What does the Christian God want from us?

I suppose you could compare a spirit to a subatomic particle, at least in terms of how it interacts with the physical universe. That's essentially what I mean. A being that cannot be observed directly but can only be inferred by its effects.



I've gotten plenty for myself and from stories from friends of mine, but I've covered that before. The capricious nature of people and consciousness in general (free will and all that) doesn't lend itself well to replicability.



Actually coming up with statistically significant variation from chance hasn't been the problem. Many, many experiments, especially with remote viewing, produce results that wouldn't be seen by pure chance. What has always been the trouble is ruling out any other means by which the information could have reached the viewer, or found its way into the collected results. An interesting link is below on the long-running set of experiments started in the 1970's by Stanford and the CIA. And as is noted in them, statistical variation from chance ins't by itself enough to claim proof of the existence of a particular phenomenon, only that something appears to be going on.

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/psipapers.html

I suppose this thread is about the "Christian God" so maybe it is a bit churlish of me to insist that I personally find any search for fundamental truth in the bible, koran or talmud, for instance, to be a sign of a sad abnegation of the responsibility of being a sentient human.

Searching in such places could only have meaning after a rigorous process had led you to the conclusion that these books were indeed the means of some knowledge being conveyed to us by "the other".

Any discussion intended to include non-believers should concentrate on the evidence for, and reasons to conclude, that this is the case ie that the books are this special. Such a discussion should not take the significance of these books as a given. That is only rational if the audience is limited to believers.

My personal conclusion is that these books, and their advocates, show no signs of any prerogative of revelation and understanding.

More. They follow a common pattern of an original genuine insightful glimpse having been subsequently ill-understood or mis-remembered, and consequently perverted and devalued in the recording and in subsequent elaboration and social-engineering by the sheep who follow.

For me, the material world is indeed misleading as a guide to reality. And intentionally so. If it were accidentally so, we would be saying little, as the accident would just be an extended feature of reality.

But if I (and others) am right - who or what is the agent exercising the intention ?

This becomes the crux of the matter, and generates all the interest in these crazy old books and "bearded gent in the sky who cannot be questioned" codswallop.

I'm sure if you give it a moments thought you will see that there is only one candidate to be the one exercising this intention. Only one candidate whom you know for sure to be capable of "intention" (whatever that actually is) and for whose existence you have absolutely incontravertible evidence.

Do I need to spell it out ?

Yes I know I tucked it at the end of a wordy post. But perhaps I only want those of you with some level of persistence to actually read it.

Next question is why ? Once you know who, thats not too hard to work out either.

By the way, its ok to ignore my posts here. There are deep reasons why it should be expected. This too is a clue once you know "who", and this clue helps to understand "why".

In all seriousness, if you trust me enough to puzzle over my last few paragraphs here, you may suddenly see the light. Traditionally it has always been posed as a conundrum - for good reasons.

And please don't tell me that what I am saying is paradoxical, and in a sense as wrong as it is right. I know. But don't confuse those taking first steps.

I wasn't sure what you were getting at with this the first time around, but now I think I've got where you're coming from, and agree, but not from the same angle. Self deceit is pivotal to any religious belief system in my opinion. The part I'm still struggling with is in what way the material world is misleading as a guide to reality. Instead of trying to lead people into arriving at your hypothesis it would be helpful if you just stated exactly what your hypothesis is. I'm still not entirely clear.

Yes, Chip. I can see you know who the intentional misleader is. Though misleading isn't really quite the right description, is it ?

The next question is why he/she/it might do it.

We could list the possible reasons and consider each. Some are nasty, but don't worry they are wrong.

Are you beginning to see maybe I'm not so crazy ? This impossible taboo topic can be subjected to calm rational analysis provided we are willing to go where it takes us ?

Maybe if we want to consider why it might have been done, we should consider how things would have looked without it ?

Is the material world not beautiful, boounteous, meticulously crafted to exactly meet your needs, even in the pain it puts you through ? The loss, the anguish, the joy, the failure, the hope, the opportunity for love ? I think you see who crafted it ? Is the "why" becoming clearer ?

Sh*t - I'm crying again ?

Do you see it, Chip ? Do you see ?

_________________________________________

To put it too baldly is to devalue it, Chip. Everyone has to see the last bit for themselves, as I think you are doing.

It's not easy to accept directly from another.

It's your final growing-up.

Bit like the death of your last surviving parent.

I'm still not exactly clear about the hypothesis you're trying to make. I think we're coming at this from opposite sides, but I'm not sure about that either. Spill it Ellie hehe.

When talking about the difficulty in sorting out definitive reality, interpretations of what we can observe, and ruminations about what we can't and why, then deception is bound to be a component. Some posit that the material world intentionally contradicts their version of reality as god's way of testing faith. If that view were true then I'd have to think that god is a bit of an ass.

My personal view is that the deception takes place purely in the mind of the believer as they attempt to shoehorn their beliefs into an uncooperative and contrary reality... the first and biggest deception of which is deciding that material reality is beside the point.

I'm afraid I don't get what you're talking about in your latest post, Ellie. I got the previous ones pretty well (I think). Are you postulating that it is the person emself creating the reality? If so, we are in agreement.

A lot would depend on what you mean by reality. To me, reality is basically when two, or more, or pretty much everyone can say, "there's this thing" and all the other parties can observe and agree that this thing is there. By this definition there can be gradations of reality, where what one sees does not entirely align with what someone else has described, or limited realities, where an agreement on something is shared by a few people but others don't see it. We regularly see examples of the latter in SL.

Thing is, it's like the old tree-falling-in-the-forest question. Is there such a thing as a reality outside of what we as beings agree (or disagree) on? There is an added variable: to what extent are you capable of agreeing or disagreeing with things?

I've noticed this phenomenon in action in my own life on what Neil Gaiman poetically referred to as the "soft places" in our knowledge of the world. For example: for years I refused to accept the idea of gender-variance in myself or others. And didn't see much of it in evidence. Once I accepted that this could in fact happen, and that it is a part of my life, it seems I can't turn around without running across a transgendered person. Other examples would be like I would think of some subject I suddenly decide to get interested in, and next thing I know there's articles in the paper about it, or my parents will hand me some info on it, without me ever having asked. Someone earlier referred to it as "believing is seeing". I think this is true, it's just a matter of whether you really believe it or are capable of monitoring your own belief.

Everyone experiences this. It's not that you didn't encounter these things before, it's that you weren't subconsciously on the lookout for them. The whole notion that we create reality by how we perceive it is, to me, an utter crock of new age hogwash. If it were true, wouldn't reality vary widely around the world due to different cultural ideas about the nature of things? But no, the rules of physics and what we can observe about the material world are the same everywhere we go no matter what the people in the vicinity might believe.

I have to ask, why do you think anyone would be truly self-aware? How many times are we told that it is not nature but nurture? Do you not really think that there is a true duality there?

Course you must ask then, is there really other-awareness... If not, that would be a truly lonely world indeed.

I don't expect anyone else to understand, but none of that would make a difference to me, since I do believe in a Christian God. I don't believe it is the fact that He is immaterial that others do not agree with me, I think it is a slant from yet another in the eternal scheme. But then, that is just one drop in the bucket of vagaries (even if I feel mine is not that arbitrary).

Physics is just a small subset of what constitutes reality, and by all appearances is the most solid and unchangeable portion of it. And yet, by experiment we know that the solidity is an illusion created by the overlapping effects of bits of motion, which themselves only have a tendency to exist. On the macroscopic level, though, our agreements are also universal and very, very solid, so things work the same everywhere that we've seen. Disagreeing with that stuff is a very rare ability! As for the rest of reality, there are vast differences in how people perceive the life around them, depending on where you go in the world.

I'm not talking about voluntary believers, Chip.That may or may not come later. I'm making the absurdly ambitious claim that a calm, rational atheist, with no leap of faith, can rationally deduce the true nature of existence, right down to within a hairsbreadth of the last impossible paradoxical nub.

This discussion is well prior to any considerations of organised religion, written revelation etc etc.

I claim that these deductions are relatively simple and straightforward. That the reasons they escape our attention are subtle but powerful, and become obvious when the deduction is complete. And I do mean obvious.

All you have to do is assume things may not be as they seem, consider the possibility that this is intentional, then follow your nose regardless how strange/unpalatable the conclusion might prove to be. Then examine the implications, and have another look at the material world to see if it all fits.

First spot who is responsible, then work out why they did it. Easy as falling off a log. And you quickly see why they don't want you to spot it, and how they have the power to bias you away from accepting the answer. Who quite naturally has such power over you ?

I know I'm being stubbornly cryptic, but not very, if you're willing to think just a little way along the lines I suggest. And there is a long tradition of holding that little last bit back.

Or shall I ask you what is the sound of one hand clapping, instead ?

Where it gets subtler is what comes next, and why the answer is not as unpalatable as may at first appear.

But forget about bibles and believers. We're playing "just how much can we work out for ourselves".

And the answer I give is - "the lot, if you're brave enough and cheeky enough". Cheeky enough to believe in your own capacity to do it. Brave enough to look it in the eye without flinching when you get to it. Its not as bad as it can look at first glimpse.

Though it's not for sheep.

Hence the eensy-weensy bit of crypticality.

Temporarily hypothesize the "if". Spot the "who". Deduce the "why". Re-examine the material world to see if the explanation fits. I think you'll be convinced if you can achieve genuine impartial rationality. Even as a skeptical, rational unbeliever. In fact, that is exactly who this is for, no other need apply.

I don't disagree with any of that, and I still think it acts as adequate proof that we do not define reality by what we think and perceive. Sure, we have pretty solid consensus about the material world now, but that's very recent in human history (and the direct result of science). Before science answered these questions there was no consensus. If, for example, most early people thought that stars were holes in the sky, and belief creates reality, would not stars actually be holes in the sky?

YES. Science is the controlled reintroduction of magic, after we in the West banished it as undesirable. Took a while to get the flying carpets back, didn't it ? The Wright Brothers etc did a grand job

But on the other hand - how real is history anyway ? Reality is like a beautiful complex sculpture. Even a little 3-d earth sculpture can look quite different from different directions. How much more so reality ?

Rotate reality in your hands. See how truth and falsehood, cause and effect will shift and interchange. Scary ? Ok - hold it still in one position and feel more secure. It's no less beautiful.

Or even turn it round to one of the "protective loving God" viewpoints.

Its not surprising so many of us strive to line these up just right, so nothing contradictory can be glimpsed. What looks more reassuring than that ?

Is science creating the consensus on material reality or simply catching up to it and explaining it? I've often pondered that, in light of the myths we have from all over the world. There are stories that explore the idea of one mythology or worldview coming in and dominating another, and thus literally changing the world in the process. One of my favorites in that vein is The Mists of Avalon. That idea has its appeal.

I do think it's the latter though. Science is simply providing a framework for newly understanding a consensus that runs deeper and much more immovably than any cultural ideas imposed on it. It falls very short of accounting for all the observed phenomena, but does an excellent job with the physical stuff.

If you understand, things are as they are. If you do not understand,
things are as they are. - Gensha, Zen Master

Ellie, are you suggesting we are in the Matrix?

Well Ellie, perhaps I'm obtuse, but for the life of me I can't figure out where you're trying to lead me.

For the sake of argument, let's say that observable reality is false and deceptive and is that way for a specific purpose... What is the purpose and who is the deceiver?

We (or more specifically, our brains and senses) are the deceiver. As for purpose, I'd say that the human brain has evolved to perceive what it needs to to meet our basic requirements for survival. Reality is far more complex than we perceive it to be with our basic senses. Why can't we see atoms or quarks with the naked eye? Well, we don't need to. We need to be able to see well enough to distinguish friend from foe, food from poison, predator from prey, and so on. We need to understand the basics of cause and effect ("ow, fire burn!". We need to be able to store information, learn from it, and recall it later. However, our minds are capable of asking questions that our unaided senses can't answer. If the deceiver is someone or something apart from ourselves with the specific intent of obfuscating reality and the ability to do so, wouldn't the first logical thing to do be to nerf our innate ability to imagine things beyond our senses? Wouldn't we still be simple hunter gatherers? Or is the deceiver inept? I go with the latter. The deceiver is inept, by evolutionary design, because most information beyond our senses is superfluous to our basic survival needs.

The popular Christian deceiver would be Satan, who I assume obfuscates reality in order to sow doubt and drive a wedge between god and his "children".

I have a feeling that you're after a different answer than either of those. Feel free to spell it out

Good grief, no, Ananda, nothing so banale.

I think if you and I appear to disagree it's because you are discussing the next, voluntary, deliberate step that can be taken. You have chosen to accept, and make real for yourself, a religion of reassurance and love.

That is a stage beyond what I am trying to discuss, and will often come as a subsequent choice after the fundamentals are realised, and you recognise yourself, and God, for who they really are, and recognise what is happening here. many od course, jump straight to acceptance of an organised religion, trusting the word of others and of books, omitting the intermediate step entirely. A few dwell in the naked understanding, and eschew such comittment, though they see that it would be ok if they fancied it.

The question is - is there a calm rational route by which a logical atheist can discover who he is ? I think so, though I am of course grossly in the minority.

I would like to know. Is any atheist here willing to appraise my suggested thought process, and give me their opinion. Is it possible to remain an atheist whilst seeing God clearly? I think so.

Ok... here's my crack at it. Your first prerequisite though was not believing in God. I don't, not in any personified sense, but I'll ignore that quibble.

-----
So, the true reality is nothingness. All form, time, and space are illusion. They are brought forth by the self. Why? Boredom. Loneliness.

It's good to have friends. Something to do. Stories to tell, and play out with one another.
------

Getting warmer?

----

Let me add a bit, as I may still be jumping out a bit from what you were getting at. This is kind of line with what Chip was saying, but with a more spiritual bent to it. I can't immediately come up with a rationale for why a hypothetical God would want to engage in deceit. But on the individual level, people creating an illusion and sharing it makes for fun and games, and it's so much better and more involving if you can completely believe it. Thus the deceiver is the self.

-----

Oh, whatever. I enjoy this kind of guessing game, but really I think that anyone who appears to be leading some direction without properly explaining it has a motive other than bringing about understanding. It could be lack of ability to explain, having a game, or propping up one's own self-importance as a wiseguy - I mean guru.

-----

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

I realize that this thread is not intended for me, but you do have my curiosity piqued...

Sooooo... lay it on the line Ellie

Thats it - Ananda is there.

You are an immortal, eternal being. In one sense THE immortal eternal being.

You conceal this from yourself. Omnipotence and loneliness are crap. You craft a world so perfectly fitted to your needs (not your desires - thats different) that it fits you like a glove (does it not?). You immerse billions of copies of yourself into this belief system, gifting them ignorance of the true situation.

You while away eternity in the company of the multiple others into whom you have split yourself. Failing, succeeding, hoping, despairing, in multiple beautiful and nauseous universes which offer to purposeless-eternal-you the illusion of purpose, movement, hope, fear, joy, despair. The paradox is - they are not illusions, and nor is the existence of the others. This is not solipsism - it is more subtle.

Since the whole point is to avoid knowing this is happening, you bias your mental processes against accepting it. This is why it seems to be - what ? Stupid ? Too simple ? Offensive? Frightening ? Banale ? Anything to avoid remembering stuff you s deliberately forgot. Check yourself out. You feel the reluctance ? And yet can you deny it is in fact the most complete and convincing logically-based explanation you have ever encountered ? Look how well it fits everything you observe. Ever read it before ? If not, why not ? Isn't it actually rather obvious ?

The only thing you cannot examine is that one impossibility. Unwrapped-up, taken straight, its this. You are impossible. Neither you nor anything else can possibly exist. You are a nothing that made a terrible, beautiful mistake, and imagined it was something. And is now in real difficulty trying unimagine it. Try to quieten your mind and you'll see.

This paradox, the utter impossibilty of what nevertheless irrefutably is, is the closest we can get. Embrace paradox. At root it is what you are.

Which of course is why it always pops up if you try to dig too deep. As physics itself is beginning to discover.

Double-think is the key. Know that you are not this body - it is nothing more than a horse you ride, and one of many, many. And yet, knowing this, put the thought aside, and live this material life wholeheartedly and accepting what comes. You made it for yourself, after all.

See - who is it whose service is perfect freedom ?
Love thy neighbor as thyself ?

What is the temptation in the wilderness ?

Why does he who knows not speak ? (whoops !)

Little teasing glimpses everywhere, and not just in Christian writings ?

Think it through. Bit by bit it all clicks into place. It is all so lovely it is breathtaking. You are NOT alone. God is there if you want him - just embrace the precious, precious ignorance He has endowed you with.

Does He love you ? Should life be fair? Why is suffering and death allowed ? What do you think ? It was all your idea.

I guess you're just trying to weasel out of the responsibility............

Someone has been reading *Conversations With God*....

Who ? Never heard of it. I don't read anything with a hint of significance in case it contaminates my mind. I'm not joking.

I feel better now. I'd never have come up with that in a million years. Fascinating theory, Ellie. Would make a great foundation for a sci fi novel. However, as lovely a philosophical musing as it is, I'm afraid I won't be signing on. Reality is beautiful as it is without embellishment. Life is beautiful precisely because it's so short and death so final.

What I find most fascinating and confounding about religious mythology is that it's at once incredibly arrogant and a thorough selling short of humankind. It says "I am the center of the universe! and "I submit because I am unworthy!" It's a duality I simply don't fathom. Have we such low opinions of ourselves and our potential that we must pretend a higher power is in charge, that we were willed into existance by magic, that an omnipresent and omniscient all-powerful creator being speaks through us or is part of us? I cringe every time I see another human being thank god for their accomplishments, or claim that god saved them from a fire (instead of preventing the fire in the first place!), or that they have a pesonal relationship with God (the pinnacle of name dropping). It's all just too bizarre. So many embellishments when the only truth to most of it is "We don't know... yet."

So I go back to my question, are the effects physcial or only within one's consciousness?



Did you read all the articles at that link? Your conclusions are by no means agreed upon.

Well, we are in agreement on a great many points. I'm not sure there's really a chain of logic that derives these conclusions, though. What I will say is that an unflinching journey into your own mind will indeed bring up much along these lines.

Among the things I've found and experienced:

-What you perceive to be only persists as long as you do not fully examine and get the whole truth of it. Something must contain a lie or an alteration to continue. Get the exact truth of it and it ceases creation.

-Disembodied, coming to hover around my mom and dad-to-be. Deciding that they would be decent parents, assuming the body of their new baby as it was born, and then forgetting that I was anything else for the next 16 years.

-Before the current universe, attempting to make an exact duplicate of myself. I made the copy, and in the instant of the creation, became the copy. I did this a couple of times. I don't have any recall of the persistence of the original, but the possibility exists that there is an Ananda Prime out there somewhere and I'm merely a fax.

------

As for all of us being ultimately, originally the same being, I don't take that leap. I've run across a few incidents in my mind that suggested I was living out more than one life in more than one place at a time, but not that I literally did the whole of creation myself and all the beings in it. That you are me and vice versa. That I think it's all done as a big game we deceive ourselves with does not preclude the possibility that it's "we" and not "I".

Maybe as you suggest I'm still flinching a little. There's lot's more to uncover. It's a process of exploration rather than one of rationale for me.

-----

Drat, where did Ellie's big long post go? That was some interesting stuff.

Absolutely right, Chip. I couldn't agree more. Without death most of the point is gone. Damn clever, huh ?