sticking to that analogy because ice cream is awesome.  I'm not afraid to die either, so it's all good. That's not a self-destructive mind set, or at least I don't think it is. It's more an acceptance of the fact that I'm mortal, fallible, and all that good stuff that makes me a human being. I want to be a human, not a goddess. And that means that I'm going to die. I mean, I don't want to die NOW, but I'm just not going to shy away from the fact that it's going to happen. And if there's an afterlife, sweet. If not, then I won't know the difference anyway, so who cares? I honestly used to think that that view was cynical, but it really isn't.

However, if eternal life is something towards which you personally strive, I wish you the best, and all power to you! Many will thank you if you can find the way to avoid death. No, by the way, I'm actually not being sarcastic.

"Man" as in "mankind."  Changing that usage is cultural vandalism and I won't stand for it.  Don't be bugged, embrace tradition, it is part of what makes us who we are and grants solidity and continuity.

By "survival" I'm not referring to individual survival, I'm referring to species survival.

[Soulfire]

In terms of species survival, my argument still stands, just extended. How do we know that it is in the best interest of the bigger picture for us to cling, as a species, to life? Besides, we're still changing and branching off via evolution. Have you heard any of the odd theories going around about how humans will look in thousands of years? Odd things, like enlarged eyes and shrunken toes, our height increasing dramatically, or even such stranger things as splitting into two subspecies, with the "superior" being extremely tall, caramel-skinned beauties, and the "inferior" being shrunken and simian, as if going backwards in evolution.

As a general rule, I'm not a huge supporter of cultural traditions. More family traditions, that's what's important to me. It's just that, if we keep holding onto the past, we can't move forward to the future. There has to be a balance of reflecting on and learning from the past, while looking and working forward to the future. But in reality there is no past, no future, only the eternal "now".

[Donnadogsoth]

32 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

In terms of species survival, my argument still stands, just extended. How do we know that it is in the best interest of the bigger picture for us to cling, as a species, to life? Besides, we're still changing and branching off via evolution. Have you heard any of the odd theories going around about how humans will look in thousands of years? Odd things, like enlarged eyes and shrunken toes, our height increasing dramatically, or even such stranger things as splitting into two subspecies, with the "superior" being extremely tall, caramel-skinned beauties, and the "inferior" being shrunken and simian, as if going backwards in evolution.

As a general rule, I'm not a huge supporter of cultural traditions. More family traditions, that's what's important to me. It's just that, if we keep holding onto the past, we can't move forward to the future. There has to be a balance of reflecting on and learning from the past, while looking and working forward to the future. But in reality there is no past, no future, only the eternal "now".

We must do what God has created us to do, which is survive, and we find that with proper education most people will take their highest happiness in assisting with that survival.  Lopping the head off of that ambition, we find people increasingly concerned with drugging themselves into happiness.  Men who do not care about humanity will become beasts, and worse than that, they will become livestock because the ambition towards species survival is a large part of what keeps men free.

I don't see how referring to mankind as mankind deprives me of a future, but it does help stabilise society and ground it in common sense instead of winging it off into the stratosphere of politically correct Newspeak.

[Soulfire]

Newspeak? Double-plus ungood analogy, comrade!

Kidding, but I LOVE that book. I've read "1984", like, ten times, and it wasn't until my freaking FIFTH reading that I realized that there had been a nuclear war. You learn and hear something new every time you read that book. I understand what you mean by political correctness, of course, because, if taken to extremes, it gets REALLY annoying, REALLY fast. I'm just asking for a bit of gender equality in the language is all because I'm a moderate feminist. Note, though: moderate. Not extreme or militant. I don't really believe in taking a militant stance on anything except for love, which of its nature is powerful, but not violent.

What we were "created" to do is a little more subjective than that, I think. If it weren't, once we had bred, we would die, because our genetic purpose had been lived out and there would be no more use for us. If our sole purpose on Earth is to be fruitful and multiply, well, that's awfully boring. One need not bother with thinking and feeling so much as with f*cking, which is fun in the moment I'm sure, but boring in the grand scheme of things. I'm more than just a baby maker, and so are you, and so is everything else on this planet that has the potential to bear offspring in whatever way that means for that species. I mean, even trees don't die the moment their acorns fall or the moment their keys spread, you know? I think the purpose of life is to make your own damn purpose in life, and to live that purpose. For me, personally, my highest happiness comes from one of two things:

1. Spending time with the people I love

2. Helping others

I'm not seeing anything about procreation in there, unless you count my time spent with my boyfriend merely a "dance towards procreation", shall we say. You'll notice, though, that thought I am not interested in living forever, nor would I wish that curse upon anyone decent, I'm not an indecent person, intent upon drugging myself to oblivion or else ruining the lives of others. I know you weren't talking about me specifically, and that you weren't trying to make a blanket statement either, but it was a bit reductionist what you said, no offense.

PS: Speaking from a purely medical standpoint, narcotics are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too good to be good for you. You be careful around that kind of shit.  

[RichardY]

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

[Donnadogsoth]

13 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Newspeak? Double-plus ungood analogy, comrade!

Kidding, but I LOVE that book. I've read "1984", like, ten times, and it wasn't until my freaking FIFTH reading that I realized that there had been a nuclear war. You learn and hear something new every time you read that book. I understand what you mean by political correctness, of course, because, if taken to extremes, it gets REALLY annoying, REALLY fast. I'm just asking for a bit of gender equality in the language is all because I'm a moderate feminist. Note, though: moderate. Not extreme or militant. I don't really believe in taking a militant stance on anything except for love, which of its nature is powerful, but not violent.

What we were "created" to do is a little more subjective than that, I think. If it weren't, once we had bred, we would die, because our genetic purpose had been lived out and there would be no more use for us. If our sole purpose on Earth is to be fruitful and multiply, well, that's awfully boring. One need not bother with thinking and feeling so much as with f*cking, which is fun in the moment I'm sure, but boring in the grand scheme of things. I'm more than just a baby maker, and so are you, and so is everything else on this planet that has the potential to bear offspring in whatever way that means for that species. I mean, even trees don't die the moment their acorns fall or the moment their keys spread, you know? I think the purpose of life is to make your own damn purpose in life, and to live that purpose. For me, personally, my highest happiness comes from one of two things:

1. Spending time with the people I love

2. Helping others

I'm not seeing anything about procreation in there, unless you count my time spent with my boyfriend merely a "dance towards procreation", shall we say. You'll notice, though, that thought I am not interested in living forever, nor would I wish that curse upon anyone decent, I'm not an indecent person, intent upon drugging myself to oblivion or else ruining the lives of others. I know you weren't talking about me specifically, and that you weren't trying to make a blanket statement either, but it was a bit reductionist what you said, no offense.

PS: Speaking from a purely medical standpoint, narcotics are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too good to be good for you. You be careful around that kind of shit.  

I'm not making that concession, whether you're a moderate feminist or not.  "Mankind" is not only traditionally accurate where by everyone knows what we're talking about, it's spiritually accurate as men tend to be the explorers, adventurers, and leaders of the race.  Keeping "mankind" in my vocabulary also expands my vocabulary instead of shrinking it, which gives me more options when describing or referencing it.

I didn't say "procreate," I said "survive," as in, survive as a species.

You still haven't given a serial killer who has "made his own damn purpose in life" a good reason not to be a serial killer.

[Soulfire]

In this case, Donna, as in the case of any species, procreation and survival are essentially equal to one another. How can we survive, after all, without breeding? Or, rather, without creating a younger generation, as IVF is a thing, but at any rate, we need to propagate the species in order for it to survive. That's why the survival and the sex instincts are so basic in the hierarchy of needs. In large part, they go together.

And alright, you don't have to make that concession so long as you don't get me to say "man" in place of "human". We can work together that way. I don't really care much. Like I said, moderate, not militant.

I think serial killers are made, not born. I do believe in John Locke's idea of "tabula rasa", but I also believe that, aside from the mind being a blank slate, the soul is intrinsically good, so all things are born intrinsically good. Since I'm a Pantheist that also applies to animals and plants and such. I mean, the Bible is one HELL of a flawed set of books, but even in the Genesis myths there, at every stage of "creation", God sees that everything is good. Like I say, flawed set of books but I do like the authors' logic in that particular case. So in terms of serial killers, is it not the case that they are corrupted into such a form by uncaring individuals who raise them and spend time with them? This isn't a gender-biased thing either--both the mother and father, or the absence thereof, can screw a kid up. But in terms of the whole serial killer argument, in short, I think they have to be made into that, rather than being born with such a purpose. Besides, I don't believe we're BORN with an intrinsic purpose. Like I say, we have to make our purpose, but our surroundings can either help or hinder us in the creation thereof.

Also, Richard, this point here is directed at you and not Donna, but I appreciate that quote. Like, when my hydrocephalus used to act up, it wasn't because my body is evil and out to get me. It was what it was, without intention or sentience. So no evil or good there. But in terms of people causing other people pain, the same principle applies: there has to be a negative intention present for it to be evil, I think. That's the Buddhist point of view, anyway, though the Jains would say something different: that to cause pain is evil, either intentionally or unintentionally, because even if it's not intentional, you're guilty of being careless (i.e. stepping on a bug you didn't know was underfoot, that sort of thing).

[Donnadogsoth]

16 hours ago, Soulfire said:

In this case, Donna, as in the case of any species, procreation and survival are essentially equal to one another. How can we survive, after all, without breeding? Or, rather, without creating a younger generation, as IVF is a thing, but at any rate, we need to propagate the species in order for it to survive. That's why the survival and the sex instincts are so basic in the hierarchy of needs. In large part, they go together.

And alright, you don't have to make that concession so long as you don't get me to say "man" in place of "human". We can work together that way. I don't really care much. Like I said, moderate, not militant.

I think serial killers are made, not born. I do believe in John Locke's idea of "tabula rasa", but I also believe that, aside from the mind being a blank slate, the soul is intrinsically good, so all things are born intrinsically good. Since I'm a Pantheist that also applies to animals and plants and such. I mean, the Bible is one HELL of a flawed set of books, but even in the Genesis myths there, at every stage of "creation", God sees that everything is good. Like I say, flawed set of books but I do like the authors' logic in that particular case. So in terms of serial killers, is it not the case that they are corrupted into such a form by uncaring individuals who raise them and spend time with them? This isn't a gender-biased thing either--both the mother and father, or the absence thereof, can screw a kid up. But in terms of the whole serial killer argument, in short, I think they have to be made into that, rather than being born with such a purpose. Besides, I don't believe we're BORN with an intrinsic purpose. Like I say, we have to make our purpose, but our surroundings can either help or hinder us in the creation thereof.

Also, Richard, this point here is directed at you and not Donna, but I appreciate that quote. Like, when my hydrocephalus used to act up, it wasn't because my body is evil and out to get me. It was what it was, without intention or sentience. So no evil or good there. But in terms of people causing other people pain, the same principle applies: there has to be a negative intention present for it to be evil, I think. That's the Buddhist point of view, anyway, though the Jains would say something different: that to cause pain is evil, either intentionally or unintentionally, because even if it's not intentional, you're guilty of being careless (i.e. stepping on a bug you didn't know was underfoot, that sort of thing).

Reproducing the human species requires two things.  One, to biologically procreate, and two, to reproduce the culture of universal principle that allows society to function.  Just having babies is not enough to advance or even maintain a civilisation, the new generation has to be educated properly in how the civilisation works and their innate creativity needs to be fostered so that new advances will be made.  Biology and culture together fall under what we can call expanded socialist reproduction.

You've just admitted you don't think anyone is born to do anything in particular, so you can't have a meaningful conception of evil.  If there is no human nature, there is no way to violate that nature.

You still haven't given a reason why a serial killer shouldn't serially kill, you've just dodged the question by waffling about how serial killers are made.

[Soulfire]

I don't believe that societal reproduction through nurture is essential to the survival of humanity. For example, if I ever have children, I fully intend to raise them as Pantheists with the knowledge that they and the Universe are entirely, and irrevocably, one, thereby instilling the values of universal love, as well as compassion and pacifism. There is no universal human nature, which is an idea that I could aid in reinforcing by raising my children to not value the bullshit that society values in terms of dominance, hedonism, and hate of the so-called "other". Unfortunately, serial killers are MADE, not BORN, and I believe that it is an overload of the negative aspects of society that make them, those being the aforementioned dominance, hedonism, and hate, all of which stem from fear, even if an unconscious fear. Fear of loss is the greatest human fear. A serial killer's mind may be so highly perverted by fear that they believe that murder is a gain, reinforcing the animalistic sense of dominance that comes from our lower nature, from when we were still animals, living in a kill-or-be-killed environment. There is no UNIVERSAL human nature, no, but as animals are much less diverse and complex, if one gives into the instincts that still pervade from our long-passed ancestral lineage, then that person in turn becomes as simple and fearful as an animal. Animals work on instinct alone, and that is what causes a serial killer to do as they do. I can't say why a serial killer SHOULDN'T do as they do, because in their case there is no "should" or "shouldn't" involved. After all, would you hold a wolf culpable for eating a rabbit?   

[Donnadogsoth]

If so, there is no good or evil, which means there is no reason not to raise our children to be wolves.

[Soulfire]

Lovely to see you, Miss Donna! I'm all happy right now because I'm young and in love and he's not even RICH! So yay for me not being a gold digger! He took me out for a LOVELY night last night and I'm still kind of high on oxytocin, even the day after. God alive though is he ever smart, and pretty, and articulate, and brilliant, and...okay, I'm ranting now, but still, YAY! 

Now then...  

Subjectively that may be true, but you have to think of it from the objective standpoint. I might not think that there is any such thing as, say, an objective purpose to life, but many, many other people do: the religious ones say it's to serve God in whatever way that means, the Atheists might say it's for the sake of breeding the next generation, and so on and so forth. However, because of this illusion of objectivity in the world, an illusion into which many people buy, I think it's fair to say that society would see it as wrong for parents to bring their kids up for the sake of killing other people. However, it is society itself that creates the serial killer phenomenon, because, as I said, it's the dominance genes and the fear of being dominated (very animalistic) that society instills in us that has the potential to turn so many heads. All politicians and all generals and all warlords who have ever called a war or participated in a war are serial killers, of course. I know we never really think of it that way but it's true: war is sanctioned serial murder, nothing more. Most politicians have issues with narcissism (Trump himself has been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder; again, not uncommon in politicians but since he's now the big boy on the playground I just thought I'd point that out), and things like that always come from fear. Narcissism, just as one example, is not heightened self love, but is in fact an inferiority complex in a very poor disguise.

[Donnadogsoth]

Your New Age blather misses the point, which is that according to you God has no preferences, and therefore being a serial killer is as good as being anything else.

 

You're also being highly insulting (to yourself, I suppose) by dismissing the efforts of all the patriots throughout all of history who lent, and in many cases lost, their lives defending their countries from the aggressions of wicked invaders.  But, hey, if we're all God, there's no sense worrying about who dies or is "serially murdered by generals and warlords" given that there is no such thing as death, just an endless sadomasochistic dance punctuated by oxytocin highs.

[Soulfire]

 Now, now, don't you go using my oxytocin high against me as part of your argument. So I found a bloke who makes me happy. Is that an issue...? Also stepping a little baby toe across the ad homonym line, but I'm in a good mood so I don't give a feck.  

No, I never said anything about the soldiers themselves. They were brave, of course, and still are. They are guiltless in that they would have been murdered by the real snakes if they had refused to go to war, or else incarcerated and labeled as treasonous. Don't you see the double-bind here? Either go to war in the name of your masters (the politicians, also known as the serial killers I was talking about), and kill or be killed, with is highly detrimental to the soul and the psyche and the body, and to your present and your future, regardless of the outcome of whatever war you fight in, OR, as your second option, you become a pacifist or conscientious objector and you get thrown in jail or else shot by your own side because you refused to play the game, the creation of which you had no part in, and the continuation of which you are forced to take part in. It's a barbaric and exceptionally outdated system because it goes to show, once again, that any who have power become like animals, desperate for one more scrap.  

 

[Soulfire]

PS: Okay, not nit-picking, this is an important distinction: you call me a New Ager and I am NOT a New Ager. I'm a Pantheist. Trust me when I say that those are very different things. New Age is all about crystal healing and those shitty self help books, which, as George Carlin (PBUH) famously said, are redundant because if you could help yourself you wouldn't need a self help book. I've read shit like "The Secret" and it didn't agree with me at all. It was terrible. New Age sees God as the source of everything, and, thankfully, does see God as a force rather than an entity, but that's all it has going for it. Pantheism states that everything really is God, rather than God just being the origin, and Pantheism doesn't say anything about that jabber-blabber about the so-called secret. We also don't believe in crystal healing because, cool though that may be, would you ever honestly trust a crystal to, say, reduce the size of your father's massive chest tumor? Not if you're smart. I do believe in the placebo effect's usability but not for the sake of actually removing an illness. It can just change your mind to minimize your symptoms. So yes, all of that is...well...let's say that Pantheism is to New Age as red is to pink. Pink is watered down red. But then you might also throw some brown in there or something because New Age is a perversion of Pantheism, and I'm not sure whether I agree with that. I'm all for religious offshoots but not when they only exist for the sake of selling useless garbage, namely crystals and false ideas.

PSS: Can you tell that I get uppity about this? LOL.

[Donnadogsoth]

52 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

 Now, now, don't you go using my oxytocin high against me as part of your argument. So I found a bloke who makes me happy. Is that an issue...? Also stepping a little baby toe across the ad homonym line, but I'm in a good mood so I don't give a feck.  

No, I never said anything about the soldiers themselves. They were brave, of course, and still are. They are guiltless in that they would have been murdered by the real snakes if they had refused to go to war, or else incarcerated and labeled as treasonous. Don't you see the double-bind here? Either go to war in the name of your masters (the politicians, also known as the serial killers I was talking about), and kill or be killed, with is highly detrimental to the soul and the psyche and the body, and to your present and your future, regardless of the outcome of whatever war you fight in, OR, as your second option, you become a pacifist or conscientious objector and you get thrown in jail or else shot by your own side because you refused to play the game, the creation of which you had no part in, and the continuation of which you are forced to take part in. It's a barbaric and exceptionally outdated system because it goes to show, once again, that any who have power become like animals, desperate for one more scrap.  

 

Again, who cares?  Who cares if a system is "barbaric" or "outdated"?  Who cares if men kill each other in war, or are shot for being pacifists?  What difference does it make if it is just God doing the killing and the "dying"?  It's just God being an asshole to himself, but since he doesn't have preferences, it's really a matter of indifference, so why call anything barbaric and outdated?  Why use loaded language like "serial killer" to describe the actions of God in sending himself to kill himself?

 

Your oxytocin high is a joke.  You are in love with yourself, not with someone else.  Your love is a lie, by your own terms of belief.

[Soulfire]

And now we have the full foot across the ad homonym line. I know why you're doing it though: if I don't have preferences, I shouldn't ever be angry. Unfortunately, I'm also human. I'm not pissed QUITE yet, but I wonder whether you can guess which button to push to get me there? You'll love me when I'm mad because I get about five times as articulate as I am now. It's quite fun. For me. Less so for the people I get pissed at. But yes, being human, I do have preferences, and trust me, this one's a damn keeper. Now then...

Here's the thing: we can only act our Godhead when we realize, both intellectually and emotionally (i.e. engaging both sides of the brain here) that we are God. Until we collectively grasp that, we are collectively fecked. The problem is, because we fail to grasp it, we give our power away to people who know it even LESS, or else they wouldn't grasp for power because they would know that they are powerful just by being who and what they are, regardless of their possessions and power and weapons and alliances. "Common" people do that sort of thing on a small scale but when you get the big egos combined with big power, and more influence than any one person should have, you get a ghastly mess indeed. But it's a self-perpetuating cycle: people rise to power, the power corrupts them at some point during that ascension, and then they corrupt themselves further while corrupting what is around them. It's a sad cycle and I honestly don't know how to break it, except to instill in anyone I meet that they don't have to grasp for the power they already have simply by virtue of being alive and sentient. We don't have to be tied to that lower part of ourselves that strives for dominance. We are already "It", capital I, which is the very Being of God.   

[Soulfire]

PS: You can insult me all you like, by the way. That's not the real "line". And I might have a bit of an oversized head at times but I really do love the one I'm talking about. So you be good.

[RichardY]

Just a few thoughts and opinions.

Trump (imo): "Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this sun of York". Apparently Trump AND Hilary(just did a search) are related to Richard III through the John of Gaunt line. Maybe Trump is a bit narcissistic and egotistic I don't see how that is a problem, personality and the gene war ideas perhaps.

John Locke: Tabula Rasa, disagree with that. Agree with the unconscious having primordial instincts perhaps even memories. Though disagree with Freud's enlightened few, don't think the unconscious is all immoral, though haven't read enough to make a final decision.

Enlightenment: Everything is God, you are the God Head(Pantheism). Asylum (1972) "You have nothing to lose but your mind.".

Enlightenment (Part II): What I think it involves. Getting into contact somehow with the unconscious mind, perhaps through breaking down the Ego or maybe increasing the abilities of the unconscious. At any rate I think there is some equilibrium involved. How and where to step on the gas or starve the engine, haven't decided on, kind of curious though.

Power: Based on lies and the lack of an authentic self.

Other thoughts/Observations: Pantheists imo usually outperform Physicalists and generally people of higher consciousness(which is neither good nor bad), with superior language abilities. Contrasting this forum with Actualized.org another forum, that has been my general observation.

 

 

 

[Soulfire]

RichardY, good to see you, sir! How have you been? Thanks for coming and adding a little diversity to this: I had begun to feel that Donna and I were the only ones left. What do you think, though? I get the sense that our chat, mine and Donna's, has kind of begun to go off the rails. I won't say that she's intentionally antagonizing me because she's cruel. It's more of an experiment on her part, to see whether I'm as one with the Godhead. For future reference, I'm NOT, or else I'd be smarter than I am. I know that in reality all things are one with It but at the same time, you have to know it both mentally and emotionally to really "get it". I've only known it emotionally a few times and never been able to make it stick. It's what I was calling a "holy shit moment", see? They can happen at really random times too. Some of them make sense in terms of timing, like the first time I heard a lecture by Alan Watts, the first time I held both my nieces (like, I mean, separately, after each was born), when I realized I was in love, things like that. Those kinds of "holy shit moments" make sense, but then I had one late in the fall of last year where I was just standing in the rain, but suddenly everything began to look and feel just perfect, entirely unified, whole, and complete. That was a very quiet "holy shit moment" but they can, in my experience, take many forms. It's just that back-of-your-head moment of realization that you are one with everything. I like those moments but I can't MAKE them happen. Mind you, that kind of adds a layer of fun to it, because you can never predict when your own Godhead will creep up on you.

[Donnadogsoth]

12 hours ago, Soulfire said:

PS: You can insult me all you like, by the way. That's not the real "line". And I might have a bit of an oversized head at times but I really do love the one I'm talking about. So you be good.

Yes, you love your oversized head, I understand that.  You're God and you have no preferences but you're also a human with preferences and would prefer to remain that way instead of ballooning off into the stratosphere.

You're not answering the questions I gave you, but perhaps you'll answer this one:

What are the political implications of your worldview?  Other than generals and warlords are meanies?

[RichardY]

5 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

RichardY, good to see you, sir! How have you been? Thanks for coming and adding a little diversity to this: I had begun to feel that Donna and I were the only ones left. What do you think, though? I get the sense that our chat, mine and Donna's, has kind of begun to go off the rails. I won't say that she's intentionally antagonizing me because she's cruel. It's more of an experiment on her part, to see whether I'm as one with the Godhead. For future reference, I'm NOT, or else I'd be smarter than I am. I know that in reality all things are one with It but at the same time, you have to know it both mentally and emotionally to really "get it". I've only known it emotionally a few times and never been able to make it stick. It's what I was calling a "holy shit moment", see? They can happen at really random times too. Some of them make sense in terms of timing, like the first time I heard a lecture by Alan Watts, the first time I held both my nieces (like, I mean, separately, after each was born), when I realized I was in love, things like that. Those kinds of "holy shit moments" make sense, but then I had one late in the fall of last year where I was just standing in the rain, but suddenly everything began to look and feel just perfect, entirely unified, whole, and complete. That was a very quiet "holy shit moment" but they can, in my experience, take many forms. It's just that back-of-your-head moment of realization that you are one with everything. I like those moments but I can't MAKE them happen. Mind you, that kind of adds a layer of fun to it, because you can never predict when your own Godhead will creep up on you.

I've been listening to Carl Jung "Modern man in Search of a Soul" on Youtube. Kind of interesting really, in Part 6 he talks about how to live a fruitful life for a youth is not to seek Enlightenment but to bring about greater consciousness. I guess that is world we live in the West. Talks about God being paternal as well which I'm guessing you'd disagree with. Still to bring about some sort of spirit, which imo is lacking in West and in myself that would be something at any rate. It doesn't seem to be lacking in yourself, just don't burn up....

[Soulfire]

Donna, I'm all the different religions at once, right? That means I'm also a Daoist, and Daoists believe in duality consciousness. Hindus do too, to a certain extent, at least in Shaivist circles, and the whole thing about the Chakras (my personal Yoga) is to awaken to the knowledge that you are God. I'm not there YET. Give me time. I'm a human with preferences in the now, but I am God without preferences in the eternal scheme of things. You're God too, by the way, and so is everything else, which, if you think about it, is the least egotistical thing to say because you realize that everything is equal, from the mud to the stars. Trust me, when I say I'm God, it's not an ego trip. I don't know whether you get that though. Either that or you do and you're just trying to see if you can piss me off by being all contrary. Good luck with that. I told you, there's only ONE button you can push on me to make me go mental and you haven' pushed it yet. Family. That's my button. Insult my family and your ass is grass. That statement applies to everyone, though, not just you.

RichardY, is it not safe to assume that Enlightenment and a greater consciousness are kind of the same thing? Then again, I shouldn't talk, because I'm not overly familiar with Jung. But no, I don't disagree that God is paternal. I just believe that It is maternal as well, along with every other kind of relationship you could have, not just the top-down ones like parent to child or king/queen to subject. I worship Vishnu, but I worship Him as Krishna in His child form. I like Krishna much more as an infant than as an adult, because as an adult, He basically becomes the mouthpiece for the Brahmana's agenda of enforcing the Varnas. As a child, though, Krishna was so captivating that no one could help but love Him, and He was killing demons before He could even walk or speak. Those are some awesome stories. I think I prefer God in general as the gentler incarnations of Itself. You can see that with my picture, with Krishna there acting as the Gopa (cow-herder), which is a very domestic, pastoral, and calming side of God. Mind you, Shiva certainly gets the job done as well, as you can see in the iconography of Him dancing on the dead body of the dwarf that represents ignorance. That's Shiva Nataraja (King of the Dance), which is my favourite incarnation of Shiva. You'd know that image in a second if you saw it: the one where He's surrounded by a ring of flames, you know?

[Donnadogsoth]

4 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Donna, I'm all the different religions at once, right? That means I'm also a Daoist, and Daoists believe in duality consciousness. Hindus do too, to a certain extent, at least in Shaivist circles, and the whole thing about the Chakras (my personal Yoga) is to awaken to the knowledge that you are God. I'm not there YET. Give me time. I'm a human with preferences in the now, but I am God without preferences in the eternal scheme of things. You're God too, by the way, and so is everything else, which, if you think about it, is the least egotistical thing to say because you realize that everything is equal, from the mud to the stars. Trust me, when I say I'm God, it's not an ego trip. I don't know whether you get that though. Either that or you do and you're just trying to see if you can piss me off by being all contrary. Good luck with that. I told you, there's only ONE button you can push on me to make me go mental and you haven' pushed it yet. Family. That's my button. Insult my family and your ass is grass. That statement applies to everyone, though, not just you.

RichardY, is it not safe to assume that Enlightenment and a greater consciousness are kind of the same thing? Then again, I shouldn't talk, because I'm not overly familiar with Jung. But no, I don't disagree that God is paternal. I just believe that It is maternal as well, along with every other kind of relationship you could have, not just the top-down ones like parent to child or king/queen to subject. I worship Vishnu, but I worship Him as Krishna in His child form. I like Krishna much more as an infant than as an adult, because as an adult, He basically becomes the mouthpiece for the Brahmana's agenda of enforcing the Varnas. As a child, though, Krishna was so captivating that no one could help but love Him, and He was killing demons before He could even walk or speak. Those are some awesome stories. I think I prefer God in general as the gentler incarnations of Itself. You can see that with my picture, with Krishna there acting as the Gopa (cow-herder), which is a very domestic, pastoral, and calming side of God. Mind you, Shiva certainly gets the job done as well, as you can see in the iconography of Him dancing on the dead body of the dwarf that represents ignorance. That's Shiva Nataraja (King of the Dance), which is my favourite incarnation of Shiva. You'd know that image in a second if you saw it: the one where He's surrounded by a ring of flames, you know?

No, you're not an egotist, you're an omnist.

Why would I insult your family?

You haven't answered my question about politics.  You dodged that question like you dodged the others, substituting instead more blather about your religious mentality that I don't care about except to note that it is amoral and flaky.

[Soulfire]

LOL, sorry, I didn't mean to dodge that question actually. I just kind of forgot to answer it because I'm stupid today.

ANYWAY, my political views? I'm a pacifist, obviously, so I don't like the politicians who are all about war and shit, because that's just dumb and a total waste of time, money, life, and effort that could otherwise be used for much more productive things. Also a waste of the scientific fields because they could be putting their energy into finding cures for cancer and stuff, not that the military development field is related to biology, but anyway...

Omnist? Ooo, I like that. That works for me. Omnist, Pantheist, whatever. I don't care much about the label though I do know what I like and what I don't, I guess. Accuracy works though, which is why Omnist works. Lilly learned a new word today!

And I know you wouldn't diss my family, but you kind of crept into that territory when you were being all like, "You don't love him, you love yourself." Whatever, though. We're cool, we're cool.

 

[Soulfire]

PS: If you mean my more specific political views, I'm a leftist. Dad calls me a communist but he's joking about that. Mind you, I don't think America knows this, but the early Christians, the ones they idealize, were all communists by their own definition, because they all lived together and shared all of their possessions in common. "Commune", to live in a common place, but also "commune" as a verb, which is like meeting together and making all decisions in common as well. That didn't quite work once Peter and Paul got too involved with things, wanting to be the bosses of the operation while using God as their mouthpiece. That wasn't cool. But at least there were a lot more women in charge of things back then as well, until Paul really got going, and until guys like Jerome and Augustine got involved, albeit much later in the timeline. But yeah, I'm a leftist. But other than my general affiliation, I couldn't really give a rat's butt about politics, at least not where I live, where people generally leave well enough alone, thank God. At least in the municipal spheres, anyway.

[Donnadogsoth]

22 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

LOL, sorry, I didn't mean to dodge that question actually. I just kind of forgot to answer it because I'm stupid today.

ANYWAY, my political views? I'm a pacifist, obviously, so I don't like the politicians who are all about war and shit, because that's just dumb and a total waste of time, money, life, and effort that could otherwise be used for much more productive things. Also a waste of the scientific fields because they could be putting their energy into finding cures for cancer and stuff, not that the military development field is related to biology, but anyway...

So, what would you do if someone came to hurt people you care about?  Would you fight to defend them or would you do nothing?

[RichardY]

19 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

PS: If you mean my more specific political views, I'm a leftist. Dad calls me a communist but he's joking about that. Mind you, I don't think America knows this, but the early Christians, the ones they idealize, were all communists by their own definition, because they all lived together and shared all of their possessions in common. "Commune", to live in a common place, but also "commune" as a verb, which is like meeting together and making all decisions in common as well. That didn't quite work once Peter and Paul got too involved with things, wanting to be the bosses of the operation while using God as their mouthpiece. That wasn't cool. But at least there were a lot more women in charge of things back then as well, until Paul really got going, and until guys like Jerome and Augustine got involved, albeit much later in the timeline. But yeah, I'm a leftist. But other than my general affiliation, I couldn't really give a rat's butt about politics, at least not where I live, where people generally leave well enough alone, thank God. At least in the municipal spheres, anyway.

I know that about the Christians. Stefan did a presentation on the first Jamestown Settlers "The Truth about Thanksgiving"(I think), a large number starved to death. There's also people in the western Canadian provinces with Ukrainian ancestry that settled land after fleeing mass starvation and purges in the Soviet Union.

[Soulfire]

Donna, I'm also a Jain, so I would remove my family from that situation as best I could. If I could avoid it, I would not fight with the person trying to hurt them. I would just shepherd them out. Mind you, I'm also one of the youngest in my family, so let's say it's my nieces under threat here rather than, like, my parents, who would be the ones to defend me rather than the other way around. But yeah, if it were my nieces, I'd just scoop them up and run like feck.

RichardY, Jamestown was a collective...? Sorry; confused.

[RichardY]

"What Pisses Me Off About Thanksgiving" Stefan did a video on it. They pooled their resources in a form of a cooperative and farm labour being hard work they got lazy(plus every man for himself and family) and ate their seed crop.

[Soulfire]

Yeah...kind of a bad idea if you don't know how to work the land properly yet. I'd rather get the info from you than Stefan, frankly, because he pisses me off. A lot. Sometimes. Actually no, it's more like 75% of the time he pisses me off, but sometimes I agree with things he says. It's not often though. The problem with them pooling their resources, though, was that they didn't honestly have enough resources to go around that way, and especially since they didn't listen to the Native Americans, who actually know the land and were very much willing to help them (FYI, Native civilizations were at that time collectivist as well). Take the cranberry thing as an example. The Natives tried to give them cranberries to help them avoid scurvy, which is a lack of Vitamin C, but the settlers thought they were trying to poison them, so a lot of them did die or at least get sick from scurvy. That though, that right there, that's a prime example of the whole "We're better than you" mentality, which is, as I have previously stated, bullshit.

[Donnadogsoth]

38 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Donna, I'm also a Jain, so I would remove my family from that situation as best I could. If I could avoid it, I would not fight with the person trying to hurt them. I would just shepherd them out. Mind you, I'm also one of the youngest in my family, so let's say it's my nieces under threat here rather than, like, my parents, who would be the ones to defend me rather than the other way around. But yeah, if it were my nieces, I'd just scoop them up and run like feck.

RichardY, Jamestown was a collective...? Sorry; confused.

If one of your relatives were about to be raped, and you had a gun, you're telling me you wouldn't shoot the rapist?

[RichardY]

8 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Yeah...kind of a bad idea if you don't know how to work the land properly yet. I'd rather get the info from you than Stefan, frankly, because he pisses me off. A lot. Sometimes. Actually no, it's more like 75% of the time he pisses me off, but sometimes I agree with things he says. It's not often though. The problem with them pooling their resources, though, was that they didn't honestly have enough resources to go around that way, and especially since they didn't listen to the Native Americans, who actually know the land and were very much willing to help them (FYI, Native civilizations were at that time collectivist as well). Take the cranberry thing as an example. The Natives tried to give them cranberries to help them avoid scurvy, which is a lack of Vitamin C, but the settlers thought they were trying to poison them, so a lot of them did die or at least get sick from scurvy. That though, that right there, that's a prime example of the whole "We're better than you" mentality, which is, as I have previously stated, bullshit.

In terms of agriculture in Europe, England does have the some of the highest yields in the World per acre(highest wheat yield in the world per acre in the area I live), even today despite being a northern country, Viking settlers were often in search of good land (York or Jorvik, means the bay with good soil). The settlers or at least the governor would have had cattle which would have provided nitrogen, an advantage the Native Americans didn't have.

Some Native Americans did have the three sisters method of agriculture(Maize, Squash & Beans) Though yields would have been scarce and movement necessary. Hunting would have been necessary to get enough calories imo. Though Cranberries grow in swamps and I'd imagine much of the area to be covered with forest.

Personally I think the Native American way of life is fine, especially with modern technology.... Don't have so many people, take what you want from the land. Though they are massively corrupted by reservations and welfare programs in Canada and the USA.

Yeah Stefan can be annoying sometimes, but he's the only person I've found on the Internet to be showing perhaps uncomfortable truths in a fairly effective manner.