Christianity

[seeds]

I been thinking about your baby in the womb image. Strictly speaking it's a simile not a metaphor. But no matter, the image serves.

Perhaps "analogy" might also be fitting.

All that matters is that all parties understand the actual point being made.

Science has the best explanation about how God-or-Nature made everything .

No way.

Science (materialism), which relies on the "chance hypothesis," is total crap when it comes to explaining how the unfathomable order of the universe came about.

Is immortal soul the same substance as mind?

The mind is the living spatial "arena" in which the immortal soul's (the I Am-ness's") personal mental phenomena is created, staged, and developed.

As you stand on the earth and look out into the universe, you are witnessing - (from a "fetal-like" perspective) - the fully-fruitioned, fully-developed, fully-matured (adult) version of a mind just like our own mind.

Indeed, if you click on the following link,...

https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

...it will take you to a clip of me on YouTube where I attempt to offer some scientific support of my theory of how our minds are literally encapsulated within the mental fabric of the fully-evolved higher mind mentioned above. The video clip is a brief excerpt taken from one of the episodes of my public access television lecture series that aired for 7 years in Grand Rapids, Michigan back in the 90s.

Anyway, getting back to your question,...

"...Is immortal soul the same substance as mind?..."

...I suggest that it's more metaphysically logical to think of the two (mind and the owner of the mind) as being comprised of something that is more akin to Spinoza's "oneness" substance, which is a substance that represents the singular foundational essence from which all of reality is created.

Is the immortal soul a self?...

Yes!

...If so is God composed of Himself plus a lot of ex-human selves?

Is your mother literally composed of you and (assuming you have some) your siblings?

Come on, Belinda, when it comes to the "organic (mammalian-like) naturalness" of our familial relationship to God, try to fathom the true meaning of the Hermetic axiom:

"As Below, So Above."

In other words (and with a few minor differences), even in the highest context of reality, members of the highest species of being in all of existence replicate themselves (give birth to their own offspring) similar to how it is done in this lower context of reality.

Is the immortal soul an anatomical or physiological entity?

Needless to say, this is all just speculation,...

...but, yes, it stands to reason that the immortal soul possesses some sort of inexplicable anatomy and physiology (inexplicable from our present perspective) that has its being (its form and functionality) in a higher context of reality that somehow renders it capable of lasting forever.

If the immortal soul is a mental entity how do we know it exists?

Clearly, we won't know for certain until it is revealed to us after crossing the threshold of death.

However, and at the risk of sounding like a lunatic,...

(though I'm pretty sure that that ship has already sailed a long time ago )

...I personally have already been shown that God exists and is indeed a "mental" (incorporeal) entity as was chronicled in the thread at this link:

viewtopic.php?p=685773#p685773
.

Is the immortal soul an emotional entity that feels and desires?

As opposed to what?

Imagine having eternal life without being able to feel anything such as joy, or happiness, or bliss.

Sounds like some kind of hell to me.

Plato's notion of soul is that soul i.e. reason is eternal.

Show me a quote where Plato referred to the eternal soul as being nothing more than "reason."

What does that even mean?

Eternal is not the same as immortal.Eternity coexists with temporality. whereas immortality exists after the mortal life is ended.

"Eternal" in the context we are discussing is just a reference to the immortal soul's infinitely long (never-ending) existence - as in forever alive, and conscious, and forever evolving.

The theory that experience survives death of the individual depends on the death of the individual ego self . The ego self dies; but experience, which had necessarily happened as it did , continues necessary and so cannot become nothing .

I'm sorry, Belinda, but this line,...

"...The ego self dies; but experience, which had necessarily happened as it did, continues necessary and so cannot become nothing..."

...makes absolutely no sense to me.

What panentheism means to you is the same as it means to me. If I could draw a online diagram of what panentheism means to me I think you would agree it's the same for you.

Well, seeing how you've already made it clear to me that you think my diagrams are horrible, I wouldn't dream of asking you to view the one that resides in the link I provided above, even though I personally think it is an almost perfect depiction of the concept of panentheism.

Indeed, it is the first image you see on my website at this link:

http://www.theultimateseeds.com/

However, with that being said, I would love for you to at least describe for me what your "diagram" of panentheism would look like.

I think that panentheism is where we agree except the 'mother' in your pregnant woman image for you is God , and for me she is Being.

Fair enough.

Now, if you just explain to me how this abstract notion of "Being" managed to create the unfathomable order of the universe, then we'll see if it makes any sense.
_______

Seeds wrote(excerpt from larger post ^^above^^):

The mind is the living spatial "arena" in which the immortal soul's (the I Am-ness's") personal mental phenomena is created, staged, and developed.

But mind is not spatial; mind can't be measured in spatial terms such as square miles, or cubic centimetres.

It seems clear to me, Belinda, that you didn't watch my video lecture excerpt on YouTube. Is that a correct assumption?

Or, if you did, you certainly didn't understand it.

You keep missing the core meaning of my theory in that because we humans are still in a "fetal-like" stage of our being and are not yet fully born...

(a process that can only be completed via our "second birth" through the event that we know as physical death)

...we have thus not yet awakened into full consciousness of our minds and into the full awareness of what we truly are.

I realize that what I am proposing is extremely difficult to believe,...

...however, what humans cannot yet fully grasp due to, again, the "fetal-like" (semi-conscious) state of our present level of being, is that as the literal offspring (children/progeny) of the Creator of this universe, we have each been imbued with the same potential and abilities as the universe's Creator.

And to point out that I am not digressing from the topic of this thread, what I have suggested above is what I believe are the core implications of Christianity.

However, it is obvious that Christianity's doctrines merely "hinted" at what I am now boldly declaring, and was more in line with what humans were ready to receive a few thousand years ago.

Indeed, humans are barely ready for the truth now, but it seems the time has come for a more unifying (and logical) vision of what "God" truly is, otherwise the fractious state of the divergent religions of the world is about to destroy the world order we've managed to achieve thus far.

Anyway, getting back to this,...

But mind is not spatial; mind can't be measured in spatial terms such as square miles, or cubic centimetres.

...the point is that once we awaken into the "full consciousness" of our minds and acquire full awareness and full control over our mental holography,...

(again, after experiencing our second [and final] birth via death)

...it is then when we will be able to willfully assign spatial parameters* (as in permanent and measurable aspects) to whatever we create within our own minds.

*("Relative" spatial parameters - see my video lecture.)

In other words, post death, everything we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste within, again, the "spatial arena" of our own personal mind will appear to us (appear to our "I Am-ness") in precisely the same way that the phenomenal features of this present universe (our birth universe) appear to the fully matured "I AM-NESS" that created it,...

...which, in turn, enabled her to give birth to us (her literal offspring).

Also, mental phenomena are no more no less than mind, "mental phenomena" are what mind is defined as.

Why can't you fathom the fact that there is a profound difference between the 3-D phenomenal structures of a dream and that of the "dreamer" of the dream?

You simply cannot place them both under the same heading of "mind" without pointing out the clear distinction between the two.

And that's because the owner of the mind (the "I Am-ness") cannot (or should not) be placed in the same category as "mental phenomena" which is more befitting of the image of a red apple that just appeared before your mind's eye at the mere mention of the words "red" and "apple."

The I Am-ness, the feeling of being a self, does not survive death. This we know...

"...This we know..."??? "...This we know..."?????
Come on now, Belinda, even I at least have the "humility" to admit that my theory of the afterlife could be wrong.

Where's yours?

This we know because the feeling of being a self is a feeling no individual can live without unless she is economically and materially supported by others for instance in intensive care in a hospital.Or indeed as a foetus or a newborn entirely supported by her mother.

Please, Belinda, I beseech you to please read my little soap opera - "Oh the Irony" - at this link...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/fuck- ... -%E2%80%A6[/url]

...for you (and, of course, you're not the only one) are the living, breathing epitome (poster child) of "Twin Number Two" in the story.

I had a look at your diagram of panentheism. Your diagram goes beyond panentheism as the eye within the circumference seems to me to stand for the creation's becoming able to reflect nature.

The only thing that the "eye" in the diagram "reflects" (is meant to represent) is the incorporeal, yet living, conscious, self-aware locus/SOUL ("I Am-ness") of the universe whose living essence not only infuses (saturates) the very fabric of the entirety of the stars, and planets, and galaxies (including our bodies and the very space in between those objects),...

...but also exists above and outside of said fabric.

And that would be in the exact same way that your own "I Am-ness" exists above and outside of the fabric of your own thoughts and dreams, yet subsumes your thoughts and dreams within the makeup of your singular and autonomous being.

In other words, just as the phenomenal features of your own thoughts and dreams are created from your very being and are infused with your own personal life essence, and would not exist if your "I Am-ness" (soul/mind/consciousness) did not exist,...

...likewise, the same applies to the suns, and planets, and galaxies of this universe, none of which would exist if God's "I Am-ness" (mind/soul/consciousness) did not exist.

The bottom line is that the "circumference" you referenced in my diagram is simply a metaphorical representation of the outer boundary of the totality of God's being.

And that would be in the same way (as the metaphor implies) that the outer "rind" wall (or green skin) of a watermelon represents the outer boundary of the totality of one singular (fully-fruitioned) watermelon that just so happens to be pregnant with the "seeds" of itself.

That's why I call us humans the "Ultimate Seeds" in all of existence, which is also implied in the diagram.

I just don't know how I can make a visual metaphor of panentheism and of how "natural" and "organic" our status is relative to God, any clearer than what that simple little "watermelon-like" diagram suggests.

Stop complicating the diagram's organic simplicity with some sort of abstract interpretation of its meaning.

There's a great deal more worth thinking about in your post but this is enough for me at a go.

If there's a great deal more worth thinking about in my earlier post (which is quoted at the top of this post), then hop to it, Belinda, and let's think about these things together.
_______

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It's easy not only to justify a moral position but make it mandatory since societies can't exist without one. Try establishing one without a moral code, whether others, with their own moral code, find it moral or not.

The only way you can establish one, according to Naturalism, is to do so arbitrarily, without any rational justification for its terms, and then compel it by force. This is why secular moralizing always ends up being either ineffective of authoritarian. It has no means to justify itself rationally: and absent any legitimation method, it has to resort to force.

The rational justification is the necessity for it as an organizing societal requirement. How it's determined is another story. Having said that, if moralizing by being authoritarian is ineffective, then the bible is the least effective by being the most authoritarian.

Don't you know that it's immoral to gather firewood on a Saturday? So wrong you must be stoned to death?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The only way you can establish one, according to Naturalism, is to do so arbitrarily, without any rational justification for its terms, and then compel it by force. This is why secular moralizing always ends up being either ineffective of authoritarian. It has no means to justify itself rationally: and absent any legitimation method, it has to resort to force.

Moral systems, ethical systems, the outline of rules taught to children when very young, the regulations and etiquette that are ‘social norms’ — all of these exist and survive both in religion-directed cultures and post-religion cultures. But clearly we — the Occidental and the world increasingly — are very very much in a “post” condition.

It is precisely by way of “rational justification” that we who are members of post-religion society give our assent to entire sets of rules and regulations.

Your word “arbitrary” misleads. The fact is the general social rules, and general senses about “justice” are not arbitrary. They are “parts and parcels” of our Occidental traditions, blendings, amalgamations of various cultural traditions (reference the First century) which became melded in early Catholicism.

What you wish to assert is that with the collapse of the possibility of ‘believing in’ a divine law-giver (the Yahweh figure) and the recognition by intelligent people that our moral codes have a wide base (common law, pagan tradition and rationalism, and theological backing), that morality will collapse.

But really what this all comes down to for you is that, with the assertion of a Law Giver and an Afterworld Judge, that the threat of Hell can still function in your apologetic efforts. That threat is your ultimate arsenal. Time and again you turn to it.

I reckon that most people simply grow accustomed and do not feel anxiety believing that ‘they’ simply dissolve back into the elements upon death.

Or they conceive of other possibilities. I mean they turn to other belief possibilities. Because I am interested in popular belief (different from theological or academic-theological belief) I notice there are all sorts of anecdotes (on YouTube) by people with tales of Afterworld experiences. Some of them come back quite changed in their outlook on this life.

But it is true: post-modern philosophers, try as they might, cannot establish an absolute ground for moral systems. It simply cannot be done.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Theology today is an odd master in an odd position: it must deny and undermine ‘the world’ as it really is and even strip it of ‘meaning possibilities’. It must be stripped of all ultimate meaning and value.

It will tell you: You cannot live in this world and enjoy bounty (in all possible senses) because real value does not exist in that ‘world’ (Nature essentially, the unfolding cosmos).

Theology thus becomes “iconoclastic” to naturalistic modes. It must shatter any contented idol that allows a man satisfaction and comfort in our world as it is.

Only ‘faith’ allows for genuine meaning. Those in non-faith are denied meaning and what they do, think, believe is predicated on false bases.

The real issue here is that all societies have become “worldly” and post-religious. Religiousness has a very tenuous and limited connection to the on-going world and its processes.

In the end a man is thrust back upon himself: into his own thoughts, his feelings and his sense of himself (his consciousness and awareness, as in meditative stillness as well as the anxiety of being).

[Immanuel Can]

The only way you can establish one, according to Naturalism, is to do so arbitrarily, without any rational justification for its terms, and then compel it by force. This is why secular moralizing always ends up being either ineffective of authoritarian. It has no means to justify itself rationally: and absent any legitimation method, it has to resort to force.

Moral systems, ethical systems, the outline of rules taught to children when very young, the regulations and etiquette that are ‘social norms’ — all of these exist and survive both in religion-directed cultures and post-religion cultures.

However, they “survive” in quite a different degree. In the former cultures, they “survive” as grounded in the worldview from which they are drawn. But in the case of the latter, they “survive” ungrounded, without any rationale, and in defiance of the logic of secularism.

A moral prescription may “survive” even if false. It may “survive” undeservedly, by mere tradition, habit, unthinking adherence, or arbitrary power. To be sure, many “religious” prescriptions” must be false: the Law of Non-Contradiction makes that inescapable…for if they contradict each other, it is literally impossible for all to be true. But secular prescriptions that “survive” are 100% certain to be arbitrary and to “survive” only by being imposed through the use of power, which is in itself, immoral.

Your word “arbitrary” misleads.

In no way. Secular moralizing must be, by secular account itself, arbitrary. Secularism can provide no rationale basis for any moral precept at all.

And if you think otherwise, go ahead: propose one. Give just one moral precept Secularism requires of us.

But it is true: post-modern philosophers, try as they might, cannot establish an absolute ground for moral systems. It simply cannot be done.

Aaaaaand…there you have it!

“It simply cannot be done.” Right. There cannot only be no “absolute” ground, but no “grounds” at all, in fact. Power, pure and arbitrary, is all Secularism can employ in that realm.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I hope you're not wearing wool and linen IC? That would make you abomination in God's sight.

[Alexis Jacobi]

However, they “survive” in quite a different degree. In the former cultures, they “survive” as grounded in the worldview from which they are drawn. But in the case of the latter, they “survive” ungrounded, without any rationale, and in defiance of the logic of secularism.

Like it or not (you can do nought else but dislike it) modern culture, modern man, and even men like you, exist in, flourish in, a realm of culture and civilization that is entirely “secular” (to use your word). This entire world is constructed on foundations that do not in any sense need or require you (the theologian) to get along and survive.

It simply does not matter how you characterize this situation. But itbis as sure and true as the rain that falls that people, and culture, and lived-life carry on in “quite different” ways.

Here is the core fact: the Picture that you hold to as being “ultimately real” and authoritative, has been punctured and has collapsed. As I have painstakingly explained you — lovely Immanuel Can — have become a ghost of that former system of belief (worldview) and you haunt a theological house with next to no bona fide relationship with “the real world” and the real world’s people.

Your threats of eternal damnation, for this reason, likely only stimulate response in the highly anxious and angst-ridden. Those who just do not feel at home in themselves nor in the world.

But in the case of the latter, they “survive” ungrounded, without any rationale, and in defiance of the logic of secularism.

As you would know had you ever actually read anything I wrote, this “ungroundedness” and this “loss of horizon” has as many negative aspects as positive ones.

But that is all another conversation and one you are unqualified to engage in.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Aaaaaand…there you have it!

“It simply cannot be done.” Right. There cannot only be no “absolute” ground, but no “grounds” at all, in fact. Power, pure and arbitrary, is all Secularism can employ in that realm.

Nothing at all surprising here. And not much very threatening, either.

Those that you preach to must eventually arrive at a point where their faith collapses. Because your faith, Immanuel, is largely a hollow vessel. You do not even believe it! But you cling to the presentation, for rhetorical purposes, that you believe in A&E in a Garden, Red Seas parting, Noah’s Arks, etc.

But I know that you believe none of this. Your Bible Literalism is LARPing at its finest.

What you “teach” in the end is so different from what you pretend to want to teach.

In this way you become extremely interesting — to me certainly, and surely to many others.

Remember this image: an angry ghost inhabiting a collapsed theological house.

Once you are seen, Immanuel, your entire shtick becomes comic.

I can help you in the next stages as you begin to grow up!

[Immanuel Can]

However, they “survive” in quite a different degree. In the former cultures, they “survive” as grounded in the worldview from which they are drawn. But in the case of the latter, they “survive” ungrounded, without any rationale, and in defiance of the logic of secularism.

Like it or not (you can do nought else but dislike it) modern culture, modern man, and even men like you, exist in, flourish in, a realm of culture and civilization that is entirely “secular” (to use your word). This entire world is constructed on foundations that do not in any sense need or require you (the theologian) to get along and survive.

It’s not much of a “world,” actually. It’s at maximum, 4% of the world’s actual population. The delusion that Secularism is general is only prevalent among naive Atheists who have never left their Western context.

But “liking” has nothing to do with anything, in any case. What’s relevant is that Secularism is the first worldview we can entirely rule out, if we hope to have any knowledge of morality. It has none to offer at all. What Secular moralizing implies is no more than, “Do it, or we will hit you.” It has no reference to right or wrong, which it does not believe actually exist.

As you would know had you ever actually read anything I wrote…

If you would more often be on topic and following logic, perhaps I would. You’re capable of it. But you so often waste your time on extravagances about “your course” or mere screeds about what you don’t like that it’s no longer worth anybody’s time to find the occasional gems of thought you drop. They’re surrounded by too much of the excrement of the bull.

[Immanuel Can]

Aaaaaand…there you have it!

“It simply cannot be done.” Right. There cannot only be no “absolute” ground, but no “grounds” at all, in fact. Power, pure and arbitrary, is all Secularism can employ in that realm.

Nothing at all surprising here. And not much very threatening, either.

There was no threat. Rather, there was a rational showing that Secularism has nothing to offer in regard to morality…a fact which you acknowledge, but refuse to apply, obviously.

You know it’s true. You admit it’s true. You can’t fail to know it’s true. But you will not accept its implications. Such aversion to truth, one cannot defeat. So I’m happy to stop there.

[Immanuel Can]

I hope you're not wearing wool and linen IC? That would make you abomination in God's sight.

Don’t worry. I’m neither Jewish nor OT. But thanks for your concern.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Power, pure and arbitrary, is all Secularism can employ in that realm.

This issue — that of the reduction of choices and plans to quests established by will and by power, for power’s purposes, is not a minor issue.

If it ever did become possible for any group of men to have ultimate power and control over all men, that possibility would be grasped.

So yes, when false wrapping and falsely-based theological costumes are stripped off, yes indeed, will to power and sheer power-machinations become visible and I think undeniable.

And what next?

[MikeNovack]

And if you think otherwise, go ahead: propose one. Give just one moral precept Secularism requires of us.

But it is true: post-modern philosophers, try as they might, cannot establish an absolute ground for moral systems. It simply cannot be done.

Aaaaaand…there you have it!

“It simply cannot be done.” Right. There cannot only be no “absolute” ground, but no “grounds” at all, in fact. Power, pure and arbitrary, is all Secularism can employ in that realm.

IC, the problem is that you do not understand rational systems. Rationality is how we go from AXIOMS to statements. It is always "If axioms, the statement.

You are saying something wrong/irrational because secularism cannot rationally justify the AXIOMS being chosen. AXIOMS do not need rational justification. If chosen wisely, they may usefully result in a system, in this case, of morality. If chosen unwisely, result in a system that has no useful purpose.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You know it’s true. You admit it’s true. You can’t fail to know it’s true. But you will not accept its implications. Such aversion to truth, one cannot defeat. So I’m happy to stop there.

Oh no, I definitely accept its implications.

It is you who has the larger problem: that you cannot deal with those implication.

Your performance in these conversations makes that very clear. You are “stopped there” and that is a big problem.

[Immanuel Can]

And if you think otherwise, go ahead: propose one. Give just one moral precept Secularism requires of us.

But it is true: post-modern philosophers, try as they might, cannot establish an absolute ground for moral systems. It simply cannot be done.

Aaaaaand…there you have it!

“It simply cannot be done.” Right. There cannot only be no “absolute” ground, but no “grounds” at all, in fact. Power, pure and arbitrary, is all Secularism can employ in that realm.

IC, the problem is that you do not understand rational systems.

Wouldn’t it be easy if that were true? Unfortunately, it’s not.

Rationality is how we go from AXIOMS to statements. It is always "If axioms, the statement.

That’s what’s called “hypothetical reasoning.” “If” implies it may not be the case, so the second premise always has to affirm that the conditional IS the case.

Hypothetical reasoning is, by the way, only one kind of inductive reasoning, and not the most reliable one. This is because when one starts with a hypothetical rather than a categorical claim, one has to be sure that one’s second premise can be asserted as true. And that’s called into question by the hypothetical in the first premise, so it has to be substantiated.

But here’s a hypothetical syllogism that you should be using:
Premise 1: If Secularism is true, there’s no objective truth behind moralizing.
Premise 2: Secularism is true. (Assumed true here, just for the argument’s sake.)
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no objective truth behind moralizing.

That would be the right hypothetical argument to support your case. But premise 2 needs a demonstration. And what would that be?