tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236639220165681993.post3253506560494477928..comments2023-07-25T01:32:51.796-07:00Comments on Beyond Evolution; Is There God After Dawkins?: SELF VS. SENSE OF SELFbeyondevolutionistheregodafterdawkins.blogspotcomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625513549242420865noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236639220165681993.post-70879653562813430132011-06-09T08:50:58.906-07:002011-06-09T08:50:58.906-07:00Rudy,
First please forgive me for taking so long t...Rudy,<br />First please forgive me for taking so long to publish and respond to your comment. I think our understanding of Oneness is different. No one goes kicking and screaming into Oneness. Oneness happens gently and it happens when you are ready for it, when it is the only thing left that you desire. <br />Have you always been a Christian? Are you the same person now that you were before you came to Christ? I would think not. Your sense of who you are has changed and your sense of who people are, at their center, has changed. Viewing all people as God's creations increases your respect for and the honor with which you deal with other people. Things and people that you used to covet with a life and death intensity, in other words, as if there was nothing else in your life worth living for if you could not have this person, or thing, that intensity and the very things that you coveted, have probably also changed. This is part of the process, of a long evolution, if you will, of getting ready for Oneness. I am not ready for Oneness either. I am here writing blogs, raising a family, running a business and doing a whole bunch of things that are important to me now. What I have begun to realize is that whatever is precious in me is precious because it has the spark of the divine in it; and whatever is truly precious and loveable in another is that which comes directly from the divine. When I realize that fully, and I probably wont when I am still in a body that is, of necessity, the source of a whole series of desires, then I will not be pushed, but melt, dissolve, into this Oneness. And once in this Oneness there will be no sense of "hey, I don't want to be stuck with that guy. He's evil." No. He won't be there, and neither will you if still perceive yourself and others as separate. In Oneness there is no separation. There are not separate people or even any separate thing. There are no dividing lines. Our body, brains, as amazing as they are, are created to give us a separate existence and force us into a relationship with the physical world, which is exciting and dramatic. Without them, are consciousness, intelligence and love has no limit. It is not bounded by a body, by a brain, by a particular set of experiences and memories. It's not that we are not aware of those things, its' just that they are no longer our personal property and we have no proprietary interest in them. And, what's more confusing and even ungraspable (for you as well as for me) is that you will still have a solitary sense of self, its just that you and I and every previously separate being will be absorbed into the same solitary sense of self. When we are in our bodies we call that higher self the Self. But when we are out of our bodies and we are completely absorbed in that Self, then we call that higher Self God. And yes, there still will be evil people, and somewhat evil and good people and somewhat good; and the evil people will be completely unaware of our existence; the good people will be aware of it but not ready to finish having their experience of separation, etc. Just as you say that people's narrow sense of self and their selfish desires and covetousness keep them from having a relationship with God, that will still be the case. It's just that at that time we will be an inextricable part of the thing they are missing, waiting patiently for them to evolve to the point where they can join Us. But that is a long, long, way off. At least that's how I see it.Matt Chaithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16016063540948394841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236639220165681993.post-2292069804947479202010-08-20T23:30:29.993-07:002010-08-20T23:30:29.993-07:00TO be honest, I am very concerned about those who ...TO be honest, I am very concerned about those who hold the "WE are all ONE" view. ONe world government, one world order, one world religion, is a little too Brave New World and 1984ish for me. It <br /><br />is our<br />distinctions that indeed make the Universe a beautiful place. OUr distinctions are our differences<br />and it is these differences that make the world an interesting place. I believe it is our <br />distinctions and differences that God wants for his own companionship. God is not capable of all things.<br />For instance GOd can not sin. There is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong. God can not<br />share the companionship with sinful beings. He has provided us a path out of our sin and to enjoy<br />companionship with him. I believe we can accomplish this while keeping our own unique soul and not <br />becoming ONE with God. I will never give up my unique soul to join any ONENESS. I would rather lose<br />the existence of my precious soul than join with any such ONENESS. <br /><br />Just curious, and please don't take this wrong, does it bother you to think of reuniting with evil <br />people at some point in the future as part of some Godhead? It bothers me severely to hold that point<br />of view. Oh and by the way, I did see your latest post on "Does God have a future?". I was <br />impressed beyond words. I always highly respect your writings even though we difer on this ONENESS<br />issue.<br /><br />Take care Matt, <br />RudyRudy5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236639220165681993.post-87973664672153497322008-08-04T20:36:00.000-07:002008-08-04T20:36:00.000-07:00Murenhausen,I do appreciate your comments. What I...Murenhausen,<BR/>I do appreciate your comments. What I wonder about is the laughter, the ha,ha,ha. I hope that it is not a self deprecating laugh, because I think your thoughts are very insightful and I respect them very much. I hope you do too. A lot of the questions that you are posing I do attempt to address in other posts. Please read 'Through The Microscope' and let me know what you think.Matt Chaithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16016063540948394841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236639220165681993.post-15426999763875668782008-08-04T12:30:00.000-07:002008-08-04T12:30:00.000-07:00Again, fascinating stuff... it reminds me of somet...Again, fascinating stuff... it reminds me of something I read about 'consciousness becoming conscious of itself'... <BR/>I'm still not entirely convinced (from my own point of view, I'd like to emphasise) that the idea that 'thoughts need something to think them' provides a complete answer, and not merely a wishful one... there is nothing to prove that 'thoughts' or the Self are anything but a reaction produced as a side-effect of biochemical activity. I might WANT this not to be the case, but that WANT is again a part of the superfluous nature of the biochemical side-effect. The universe exists with or without my WANTS or my SELF. Indeed, there seems very little proof that anything at all that you 'experience' is anything but biochemical activity... the body carries on quite happily 'doing the business', while the brain has created the distraction of 'mind' or 'self' to keep itself from the boredom of regulating 'the machine'...<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure of the benefit of making analogies of 'real world' things or events with what you've already described as 'not a concept'. Comparing fish-out-of-water ideas seems somewhat lacking, as both the fish and the water are physically verifiable components. Where is the SELF, where are we removing it from, and what are we putting it into? Is oxygen a myth to your mind? If not, why should water be a myth to the fish? As I understood it, the problem for the fish is that there is suddenly too much oxygen when it is lifted out of the water and into the boat... accompanied by a change in environmental pressure... If you transferred the fish to a bucket full of hydrochloric acid, I'm sure it wouldn't think it was still swimming in the ocean...<BR/><BR/>The fact that this particular combination of cells is 'me' and that particular combination is 'you' is not the same as saying that this 'house was built' specifically for me or you. Again, the simple fact that this combination is 'me' could be simply because this combination of cells is 'me'. The reaction of the cells, and the accompanying superfluous side-effects, are all part of the cells combining in this particular pattern. For whose benefit? Well, if the cells weren't maintained by 'me' eating and drinking, they would decombine and become something else... because my brain has 'reacted' and 'created' my 'mind' or 'self', a desire to keep the cells in this combination has been 'created'... the desire, however, is entirely unnecessary to the continuation of the cells as either 'me' or something else...<BR/><BR/>Having said all that of course, why do they bother to stay in the same combination!?! Ha ha ha... there 'I' am!!!<BR/><BR/>You say 'Without self your research and conjectures are really about the electrical and chemical processes that serve us and the physical bodies that conduct these processes, without considering the life that is enjoying and experiencing the world through these bodies and is being supported by these processes', but what makes you think that our 'enjoyment' of the world is important? It's important to us as individuals, yes, because we choose to make it important, but it serves no purpose for the ongoing universe. If it does, where is the proof that our enjoyment of the world is necessary?<BR/><BR/>I do like the light-speed idea... I shall certainly read more... thoroughly enjoyable stuff... I hope these comments of mine are far enough away from nonsense to be interesting to someone!!! Other than 'myself', of course! Ha ha ha...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236639220165681993.post-76953865280986488402008-07-19T20:19:00.000-07:002008-07-19T20:19:00.000-07:00Wow! Almost poetic.I tend to think along the lines...Wow! Almost poetic.<BR/><BR/>I tend to think along the lines of planetary development. The planet itself is part of the equipment life uses for experience and growth. I actually wonder if all of the equipment we use for experience was manufactured here. <BR/><BR/>What I am trying to say is, maybe life was placed here as needed at the time it was needed to not just maintain balance, but affect change in the environment to further the planetary development to eventually support equipment needed for Human intelligence.<BR/><BR/>By whatever means our "equipment" came to be, I found this post to be the most intelligent and fully thought out argument for intelligent design I have ever read.<BR/><BR/>One thing I loved while I was reading, is that you don't try to provide an absolute answer to this topic, but you allowed for possibilities. My biggest gripe about "scientists" is that they spend their lives trying to justify their education and their work and therefore cannot truly be open to possibilities. They have to spend their lives trying to prove their wasted education and and can't afford to be tossed out of the scientific community for actually thinking. The very best part of life is the ability to consider the possibilities. What a sad and limited life biologists must lead.<BR/><BR/>What a wonderful read, thanks for sharing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com