How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[surreptitious57]

What do you mean by simplicity? For example atoms were regarded as the simplest objects in the universe
Then there were electrons protons and neutrons and then quarks etc. So what do you mean by simplicity

Atoms were regarded as the simplest objects in the universe because knowledge of subatomic particles was not known at the time
But biology is a better example as all life is descended from a common ancestor and that is single cell non self replicating bacteria
And today the human brain is the most complex organ known to exist. So simplicity and complexity are on a time specific spectrum

Using your non replicating single cell how would that grow into a multi cell lifeform

Self replication is actually the next stage in the evolutionary process as the single
cell divides and multiplies then creates multi cell bacteria which is more complex

[Dontaskme]

Pure awareness is prior to knowingness as knowingness is a byproduct and an abstraction of awareness

Awareness should not come before knowingness if it is more complex since simplicity comes before complexity
not the other way round. Also if one is already aware why abstract it with knowing instead of just letting it be

I'm not talking about complexity or simplicity. Although, that which is complex can be very simple, and that which is simple can be very complex when it comes to absolute understanding.

Knowingness or (awareness of a thought) is when you listen to a thought, you come to realise or recognise you are aware not only of the thought but also of yourself as the witness of the thought. A thought being an appearance in nondual awareness. You become aware you are aware, and aware you are not the thought as the thought arises and disappears in you ..while you do not disappear.

Nondual awareness cannot know itself without the appearance of an object (consciousness)as in become conscious of some thing.

The very act of knowing presupposes the division of knower and known(duality)

You are the knowing, not the condition that is known. For example: you know ( cat) but you cannot know what it is to be a cat. What you are is the permanent nondual emptiness in which all things have their temporal being as impermanence...therefore illusory.

Awareness cannot know itself as an object. Awareness already is this self shining present one... prior to the object which is always of past tense, having never happened.

.

You are not a thing and every thing assumed. It is human nature to be attached to our assumptions.

Without which you are no thing/nothing.

.

[surreptitious57]

Presumably you reject the duality of mind and matter and so can you explain why for you that is a false dichotomy
Also is there any way to demonstrate non duality or is it entirely metaphysical and so beyond the remit of science

[Dontaskme]

Presumably you reject the duality of mind and matter and so can you explain why for you that is a false dichotomy

Not rejecting anything, just simply knowing that the ''mind body organism'' that apparently feels like it belongs to a me.. is not me at all. For I am the inmost Self, which is perpetual awareness, which is not dependent on any other proof [being self-evident]
Knowledge of Self is knowledge as Self.

In other words, there is no me, there's only ''Nondual Life'' appearing as 'me'. It is knowledge that splits what is one into the many..albeit illusory.
The Knower is contrary to all that is known including the body and the mind. While the known are many, limited, changeful, and non-conscious, the knower is one, unlimited, changeless, and self-aware.

Nobody can know God inasmuch as God is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding God can be put, such as ''What is God? Show it to me'' etc.

You cannot show God because the Shower is God.

The Experiencer is God.
The Seer is God.
The functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is God.
The basic residue of reality in every individual is God.


How can we go behind It and say, ''this is God?'' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.

Life belongs to God who is an impersonal supreme being, the primal source from which every object/thing arises as the residue of God.
The world of name and form is revealed to us through the ''self-effulgent'' light of God the impersonal supreme being, the primal source, in the same way that visible things are revealed to sight through the light of the sun. But, whilst the primal source reveals all other objects, no object reveals the primal source.

Also is there any way to demonstrate non duality or is it entirely metaphysical and so beyond the remit of science

NO one can demonstrate what you already are.
Science already understands the concept of Nonduality via knowledge.

Knowledge is comprised solely of language ...an auditory illusion of sound heard as words with meaning..aka the narrative of life. Take away the narrative and all that remains is the the ''self-effulgent'' light of God the impersonal supreme being, the primal source right here and now where it has always been. No proof required.

________________

So just Who or What is this ''Me'' then..?

''I know I am'' is a single experience, recognized by all persons. It consists of two parts: ''I know'' and ''I am''
The ''I am'' can never be an object of ''I know''
Therefore both mean the same thing, and together are an experience in identity.
When knowledge is objectless, it is not the subject either.
These are the only two statements that require no proof.

.

Any questions?

[surreptitious57]

I cannot accept the notion of there being no me or of God being in everything or of knowledge being an illusion
And I also see no reason why reality has to be the manifestation of anything at all other than what it actually is

[ken]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

The reason human beings use the word "him" in reference to God was because when books like the bible were written, usually by men, men were seen as the dominant ones. They described God as a "him", and sadly human beings just never got out of that bad habit.

Yes, that no doubt has something to do with it, as in:

“...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...” (KJV)

Now let’s take that passage and apply the pronoun that you used:

“...So God created man in Its own image, in the image of God created It him; male and female created It them...” (kv)

Sounds a bit awkward and impersonal, don’t you think?

I do NOT think, like you do.

Clearly, the language that humans employ requires some flexibility in our usage of nouns and pronouns. Hence my inquiry regarding the perfect “genderless” word to replace the word “he” or “she,” and especially “it.”

'It' is obviously genderless, whereas 'he' and 'she is obviously not.

However, in your case, ken, because you do seem to view God as an “It”...

(again, as a nebulous form of “Mind” with no singular and “personal” identity)

...then why even use the misleading and “baggage-filled” word “God”?

The word 'God' is only misleading and "baggage-filled" to those who presume to already know what 'God' is when in actuality they do not know.

Why not simply rely entirely on your word “It” as our go-to noun/pronoun?

Let’s see how well that works:

“...So It created man in Its own image, in the image of It created It him; male and female created It them...”

Extremely awkward.

Thus that is the very reason why I do NOT use 'It' the way that you are suggesting here.

Or how about:

“...My It, my It, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Yikes!
_______

A very strange tangent you are trying to go on here.

[ken]

There is no such thing as anyones mind. How many times do I have to say that there is only one Mind before clarification is asked for

I do not accept either of these claims no matter how many times you make them. You may say I am being closed minded but without evidence
for a truth claim it cannot be accepted as true.

How can I prove some thing to you when in the beginning you do not accept it anyway?

If you are not at all open in the beginning, then how can I begin to show evidence? Why not just be open to finding evidence yourself? It is always up to Me to show you what is true?

I did and do not say you are closed minded. That is the words you use. I say you are closed.

And, some times a true claim, without evidence, can be accept as true because the person, them self, is open to finding and seeing the truth all by them self.

By the way 'your acceptance' has no relation to how many times I say some thing. I am just curious as to how many times I have to say some thing before people begin to start asking for clarification. A truly open, thus wise, person asks for clarification. A truly wise person does not instantly dismiss things that could be true or have truth within them. I also wrote that to show just how closed people are when they do not accept some thing. Thus the reference to the how many times before clarification is asked for remark. Human beings will not ask for clarification if they will not accept what is being said. They have closed themselves off from learning more or anew. How closed a person is can be seen in how quickly they are to dismiss things.

And I see you yet again getting frustrated because no one is asking you any clarifying questions

Do you know how you can see this?

Could what you be seeing be somewhat wrong, and/or completely wrong?

By the way how you can see things like this is very much related to how there is only ONE Mind.

Also, I feel a feeling. I do not get and become that feeling. There seems to be a bit here to be learned about feelings.

However instead of waiting for them why not just provide clarifying answers any way. They may not be accepted but you will hopefully be less
frustrated because you will have explained your position more clearly

But I am not yet ready to explain things fully yet. I just wait patiently till I have learned enough.

By the way I do NOT get frustrated at human beings not accepting things in of itself. I feel frustrated at what I expressed previously. That is what I am saying is instantly dismissed BEFORE I have even had a chance to explain it yet. There is a big difference.

This is some thing you do quite often. You do not accept some thing because you have already accepted some thing as being the truth, so you are NOT open to any thing else. You say you do not do beliefs but because you have accepted that you already know the truth you are still closed. What would you say if I asked you Why do you not just provide clarifying answers? Your truth claims do not seem reasonable but I accept that they may be true or may hold some truth within them. I unlike you do not just not accept things because I believe or accept the opposite is true. If and when you show some signs of being somewhat open, then I will provide clarifying answers. But I am not sure why this should all be about 'you', personally.

As I have explained previously to provide clarifying answers and explain things much easier, knowing what is sought for clarification and explanation makes this process much easier. Otherwise I have to guess what each and every reader is thinking and guess where they are coming from. What you would want Me to provide clarifying answers to exactly I would have to assume, and you should know by now that I do not like to assume any thing. ONLY you know what you want clarified and you have already expressed that you are do not accept what I am saying could be true any way. So, I am not going to guess what clarifying answers you are looking for.

[ken]

Even AFTER I clearly expressed that I gain frustrating feelings when what I am trying to convey is
instantly dismissed the actual things that I have continually conveyed are still being completely dismissed

You have no control over how others react to your words but you do however have control over your own emotional reactions
So why then do you allow yourself to get frustrated when you could easily avoid it by not letting that emotion be experienced

You were the one before trying to argue that a human being is an emotional being and can not be an emotional being. But now you seem to be questioning this?

The 'I' in the question Who am 'I'? has full control over how others react to My words.

What would be better also would be if adults and parents also accepted and took full responsibility in that they have full control over how others react, especially children, to their words. A fully responsibility adult does choose their words carefully. A fully responsible adult also knows that they have full control over the thoughts and feelings within the body, no matter what another says or the words they use.

If you know how to and thus can easily avoid not letting the frustration emotion be experienced, then why do you just not let any of the "negative" or not wanted emotions be experienced at all? Sounds rather non-human and machine-like if you could so easily not experience emotions as you are trying to suggest here. Why do you not just experience only all the emotions that you want to experience?

How a human being reacts to an emotional feeling is completely different. I have already expressed how 'I' have full control over this. And, unlike what you think this has nothing to being what you called machine-like.

[ken]

I DO have full and real control over My life

I can NOT stop getting frustration feelings at times

Full control over your life would stop you from experiencing any frustration at all

Explain to all of us here how a human being can stop from experiencing an emotion?

And so may be you do not have quite as much control over it as you think you do

I will wait till you can explain how a human being can stop emotions arising BEFORE I will explain how I can and do have and take full control over My life.

[ken]

Yes you did but even when you did say it it was not true but no one knew that at the time

AGAIN what I write is instantly dismissed Even when what I wrote was ALL about me

AGAIN allowing yourself to become frustrated over something beyond your control

What makes you believe that I become frustrated?

Could you be wrong?

What clues were there?

Could your already held believes and/or assumptions be giving you "clues" that actually are not there?

Was the "clue" that I supposedly become frustrated only that you purposely instantly dismiss what I write, in the hope to cause an emotional reaction. A reaction, which in all honesty, you have absolutely no idea about. These are just written words and if an emotion is not specifically written, then how could you possibly know how another is feeling at a particular time? Even if you are writing in a way trying to to obtain an emotive result that does NOT mean that that result took place

[ken]

are you saying that you have NEVER felt frustration when talking to other people and they are not listening to you
or when they are not hearing what it is that you are actually saying nor when they do not believe you and / or will
not accept what you are saying when you are expressing a truth

I have felt frustration in the past but no longer do because I now realise that I have no influence over how any one else
thinks and so leave that to them and instead focus on what I think because that is something which is within my control

But I have already expressed that this is NOT about how any one else thinks.

But according to your logic I have no control over how I express because if others understand Me or not is solely up to them.

By the way part of the frustration feelings that arise that I was talking about were if, for example, you ask your children to clean their room and they do not listen, as well as other tings. Only you are stuck on the influencing how others think scenario. I already said that this was not about that. How others think and what they think about is up to them. I just expressed that frustrating feelings arise in this body when I express some thing and it is instantly dismissed because it is not accepted because other things are believed and/or assumed to be true. I feel frustrated if people want to have a discussion but do not want to discuss things.

And, if you can prevent frustration feelings from arising ever again, then I am sure there would be a lot of others who would love to obtain this secret also. But if you are just saying that you will no longer feel frustration again because you came to realize that you have no influence whatsoever over how any one else thinks, then I would suggest you re-think that through a bit more.

Quite simply how others see you behave and misbehave influences how they think. Also, if you just leave how they think to them, then that can allow you to justify how badly you treat, talk to, or abuse others. I would suggest adults, and especially parents, take more responsibility for the words they use and for the way they behave in front of others, and especially children.

[surreptitious57]

How can I prove some thing to you when in the beginning you do not accept it anyway

You made the claim that there is no such thing as anyones mind but mind is a function of the brain and without a brain I cannot do
anything. Like posting this reply. So now that I have established that the mind exists I know that your counter claim has to be false

[ken]

To me feeling frustrated means that there is some thing that i need to do in order to change why i am getting and
feeling frustrated. For example getting frustrated from reading others writings in reply to Mine means that I need
to change the way I express. The more frustrated I feel means the more I have to learn in order to express better

Expressing better helps but it is no guarantee of not feeling frustrated as that can still happen

I am NOT, and I will repeat NOT, here to get rid of a perfectly normal human emotion. I am just here to learn how to express better. If I did not feel frustrated at the times it was appropriate and normal, then I would start to wonder what is going on. Feeling any and ALL emotions, roughly about 450 of them, is perfectly normal and a very huge part of being a human being.

And so therefore focusing on reducing or eliminating the frustration would be the better option

Reducing or eliminating the frustration feeling happens within a second or two. I do know how to completely control and rid all emotions. Stopping the from arising is another matter. I have already explained how and why they arise. So, I do KNOW how to prevent them from arising. And, as I have said they arise when people instantly dismiss what I say without even giving Me a change to explain things fully. I have said I am here to learn how to express better. One of the things I want to discover and learn, in how to express better, is how I can write, which prevents people from instantly dismissing what I say. I want to learn how to encourage others to ask Me clarifying and challenging questions before they just dismiss Me all together.

So, in order to reduce and/or eliminate the chances of frustrating feelings arising again I need to learn how to be heard and listened to before I am dismissed and not accepted BEFORE I get a chance to be fully heard and understood.

Hopefully the "catch 22" here is being seen and understood. I have been trying to express it from the outset. But as I have always said I can only learn how to express better from the people here. Although I am using the people here in this forum as evidence and proof of what it is that I will be expressing, it is the people here who are teaching Me how to express much better.

[ken]

Because my mind refuses to accept anything as true where it thinks such a thing cannot be true even though it may

Besides the words my mind not being actually accurate and would be better replaced with the brain

Sometimes mind and brain are used synonymously but more accurately mind is a function of the brain

If the mind is "more accurately" a function of the brain, then are you able to explain how this is so?

How is the mind a function of the brain?

How does the mind and the brain work, actually?

[surreptitious57]

How can I prove some thing to you when in the beginning you do not accept it anyway

You made the claim that there is no such thing as anyones mind but mind is a function of the brain and without a brain I cannot do
anything. Like posting this reply. So now that I have established that the mind exists I know that your counter claim has to be false