Free will, freedom from what?

[Gary Childress]

I'm very clear. But since we don't have a common commitment to reality, I don't think there's anything further we can discuss. We lack the common basis upon which to arbitrate answers.

So...

If you say so, then so it will be, on your belief only. Not mine.

Nothing lived because nothing died. That which lives never dies, and that which dies never lived.

The Patterns Of Life Reveal The Secrets Of Death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbEqq6k27iM

Immanuel Can's messages are clear and simple English. Also IC is quite a mine of information as to the Scriptures. I wish I could understand what Fairy's ideas are!

Fairy's ideas look like dissociation to me, the ideas of someone who has been through a lot of crap and knows no other way out of it.

[Gary Childress]

I thought that people went to hell because of their actions, since actions define the reality of what you think (for instance, Christian actions) and belief (speculated choice before action) merely defines speculation about action. Maybe I'm wrong ...

You're free to think anything, without limitation, unless limitation is self-imposed.

Don't tell me. Tell IC. According to him you worship demons if you practice Yoga.

Like I said, perhaps you didn't notice, Gary.

Folks are free to think anything without limitation. Their actions define the reality of what they think, since not all thoughts manifest. When one lives doing Christian actions, that is the reality of what they think, and they are still free to think anything without limitation.

This is why compassion is an essential element in the fabric of spirituality. Compassion generates forgiveness, as Christians well know as evidenced through IC, for his forgiveness for all the crap you heap upon him, and Christianity.

IC doesn't need to "forgive" me. I've done nothing but challenge his dogmatic adherence to the Bible and show where it is deficient.

[Gary Childress]

No, we can just disagree...while behaving respectfully toward each other, we would hope.

Is believing that someone is going to go to hell because they don't subscribe to your specific religious beliefs "respectful"?

Here's the more important question: are those beliefs true? And is Hell real?

Unless you want to tell people, "I'll respect you all the way to Hell," then those are the questions you should be asking.

I don't know if they are "true" or "real". Do you know if they are true and real? Why are you so enamored with a book written by people who thought their God was a great punishing "father" who drowns his own "children" and kills those of his people's "enemies"?

[Immanuel Can]

Is believing that someone is going to go to hell because they don't subscribe to your specific religious beliefs "respectful"?

Here's the more important question: are those beliefs true? And is Hell real?

Unless you want to tell people, "I'll respect you all the way to Hell," then those are the questions you should be asking.

I don't know if they are "true" or "real". Do you know if they are true and real?

I do suppose I know. But I know you don't. So the question really is, "What should a good person do about that?"

I think this: a good person tells the truth, even if the truth is hard to receive. An evil person prefers to pose as "respectful," so that he can preen himself as virtuous while his neighbour burns.

So if you, like me, believed you knew there was not only a real Hell, but also a way to God, would it be "respectful" of you to tell your neighbour there was none of either, and that his disbelief was of no particular consequence? Would it be an admirable thing to stand back and watch him go to Hell, all the while patting yourself on the pack that "at least I'm being respectful"?

[Immanuel Can]

If you say so, then so it will be, on your belief only. Not mine.

Nothing lived because nothing died. That which lives never dies, and that which dies never lived.

The Patterns Of Life Reveal The Secrets Of Death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbEqq6k27iM

Immanuel Can's messages are clear and simple English. Also IC is quite a mine of information as to the Scriptures. I wish I could understand what Fairy's ideas are!

Fairy's ideas look like dissociation to me, the ideas of someone who has been through a lot of crap and knows no other way out of it.

They're boilerplate Non-dualism, I think. And the purpose of Non-dualism is to reduce all controversies and issues to nothing. Everything being one, according to Non-dualism, nothing is of any particular consequence...the decisions one makes, the choices of one's lifestyle, the apparent mistakes one has made, the losses one has suffered, the goals for which one strives, the beliefs one holds,...and so on. It's all a wash.

But that comes with a cost. It stultifies absolutely everything. Nothing really matters anymore.

However, if a Non-dualist insists that Non-dualism is true, then Non-dualism is self-contradictory: for truth/falsehood is a duality. So we must assume the Non-dualist does NOT mean that Non-dualism is true...therefore, Non-dualism itself is not-true, which means the same as false. So you can see that Non-dualism makes no sense at all, on those terms. If it's true, then it's false. If it's not true, then it's not true, and false again.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can's messages are clear and simple English. Also IC is quite a mine of information as to the Scriptures. I wish I could understand what Fairy's ideas are!

Fairy's ideas look like dissociation to me, the ideas of someone who has been through a lot of crap and knows no other way out of it.

They're boilerplate Non-dualism, I think. And the purpose of Non-dualism is to reduce all controversies and issues to nothing. Everything being one, according to Non-dualism, nothing is of any particular consequence...the decisions one makes, the choices of one's lifestyle, the apparent mistakes one has made, the losses one has suffered, the goals for which one strives, the beliefs one holds,...and so on. It's all a wash.

But that comes with a cost. It stultifies absolutely everything. Nothing really matters anymore.

However, if a Non-dualist insists that Non-dualism is true, then Non-dualism is self-contradictory: for truth/falsehood is a duality. So we must assume the Non-dualist does NOT mean that Non-dualism is true...therefore, Non-dualism itself is not-true, which means the same as false. So you can see that Non-dualism makes no sense at all, on those terms. If it's true, then it's false. If it's not true, then it's not true, and false again.

I prefer your use of English to Fairy's. However I disagree with your opinion about non dualism, prefering to think the end of non dualism is everything. I also think that with non dualism , everything matters, even the sparrow that falls: even the sinner: even the hem of someone's garment: even a trivial song lyric: even neglecting to sweep the floor. All of these and everything else is an aspect of a Whole.

True, non dualism may seem to be at odds with The Creation according to Genesis. Such a pity, as Genesis is such beautiful language. However let's remember that God made differentiated creatures but is Himself not a creature but whole Being.

[Fairy]

IC…. Non duality makes perfect sense to those who have studied its message and for a very long time followed its pointing in a very committed rational and logical sense.
I’ve even heard it said that only 1 in 5million people ever truly get it.

And just as your Christianity makes perfect sense to you, non duality makes perfect sense to me. I think while it may be difficult to grasp for some people it can and does come very naturally to others, including me.

It’s not about cognitive dissonance or disassociation Gary, that’s just a typical conditioned response. This is a message that is self taught, for those who are highly aware individuals..it’s not something that is taught to people in mainstream education like religion is.

IC you can come up with all the ridiculous amount of excuses you can think of under the sun, in your feeble attempt to nullify the nondual message as being self contradictory nonsense, but that’s because you haven’t understood it properly. You obviously have written it off as nonsense but your reluctance to accept it as sensical doesn’t sway me at all, because I cannot be swayed from something that totally resonates deep into the core of my being and how I am perceiving and understanding my personal reality.

Just as you are at one with your beloved Jesus godman. I’m at one with the god of my understanding.and that’s all that matters really. Matters really do matter actually, and I’m completely giving myself permission to be human every single moment while at the same time see through the illusion of separation.

[Immanuel Can]

Fairy's ideas look like dissociation to me, the ideas of someone who has been through a lot of crap and knows no other way out of it.

They're boilerplate Non-dualism, I think. And the purpose of Non-dualism is to reduce all controversies and issues to nothing. Everything being one, according to Non-dualism, nothing is of any particular consequence...the decisions one makes, the choices of one's lifestyle, the apparent mistakes one has made, the losses one has suffered, the goals for which one strives, the beliefs one holds,...and so on. It's all a wash.

But that comes with a cost. It stultifies absolutely everything. Nothing really matters anymore.

However, if a Non-dualist insists that Non-dualism is true, then Non-dualism is self-contradictory: for truth/falsehood is a duality. So we must assume the Non-dualist does NOT mean that Non-dualism is true...therefore, Non-dualism itself is not-true, which means the same as false. So you can see that Non-dualism makes no sense at all, on those terms. If it's true, then it's false. If it's not true, then it's not true, and false again.

I prefer your use of English to Fairy's. However I disagree with your opinion about non dualism, prefering to think the end of non dualism is everything.

What's the basis of your disagreement? When one says one disagrees, one should have a rational basis, no?

True, non dualism may seem to be at odds with The Creation...

I certainly didn't say that. It might be true, but it's not my reason for disagreeing with Non-Dualism. As you can see above, my reason for rejecting Non-Dualism is that it's irrational on its own terms, regardless of anybody else's. So we don't need any appeal to Genesis to see that.

[Immanuel Can]

IC…. Non duality makes perfect sense to those who have studied its message and for a very long time followed its pointing in a very committed rational and logical sense.

Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. It can't be made sensible, actually.

But let me take you seriously, then, and let me test your theory. My question to you is this:

Do you believe Non-Dualism is "true"?

[Fairy]

IC…. Non duality makes perfect sense to those who have studied its message and for a very long time followed its pointing in a very committed rational and logical sense.

Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. It can't be made sensible, actually.

But let me take you seriously, then, and let me test your theory. My question to you is this:

Do you believe Non-Dualism is "true"?

Actually, it does make sense.

It’s pointing to the same idea that the Christian God is pointing to…just many different stories about the same one idea.

In answer to your last question… Yes….and only yes because it isn’t a theory it’s without a theory. Theories are imagined, they are synonymous with synthetic dreamscape.

[Belinda]

They're boilerplate Non-dualism, I think. And the purpose of Non-dualism is to reduce all controversies and issues to nothing. Everything being one, according to Non-dualism, nothing is of any particular consequence...the decisions one makes, the choices of one's lifestyle, the apparent mistakes one has made, the losses one has suffered, the goals for which one strives, the beliefs one holds,...and so on. It's all a wash.

But that comes with a cost. It stultifies absolutely everything. Nothing really matters anymore.

However, if a Non-dualist insists that Non-dualism is true, then Non-dualism is self-contradictory: for truth/falsehood is a duality. So we must assume the Non-dualist does NOT mean that Non-dualism is true...therefore, Non-dualism itself is not-true, which means the same as false. So you can see that Non-dualism makes no sense at all, on those terms. If it's true, then it's false. If it's not true, then it's not true, and false again.

I prefer your use of English to Fairy's. However I disagree with your opinion about non dualism, prefering to think the end of non dualism is everything.

What's the basis of your disagreement? When one says one disagrees, one should have a rational basis, no?

True, non dualism may seem to be at odds with The Creation...

I certainly didn't say that. It might be true, but it's not my reason for disagreeing with Non-Dualism. As you can see above, my reason for rejecting Non-Dualism is that it's irrational on its own terms, regardless of anybody else's. So we don't need any appeal to Genesis to see that.

My reason for saying there is something instead of nothing is that I experience. So do you. If you can accept that you are an experiencer (and how can you not) then it follows there is experience.The very fact we are thinking about these matters indicates that something is happening.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you believe Non-Dualism is "true"?

In answer to your last question… Yes….and only yes because it isn’t a theory it’s without a theory. Theories are imagined, they are synonymous with synthetic dreamscape.

True-false is dualism. You're not a Non-Dualist if you say that, by definition. Sorry.

[Fairy]

Do you believe Non-Dualism is "true"?

In answer to your last question… Yes….and only yes because it isn’t a theory it’s without a theory. Theories are imagined, they are synonymous with synthetic dreamscape.

True-false is dualism. You're not a Non-Dualist if you say that, by definition. Sorry.

That’s correct.

And you’re not a Christian by definition. Sorry, not sorry.

[Immanuel Can]

In answer to your last question… Yes….and only yes because it isn’t a theory it’s without a theory. Theories are imagined, they are synonymous with synthetic dreamscape.

True-false is dualism. You're not a Non-Dualist if you say that, by definition. Sorry.

That’s correct.

And you’re not a Christian by definition. Sorry, not sorry.

I'm not insulting you. I'm speaking totally factually. Somebody who insists on dualities cannot, by definition, be a Non-Dualist. That's not on my side...that has to be the conclusion from your own side, the side of Non-Dualism.

This is what I mean about the incoherence of Non-Dualism: if it's "true," then it makes Non-Dualism itself false. If it's false, then it's not true. So either way, Non-Dualism is false. It cannot be anything but false, in fact.

See it yet?

[Fairy]

True-false is dualism. You're not a Non-Dualist if you say that, by definition. Sorry.

That’s correct.

And you’re not a Christian by definition. Sorry, not sorry.

I'm not insulting you. I'm speaking totally factually. Somebody who insists on dualities cannot, by definition, be a Non-Dualist. That's not on my side...that has to be the conclusion from your own side, the side of Non-Dualism.

This is what I mean about the incoherence of Non-Dualism: if it's "true," then it makes Non-Dualism itself false. If it's false, then it's not true. So either way, Non-Dualism is false. It cannot be anything but false, in fact.

See it yet?

I never thought you were insulting me, I know it’s not your forum anonymous character