Communion

[Lori_7]

So it's still a natural law?

what gravity? isn't it? but you still have a choice as to whether to jump or not.

In which case (and I get the feeling I'm repeating myself here):
if it's a law of nature then EVERYONE, regardless of what they claim, is already following this path.

which path? parachute or no parachute?

Or are you positing that we can (will be able to?) see the consequences of our own actions?

you mean before they happen? no. afterwards, yes. i think that in lieu of that is the higher conscious or trusted source.

Which sort of takes us away from this "source" that you put forward in the first place...

no. i think that "signing up" for this, or submitting to this, implies the decision on your part to want to do what is best for humanity (the right thing) all the time and the source would be the catalyst to enable you to do that.

 

[Dywyddyr]

what gravity? isn't it?

Er no, not gravity: do try to keep track of your own arguments. You're claiming this "cause and effect" (leading to best consequences) is a natural law.

you mean before they happen? no. afterwards, yes. i think that in lieu of that is the higher conscious or trusted source.

Make your mind up.
Is it a source or US that's aware? You've managed to claim both so far...

no. i think that "signing up" for this, or submitting to this, implies the decision on your part to want to do what is best for humanity (the right thing) all the time and the source would be the catalyst to enable you to do that.

One more time: if it's a natural law then we cannot "sign up" or "not sign up" - we're subject to it regardless.

 

[Lori_7]

People already have consciences. Most people have an innate sense of fairness, reciprocity and compassion.

i suppose the premise would imply that it's not good enough, or as not as good as it could be. i would agree with that premise.

I don't understand how the idea of a 'collective conscience' would eliminate all suffering and deliver eternal life. That seems to be a leap.

i agree with you; that is quite a leap, derived from the bible in regards to restored communion with god, which is contingent upon the elimination of sin. if you don't want to equate it with god, you could say that everyone was at one with the universe, and therefore each other. even if you say that, the eternal life part is a stretch, but i'm basing the hypothetical on communion, so eternal life is in there.

I don't understand that either. 'Submit' to what?

to adopting this new conscience. it would change you, and perhaps there would be a change in you required in order to adopt it.

Are you talking about segregating people who make the resolution to always be good and nothing else, from all the remaining evil people?

yes, but if you didn't want to say "evil", you could say "the people who would not make the resolution."

Do people always know what's right and wrong in every instance?

yes, because of the trusted source. it would actually become a part of you, like your conscience. or perhaps even a physical change...a genetic change. and even if it is just a change in our mind, that would over time create a genetic change that's passed on, and cumulative.

What if people are weak and on occasion fail to keep their resolution?

that's not an option.

And even assuming that everyone in your paradisical community only does what he or she believes is right, how can we be certain that their actions will always be harmonious and that no unintended suffering will result?

because we will all know the same thing, and it will be correct. beliefs as we know them now, based on a very limited perception, based on opinions, emotions, personal agendas, etc., will not be relevant. the only belief that is presented in the scenario is the belief in, or trust in, the source.

The question is impossible for me to answer as it stands. The proposed paradisical state needs to be fleshed out in a believable fashion and the tradeoffs that seem to be implicit in the idea of 'submission' need to be clarified.

"fleshed out" is a really good term to use here. they say that sin resides in the flesh inherently and that we're born into it. and it's only when that is removed that communion can be achieved. the bible always talks about how the flesh opposes the spirit and vice versa. and if you don't want to think of it in terms of the spiritual, you could just say that perhaps relatively, genetically, we're retarded.

 

[Lori_7]

You are making less sense, not more.

If you are asking us whether we would 'submit' to God's Kingdom or something, I'd have to fully understand the tradeoffs before I answered. And obviously, I'd have to believe in God and his Kingdom in the first place, which I don't.

So right now, it's too vague and hypothetical to think about clearly. If your savior ever shows up and is riding around the sky on a white horse with a flaming sword, smiting all the evil armies and air forces of the world's secular powers that try to oppose him, then at least there would be something tangible to talk about.

i am suggesting that we can relate to something tangible here...the universe and the law that's found in it. when i consider the father (god), i think of creation and regulation, or the universe and law. things are created the way they are because of laws at work, and things happen the way they do because of laws at work. if you look at the results of an experiment, the scientists job is to explain how that result occurred, and according to what laws. a scientists job is to explain how things happen the way they do, and in the process are always discovering new laws to explain it.

 

[birch]

i am suggesting that we can relate to something tangible here...the universe and the law that's found in it. when i consider the father (god), i think of creation and regulation, or the universe and law. things are created the way they are because of laws at work, and things happen the way they do because of laws at work. if you look at the results of an experiment, the scientists job is to explain how that result occurred, and according to what laws. a scientists job is to explain how things happen the way they do, and in the process are always discovering new laws to explain it.

then there is nothing to submit to as it just is.

basically, you have stated a fact is a fact like water is wet.

 

[Lori_7]

Sure. But I think people are getting a might bit testy, b/c your question is a non sequitur. They all kind of know you and your agenda Lori, and they know where you are going with it. This "knowledge" is somewhat subjective, isn't it? And it's ends, it's purpose, and indeed, what this supposed "greater good" is, that is all subjective too. So then, how does one "submit" to this "knowledge" if no one can ever agree on these points, or indeed, know what these points even are? Especially when you refuse to define them and claim they are already known? The "collective consciousness" values ALL points of its consciousness, be it saint or sinner, Christian, atheist, Muslim, or Jew. One need not "submit" to be a meaningful part of experience in the third dimension. Non-submission is just as valuable and instructive an experience to the collective consciousness as submission. Those who submit I would posit tend to be more likely to induce a victimization paradigm, and thus induce a need for a "savor" reality, rather than a self-reliant reality.

my agenda is to discuss communion and the possibility of it, and desire for it. it's something i'm really serious about because i sincerely desire it's achievement and i truly believe it's possible. it does induce a victimization paradigm, which i think we all can relate to in some way, hence the need to eliminate this subjectivity (via the source), hence a submission to something greater than you, and segregation.

but i don't believe that this is going to happen because our savior comes riding through the clouds on a white horse and snaps his fingers or waves his wand. i think it's going to require something very real and tangible on our part and his.

 

[Lori_7]

then there is nothing to submit to as it just is.

basically, you have stated a fact is a fact like water is wet.

exactly, and then you have all the myriad of possibilities of what you can do with the wet water, and how what you do with it affects everything and everyone else.

that's where the submission comes in. that given the myriad of possibilities, you choose to do what benefits everything and everyone else all the time. right now we apparently can't do that, because of imperfect knowledge, or imperfect desires. the source provides the perfect knowledge, but an acknowledgment that it's something much greater than you, and our desires are what either brings us together or apart.

 

[birch]

my agenda is to discuss communion and the possibility of it, and desire for it. it's something i'm really serious about because i sincerely desire it's achievement and i truly believe it's possible. it does induce a victimization paradigm, which i think we all can relate to in some way, hence the need to eliminate this subjectivity (via the source), hence a submission to something greater than you, and segregation.

but i don't believe that this is going to happen because our savior comes riding through the clouds on a white horse and snaps his fingers or waves his wand. i think it's going to require something very real and tangible on our part and his.

this could be summed up as to what in life that people find most precious or most worthy of value or aspire to or proliferate.

such as love, for instance.

the problem is not everyone has the same agenda or what it it finds worthy beyond one's own survival.

for instance, one aspect of my idea of a utopia is that everyone is in the very good health. so i may want to banish or make smoking illegal, for instance.

i will get opposition and active opposition. hypothetically, one could say everyone wants to be healthy innately or their basic nature but it has been corrupted or some unseen aspect (due to competition) has been bred into the dna to create an inner struggle.

this is why we can never fully escape that duality that results in continual chaos and destruction even if we can also survive and create.

for instance, even if all "people" got on the same page, they would still have to be defended against disease (other lifeforms) that do not care about this 'utopia' as they are unaware or are trying to proliferate themselves.

what you are not seeing, even metaphorically, it's the root or foundation of the system or program that is faulty (so to speak) by it's design. that is why we strive to work with nature as best as possible and also why we can "conceptually" observe and form opinions about what we have to deal with and where we are as well as knowing the the rules or lack thereof. it's similar to a prison system.

with organic life, we are not the programmers (limited) or creators. for instance, we can conceptually devise what we would consider a great system in our mind but that may not correlate with reality where we find ourselves. also, we can conceptually create a computer and decide that it is not desirable for xyz reason and dismantle and create another one with a whole new framework as well as operating system. with organic life, you can't really do that nor can we change the laws of nature, we can only work with them.

whether one thinks or believes that it is designed with some ultimate good purpose or that the cost is worth this ultimate good is a matter of speculation and opinion.

 

[Lori_7]

this could be summed up as to what in life that people find most precious or most worthy of value or aspire to or proliferate.

such as love, for instance.

the problem is not everyone has the same agenda or what it it finds worthy beyond one's own survival.

for instance, one aspect of my idea of a utopia is that everyone is in the very good health. so i may want to banish or make smoking illegal, for instance.

i will get opposition and active opposition. hypothetically, one could say everyone wants to be healthy innately or their basic nature but it has been corrupted or some unseen aspect (due to competition) has been bred into the dna to create an inner struggle.

this is why we can never fully escape that duality that results in continual chaos and destruction even if we can also survive and create.

for instance, even if all "people" got on the same page, they would still have to be defended against disease (other lifeforms) that do not care about this 'utopia' as they are unaware or are trying to proliferate themselves.

i know that's the problem. the suggestion here is that we eliminate it.

 

[Lori_7]

Er no, not gravity: do try to keep track of your own arguments. You're claiming this "cause and effect" (leading to best consequences) is a natural law.

cause and effect are a result of law. come on, you know this!

Make your mind up.
Is it a source or US that's aware? You've managed to claim both so far...

so you tap into this law, or the intelligence behind it. it becomes a part of you. you commune with it, and it shapes your instincts, desires, and conscience. you don't have to see the future to trust this source.

One more time: if it's a natural law then we cannot "sign up" or "not sign up" - we're subject to it regardless.

the natural law isn't changing. we're subject to that right now. what's changing, and what you're signing up for, is to commune with the source, or the law itself, in order to achieve the greater good, which is something we obviously are not achieving in our current state.

 

[Dywyddyr]

cause and effect are a result of law. come on, you know this!

Yes, but you're going one step further and assuming that there's something that knows what would lead to "best consequences".

so you tap into this law, or the intelligence behind it. it becomes a part of you. you commune with it, and it shapes your instincts, desires, and conscience. you don't have to see the future to trust this source.

Right. The way everyone "taps into" the law of gravity? Or action/ reaction?

the natural law isn't changing. we're subject to that right now. what's changing, and what you're signing up for, is to commune with the source, or the law itself, in order to achieve the greater good, which is something we obviously are not achieving in our current state.

Assumptions again. If it comes from a source then that source must be consulted.

 

[Lori_7]

Yes, but you're going one step further and assuming that there's something that knows what would lead to "best consequences".

are you saying the answer isn't out there? it IS out there, because of what we know about cause and effect according to law. like a giant living, breathing, mathematical equation.

Right. The way everyone "taps into" the law of gravity? Or action/ reaction?

if we're going to be subject to it anyway, then why not use it to it's best benefits?

Assumptions again. If it comes from a source then that source must be consulted.

yes, the source must be consulted, infused, incorporated, and hence trusted. we become one with it, and with each other, through it. it's communion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

are you saying the answer isn't out there? it IS out there, because of what we know about cause and effect according to law. like a giant living, breathing, mathematical equation.

Wrong again.
You're assuming that there's an answer while ignoring any randonmess.

if we're going to be subject to it anyway, then why not use it to it's best benefits?

You're not looking at it the way I am. How do we "tap into" it?

yes, the source must be consulted, infused, incorporated, and hence trusted. we become one with it, and with each other, through it. it's communion.

How do we do that?

 

[Lori_7]

Wrong again.
You're assuming that there's an answer while ignoring any randonmess.

i don't really see a lot of randomness in the universe. do you?

You're not looking at it the way I am. How do we "tap into" it?


How do we do that?

i've suggested genetically.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i don't really see a lot of randomness in the universe. do you?

Do you not?

i've suggested genetically.

And, one more time, if it's genetic then we can't NOT agree.

 

[Lori_7]

Do you not?

i just said i do not.

And, one more time, if it's genetic then we can't NOT agree.

why?

 

[Dywyddyr]

i just said i do not.

So you're of the opinion that random doesn't exist? That everything folloes logically as a consequence of everything before and that it's entirely linear?

why?

Can you stop having the eye colour you have?
One more time: if it's built-in (a law of the universe) then we have to follow it.

 

[Lori_7]

So you're of the opinion that random doesn't exist? That everything folloes logically as a consequence of everything before and that it's entirely linear?

no, not necessarily, i'm just saying that i don't see that very often, if ever, that i recognize. and i'm saying that if randomness does occur, then it's a given, and it's factored in.

Can you stop having the eye colour you have?
One more time: if it's built-in (a law of the universe) then we have to follow it.

what if you could choose the eye color you have but you have to opt for this genetic endeavor?

 

[Dywyddyr]

no, not necessarily, i'm just saying that i don't see that very often, if ever, that i recognize. and i'm saying that if randomness does occur, then it's a given, and it's factored in.

Factored in? By whom?

what if you could choose the eye color you have but you have to opt for this genetic endeavor?

False analogy. Eye colour (in the event of it being optional) would have to be chosen for you before birth. And then you're stuck with it.

 

[Lori_7]

Factored in? By whom?

the frickin' source man. sheesh!

False analogy. Eye colour (in the event of it being optional) would have to be chosen for you before birth. And then you're stuck with it.

what about gene therapy? and for those of us who believe in an eternal soul, what about death, and rebirth into a particular new and improved bloodline?