Posts by Nancy Wilson2

Correction: Her brain function was essentially at rock bottom during the surgery. And even then—one would assume—you'd need a brain in slightly better shape than that to experience hallucinations, wouldn't you? Of course you would. That is precisely why the surgeons were so utterly baffled by how she could describe, visualize, and hear everything with such startlingly vivid detail.

bluebison25 said:The brain can only go without oxygen for about three minutes. After that window closes, you aren't "restarting" anything—it’s game over. You guys are getting your facts seriously twisted; try picking up a textbook on sleep cycles and hallucinations once in a while. I’d suggest it, but I already have it all figured out, so I don't need 🙂
.

😂 Excuse me?

Let me give you a perfect example. A woman I know had to undergo brain surgery—I don't recall the exact specifics—and to perform the procedure, they had to essentially induce a state where her brain activity, along with other vitals, was halted. She was under strict professional medical supervision, showing absolutely no brain activity at all, and when she regained consciousness, what do you think she recounted? She described, with total precision, exactly where everyone was standing, what they were doing, and what they were saying—as if she were observing and listening to everything from outside her own body. And now you’d suggest that’s just some hallucination? The doctors performing that operation simply didn't have any other way to explain it than to admit she was truly experiencing an out-of-body experience while observing the room.

Do you need more cases like this? There are thousands. By the way, her brain was essentially inactive for roughly half an hour. I have no idea what kind of literature you've been consuming, but the claim "I don't need to read anything because I understand it all already" is quite frankly... well, forgive my bluntness, but it is profoundly foolish.

You have to be joking.

bluebison25 said:@orah: Let's not get bogged down in endless arguments that just go in circles. Most people can probably agree with my point without us needing to start a massive brawl 🙂.

@Nancy Wilson2: Yeah, I'm basically just killing time right now—either handling private business or working out in the field. Unfortunately, this economic crisis is hitting every single sector. Based on my gut feeling, this year is going to be about 20% worse, which means we'll see roughly two months' worth of lost customers in the hospitality industry. As for the topic at hand: I don't know exactly what you experienced. I don't want to sound arrogant, but for people who have had near-death experiences (like my grandmother did), describing butterflies, pure joy, or flying over a meadow of flowers (that’s exactly how she put it), scientists gave us an answer a long time ago. It's just the brain hallucinating due to lack of oxygen, creating those vivid images. To me, it looks like the brain's desperate struggle to stay online as long as possible before it completely shuts down and wipes all our memories and knowledge
.
Here is how I see it: scientists already understand which part of the brain handles which function. We know the mind is essentially just a series of chemical reactions. If you damage one specific area of the brain, you lose certain mental faculties. It is simply not true that people with brain damage possess an intact "soul" while just being unable to communicate with us. Everything regarding a person's mind and personality can be stripped away if the brain is compromised: you might lose the ability to recognize faces, forget animal names while remembering everything else, or someone's entire personality could shift until they become totally antisocial, and so on.

Damage one part of the brain, lose one skill; damage another, lose another.

If you damage—or rather, shut down—the entire brain, what happens? Go ahead, answer that yourself; I’ve already found my own answer.

What religion tells us is that if the whole brain is destroyed, then upon death, our mind somehow magically ascends to heaven where we speak American and can finally recognize our grandma again.

On this final point, you are conflating the mind with consciousness. The mind dies along with the body. Do you truly believe that you *are* your mind? Fine—calculate "in your head" what 88 minus 35 is. What did you utilize? Your mind, of course. If you are your mind, how did you utilize it? What was it that actually performed the calculation? It is the same with the physical body: pick up a pen, look at it, and set it back down. What did you use? Your hand, yes, but you utilized your mind to direct it. Who is the user? The "I"—that is consciousness. Consciousness directs the mind, which in turn directs the body. That is what you actually ARE. At that level, you are absolutely identical to everyone else.

As for my own experience, I stepped directly into that silent consciousness that exists "behind" the mind. This consciousness is what some call the soul, infinite awareness, pure consciousness, or even God. In certain traditions, it is referred to as the state of Aiden. Aiden represents a state devoid of space, time, or thought; it translates to nothingness. There is a reason for that nomenclature. Because what lies "behind" the mind is, quite literally, infinite. Unfortunately, you have never experienced this, so you likely won't grasp the essence of what I am saying.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/lsd04.html "Are NDEs Hallucinations?" discusses this very subject. Tell me, if these are ALL hallucinations, wouldn't one need a functioning brain to have such elaborate hallucinations in the first place? What, then, can be said about those whose brains were NOT functioning? As far as I am aware, they didn't see meadows or whatever else... though these are indeed projections of the mind/consciousness, and these projections depend heavily on one's psychological state. After all, why do some see meadows, greenery, and light, while others see hell, fire, and torment? Both are illusions. Yet, the state of conscious infinity that resides behind those illusions is profoundly real. It is as simple as that—no flights of fancy required; the reality is quite straightforward.

bluebison25 said:What exactly are you trying to say, Harold Doyle3?

You think you're right just because you believe in ghosts, and since you've convinced yourself they're real through sheer willpower, suddenly I'm the one in the wrong? Fine, if it makes you feel better, keep clinging to your little ghost stories. Just don't try to twist my words or redefine my posts just to suit the agenda of your dying ideology for your followers.

edit: For the billionth time:

The "soul" isn't a thing; it’s just an abstract concept floating around in people's heads. Believers love to claim the soul is immaterial, arguing its existence shouldn't even be questioned. It begs the question: when does a person actually get assigned a soul? And what about animals? Believers will tell you animals don't have souls because they were meant for us to use—give me a break.

If this immaterial soul actually exists, how does it interact with the physical body? If it has zero impact on us, then the whole idea is dead on arrival. But if it *does* affect the body, it has to affect the molecules within it. We already understand the physical laws governing protein behavior; therefore, the existence of a soul directly violates the laws of physics. If souls are real, we might as well throw the laws of physics out the window. Who needs smartphones, the internet, or satellites then? Honestly, what are you even doing on this forum? Why aren't you out floating through the cosmos with all your other ghosts like a true believer should be?

The soul is nothing but unnecessary complication. Anyone claiming it exists needs to explain the mechanism of how it moves the physical body. We already know which parts of the brain handle which functions, so it looks like the soul doesn't actually do anything at all.

My advice to you is to stop giving any weight to what people tell you; frankly, they haven't a clue, unfortunately. Instead of wasting your time wrestling with their nonsense, you should be pursuing actual knowledge and meaningful pursuits in life.

The "soul," as believers and "spiritualists" call it, is quite simply Consciousness. I won't get bogged down in a debate over its exact definition, its origin, or where it wanders after death. But make no mistake: it is entirely real.

I once had this "mystical" experience while in a sort of profound trance. In that state, I was immersed for three full hours without interruption, yet I had absolutely no perception of time passing. I wasn't aware of any physical space either; there was only a deep silence and peace. I simply existed. There was no one else but myself, not even a single stray thought—one might call it "Nothingness." THAT is consciousness. It is that which lies "behind" the mind, the quiet awareness that constitutes our very core. I experienced it in a way few people ever do, though that isn't the point. Believers would say I was looking my "soul" in the eye. And no, it isn't some white spark as they imagine; that is purely an abstraction.

"Soul," or Consciousness, is absolute silence, a "void," pure existence. It is everything that people fear, much like a cat fears a dog. 😁

And while I said I wouldn't dwell on it, if one experiences death, they return to the field that permeates everything. That field is undeniably real—I know this from experience, and science recognizes it too; they call it the unified field. It is similar to a drop of water returning to the ocean, but it isn't about seeing light or some other imagery believers conjure up. Rather, it is very much like the experience I am attempting to describe, difficult as it may be to articulate. I mentioned we are all this at our core; if so, what is the actual difference between ME, you, or anyone else? Read what I've described again—there truly is no difference. We are one.

"Theoretical and empirical investigation reveals that the unified field is fundamentally a field of consciousness. The fundamental qualities of the unified field—intelligence, dynamism, and self-awareness (i.e., “self-referral,” the non-Abelian property of self-interaction)—are the defining characteristics of consciousness.

Scientific research on consciousness further demonstrates that human consciousness can directly access and experience The unified field in The most expanded state of human awareness. This experience of the unified field—pure consciousness—constitutes a fourth major state of human consciousness, physiologically and subjectively distinct from waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. This experience is marked by the onset of global EEG coherence and increased alpha power, indicating maximum orderliness of brain functioning and utilization of the total brain."

You can find the details here: http://www.spiritwatch.ca/cehsc/ipure.htm
Here is my take on what the "soul" actually is.

That’s the essence of it—I’ve attempted to clarify the concept through this lens, so take it or leave it. 😁

Yes, it provides some comfort—in the sense that it dulls the edge of fear and offers a bit of solace. However, my priority remains the truth. And the reality is that these recollections are fundamentally unreliable, given the facts I laid out above.

That said, it doesn't follow that the entire premise Michael Newton was attempting to prove is false.

His sessions are handled with a complete lack of professionalism—his case studies are no different. It’s all heavily driven by suggestion, which inevitably leads to his clients walking away with nothing but false memories and pure fabrications.

bluebison25 said:Is it "evil" when a dog lunges at a cat? Or when a pride of lions coordinates a hunt to take down a zebra or a giraffe just to stay alive? Is that some deep-seated human malice? What does any of that have to do with us? When a house cat kills a mouse, are we blaming the darkness in the human soul for that too? Does Earth really revolve around humanity? Does the sun and the entire cosmos orbit our little planet? Clearly, that’s just a delusion living in the heads of believers. Do they honestly think Earth is the center of the universe, and we're the center of Earth? Apparently, for some people, that's the reality.

It ultimately comes down to the individual—whether they choose to perceive an action as good or evil. Frankly, trying to force reality into neat little moral boxes isn't particularly wise; honestly, inventing these two arbitrary labels was probably one of our more misguided intellectual leaps. Things simply exist as they are.

As for the bolded part—yes, unfortunately, for some people, it is.

Harold Kelly5 said:Nancy Wilson2

Don't worry about it. A few minor tangents are perfectly fine if they actually serve the topic at hand. In fact, I intend to tie those points back into this post myself, so there really isn't an issue here. 🙂

Honestly, right now, I have this overwhelming urge to just go out and start shooting. If I could pick one, I’d go with something heavy-duty—maybe a .50 cal. Just to get it over with. 😛 I find myself uttering that specific word some 85,676 times a day. It’s an obsession born of pure consciousness—whether it's the will of God or just someone else's influence—yet the actual meaning remains frustratingly elusive. It never truly clicks.

I honestly don't know anymore. It seems like people are still stuck in this outdated, frantic struggle between science and faith, desperately clinging to one while flat-out denying the other. They just can't seem to find a middle ground. If you look at history, it’s clear: the most brilliant civilizations were built on an integrated worldview. They possessed a unified perspective that gave humanity purpose and meaning. They didn't spend their time fragmenting or pitting fundamental pillars—like science and faith—against one another. Such division only serves to weaken us.

Keycode is Keycode. They’re always going to push their own specific vision of God, regardless of whether that vision holds any water or not. It’s just how they operate. But honestly? That shouldn't even matter. At the end of the day, every individual needs to find God on their own terms—whatever makes sense to them personally. People need to find a definition or a platform that actually rings true to their own experience. There are infinite worldviews out there, so there will be an infinite number of ways to perceive the Divine. Some people won't even use the word "God." They'll call it "The Spirit," "The Totality," or "The Singularity." Whatever works for them.

Don't worry, I’m well aware of those theories. In fact, that’s exactly where I built the foundation of my own logic: if the universe has always existed, simply shifting its form and shape over time, then the universe itself must contain everything necessary for creation—including the "programming," such as the laws of nature. Therefore, the universe itself is God. Take this for example: can there ever be a moment in the history of these universes where the continuum of life or consciousness is broken? It’s impossible. If it were, you couldn't have something living emerge from something absolutely lifeless. The chain would snap, leaving us with nothing but dead matter. Everything essentially revolves around that single point of origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess everything required, or the point itself *is* the Absolute. (That’s a philosophical term for God, by the way; look it up if you feel like it. It’s easily the most convincing definition I’ve ever come across.)

You aren't off base, and here is why: everything we have discussed provides KeyCode with the answer to that fundamental question regarding why God doesn't withhold knowledge. He isn't withholding it; He is distributing it. We uncover Him through every single discovery, every moment of insight, and every "new" idea we stumble upon. I am putting "new" in quotation marks intentionally to make my point: everything originates from Him. We aren't inventing anything; we are simply becoming aware of His laws, whether we approach them through science and technology or through spirituality and mysticism. If you subscribe to a pantheistic view—the idea that the universe itself is God—then this logic holds up perfectly. Even if we are talking about the Absolute, which might be more than just immanent but also transcendent, we are still discovering parts of Him, even if only indirectly. Regardless, we absolutely receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only possible source. If He is the Absolute, then He is essentially everything that exists. Now, if using the pronoun "He" feels too patriarchal for your taste, feel free to swap it out for whatever terminology suits you better. I’m sticking with it because I see no reason to reinvent the wheel just to satisfy modern sensibilities. 🙂

(I hope I didn't overwhelm you too much.) 🙂

It is a regrettable reality, though I suppose that is simply how things stand. One can’t help but wonder how much further we might have progressed as a society if we weren't constantly bogged down by the endless friction surrounding those two figures—it's quite exhausting, really. Furthermore, consider the sheer amount of progress we've missed out on because certain researchers have gathered substantial evidence supporting reincarnation, only to be met with nothing but condescension and outright dismissal from the mainstream scientific establishment. And frankly, the list of such scientists who have been sidelined in this manner is far longer than most people care to admit. 😢 That kind of behavior—honestly—it just strikes a chord with me in all the wrong ways.

Don't worry—I am quite familiar with those theories. In fact, they serve as the very foundation upon which I have built my own reasoning: If we assume the universe has existed eternally—simply shifting through various states and configurations—then it follows that the cosmos itself must inherently contain everything necessary for its own manifestation. This would include the fundamental "software," such as the laws of physics, that dictates how matter behaves. Ergo, The universe itself is God.Take a simple premise like this: is it ever possible for there to be a break in the continuum of life or consciousness within the history of these universes? It simply cannot be. If such a rupture occurred, you would have a situation where something living could never emerge from something entirely inanimate. The chain would be broken—leaving nothing behind but dead matter. In truth, everything revolves around that singular moment of cosmic origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess all necessary properties, or the point itself *is* the Absolute—a philosophical term for God, if you feel like looking it up; it is, without question, the most compelling definition I have ever encountered.

And it has been there all along. Here is why;

Everything presented here points toward a single, inescapable conclusion: the universe has always existed. I realize that this idea feels inherently unsatisfande—perhaps even deeply unsettling—to our current way of thinking, but we must consider that our cognitive framework is likely the very source of the problem. In our corner of the universe, we operate under the unshakable assumption of cause and effect, strictly in that order. Everything within our grasp follows this linear progression; indeed, even our own minds are hardwired to function this way. Our very existence would be impossible if this temporal sequence were reversed. Therefore, when we attempt to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has simply always been, we inevitably fail—we are biologically incapable of grasping it because we reflexively hunt for a "cause" to explain the "effect" of the universe’s existence. The reality is that the universe is fundamentally different from us. It exists within the void, whereas we exist within the universe. In a timeless, eternal, and infinite nothingness, the concepts of cause and effect simply do not apply.
Based on our definition of nothingness—which, by its very nature, is timeless—it follows that for the universe to be contained within it, the universe must always have existed. It is logically impossible for the universe to have been created *within* itself, as such an act would necessitate a specific moment in time, which contradicts the eternal state of nothingness. I am not proposing this idea out of a desire for intellectual comfort; rather, it is simply the only way the mechanics of existence can actually function.
If you find yourself fundamentally unsettled by the concept of things having always existed, then I honestly don't see a way forward—there simply isn't a solution. We are left with a binary choice, really: either we accept that at some point, everything just emerged from nothingness, a perspective which I personally find entirely unacceptable, or we have to conclude that the universe doesn't exist at all. It is one or the other.
Within the descriptions of the Big Bang, there are three primary cosmological models to consider. You have the open universe, which expands indefinitely; the flat model, which eventually reaches a standstill; and the closed model, which collapses—perhaps even "bouncing" back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is indeed closed, it is entirely possible that it "bounces" back cycle after cycle, eternally. This concept of an everlasting cycle of expansion and contraction is my preferred choice—though I admit, that preference is based purely on aesthetic grounds. I am well aware, of course, that the debates are still ongoing to determine which model holds true.
So, after weighing all the arguments, which model would I choose to describe the origin of the cosmos? An infinitely eternal, unchanging void that has always existed and has always contained a finite yet unbounded, closed universe—one that is constantly changing, yet remains eternal in its own essence. In this framework, the Big Bang doesn't require a singular moment of creation; rather, it is merely one phase in a perpetual cycle of an expanding and contracting universe that carries no special significance in itself. There is no need to search beyond it; the previous cycle is simply "outside" of it.

If you want me to write out a full treatise explaining this in detail, just say the word.
...and I second everything else you wrote.

Everything we’ve discussed might actually provide KeyCode with an answer to the question: why God does not withhold knowledge. He does share it. We uncover Him through every discovery, every realization, and every "new" idea. I put "new" in quotation marks specifically to make my point: everything emanates from Him, and we are simply becoming aware of His laws—whether through science and technology, spirituality, mysticism, and so on. If we are speaking of a pantheistic God (where the universe itself is God), then this holds true regardless. Even if we are discussing the Absolute—which may or may not be solely pantheistic (immanent), but could also be transcendent—then we are at least uncovering a part of Him, or discovering Him indirectly. Anyway, we certainly receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only source possible, given that He is, in fact, the Absolute—everything that exists.

I have nothing to add; well done. 🙂

Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Harold Kelly5 said:Sure, it’s an interesting hypothesis, but it trips over a few logical hurdles. For instance, how do you account for the laws of physics themselves? They seem to act like a pre-written "program" that runs the whole show, creating and destroying the cosmos over and over. Were those laws also created? And if they were, by what mechanism? Most importantly, could they have just popped into existence on their own?
Furthermore, the whole argument collapses when you reach the singularity. At that moment, there is no "before" or "after," which implies there must be some framework existing OUTSIDE—if I can even use a spatial term like that—of space and time itself. It all seems to circle back to that "intelligent nothingness" concept you mentioned. I must say, I quite like that phrase.🙂

The universe isn't being "created" or "destroyed"; it is all energy, obviously. It merely shifts form—it can never be birthed from nothing nor truly extinguished, making it infinite and immortal. Our linear, limited minds struggle to grasp infinity, so we reflexively insist that everything must have a beginning or an end. What actually happened? Perhaps as the previous universe reached its "end," it began to collapse; the volume decreased further and further until, according to evolutionary theory and relativity, it culminated in a new (or another one, several times over) singularity. Given the nature of spacetime, the attractive force of gravity changes—it ceases at those extreme densities—causing the collapse to halt. Those forces then pivot, creating a repulsive force, and everything begins anew. There is no breaking point; these processes have always existed. That is simply how nature functions—through balance and cycles. It follows the logic laid out in the link I provided.

No God or external intelligence is required to explain this. It is quite simply nature—creation in action, manifesting itself. Unless, of course, you believe that nature and the universe are one and the same. In that case, pantheism wins. 😁 A God that creates Himself—if He is "omnipotent," why not? What would be the purpose of this repetition? New experiences for living beings. Is life not, ultimately, just an experience? And who is the one experiencing it? Consciousness. Now, as for what consciousness actually is, I wouldn't dare claim it is merely a function produced by the brain; there is simply too much evidence suggesting otherwise. From what I have read regarding quantum mechanics and unified field theory, consciousness appears to be fundamental to nature. However, I suspect scientists would need to approach this with far more open minds to investigate it properly. If the universe operates with such perfection, I see no reason why life itself wouldn't be equally perfect—meaning it never truly "vanishes," but rather shifts into a form suited for higher dimensions. I once heard a fellow forum user suggest that "energy becomes matter in higher dimensions," which is a compelling thought. If that holds true, then this entire process of rebirth exists solely to gather new experiences for the infinite field of consciousness/intelligence that permeates everything.

But then again, we don't know everything yet... we'll live to see. I am merely recording my current thoughts; I trust no one takes offense.

edit: My 400th post, by the way, 🙂 😁

Harold Kelly5 said:Using "you believers" is a massive overgeneralization. Which believers are we talking about? What worldview? What social standing, economic status, or cultural background? All of those factors shape how one perceives faith.

Arguments are absolutely necessary. Do you honestly believe that every single believer relies solely on blind faith without some kind of real, direct experience—or at least a hint of something like God? What everyone keeps glossing over in this debate is lived experience: that tangible, undeniable encounter that forces a person to conclude there is something more than just mere matter. The thing is, you don't find that experience at a flea market; you acquire it by keeping an open mind.

And then, of course, there is rational thought to assist the process. For example, I have yet to see or hear of a physical law stating that something can spontaneously emerge from absolute nothingness. Scientifically speaking, that is nonsense. In any equation, the input must be equivalent to the output. Therefore, if the universe, matter, energy, consciousness, and intelligence exist, they must have originated from something that also possesses or consists of those very elements. In the absence of a more precise term, we call that "God."

Consequently, belief—starting with belief in God and moving beyond—can certainly have both rational and experiential foundations. That doesn't mean it *always* does, let's be clear on that. Also, just because something cannot be proven experimentally doesn't mean it isn't real. I can't provide experimental proof that I was lying in my bed at 11:48 last night. But I know, through experience, that I was. Do you follow me? 😉

Well, I found myself dwelling on that very subject yesterday—that absolute nothingness that preceded the universe and the sheer mystery of how everything came to be. For reasons I can't quite put my finger on, my intuition seemed to nudge me toward a few specific corners of the internet. These were the links that caught my eye:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%...rse%20from.htm
Imagine an infinite, eternal, and immutable void—a state of absolute nothingness that has existed since before time itself. Within this stillness, there exists a finite yet unbounded closed universe; a system that is perpetually in flux, characterized by constant change, even while the vacuum containing it remains eternally unchanged.
Imagine a balloon—if you can even wrap your head around the concept—that is in a state of perpetual, restless transformation. It shifts constantly from a single, infinitely dense point into the vast entirety of the cosmos we observe, only to collapse and begin the process all over again. And again. And again. It is a relentless, rhythmic cycle—a constant state of equilibrium where everything exists in perfect balance against nothingness. A truly infinite loop.

And then, some inner demon practically compelled me to click on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nhLpWahLE Starting from 7:00 PM—actually, let's make that 7:45 PM—and moving forward... I don't quite follow—you've only provided a fragment. If you have a full post or a specific message you need me to rework, please send it over. I'm ready to get to work once I have the substance.( 😲 The point I was just beginning to dwell upon—that specific thread of thought—is laid out clearly from the 20:15 mark onward.

What is the actual point here? Look, it’s all well and good to have faith—really, it is—but for God's sake, let's apply a little logic to the situation. We don't exactly need some deity or supernatural figure stepping in just to explain how the world works.

I used to hold onto this notion of some sort of "intelligent nothingness"—a concept I found somewhat compelling at one point—but after everything that has unfolded, I have officially abandoned the idea.

blueeagle22 said:Look, blind faith is useless if you don't actually grasp what's happening. Every commandment from God and every word spoken by Jesus can be broken down logically; it’s not just about swallowing things whole. I've seen plenty of people in the Church who are clearly just using religion to mask the fact that their lives are falling apart. They bury their heads in the sand to avoid reality, praying incessantly for miracles while ignoring common sense. God isn't going to fix everything for you through prayer alone. If you're broke or out of shape, get up and actually do something about it. It's pure hypocrisy to pray for help and then turn around and refuse to lend a hand to someone else when they actually need it.

What is there even to believe in? One must seek understanding, experience it, and truly KNOW!
Someone who supposedly returned from the dead once said that only two things truly matter when you leave this life: love and knowledge. I believe I came across that sentiment in Talbot's *The Holographic Universe*—a fascinating read, regardless.
But, unfortunately, there is no room for "faith" in that equation.

Not everyone fits the mold you've described—there are certainly good people out there—but then again, this planet is home to all sorts of questionable characters.😁

blueeagle22 said:True. We should always approach things with an open mind. I’ve always felt that if you don't know something, there's no point in pretending you do—I only speak on what I actually understand. I won't claim the Quran is 100% divine truth or that the Bible is, but both contain truths. Some parts clearly feel like they were inserted just to intimidate people, but you have to recognize that for what it is and just ignore it. When a text starts weighing heavily on your soul, that's your sign it isn't from God.

The best course of action is to find a comfortable spot on the floor—somewhere warm and inviting, preferably—and simply sit. Quiet the mind, ask the hard questions, and attempt to find the answers for yourself. Sure, external information can serve as a catalyst for insight, but merely memorizing someone else's data and mistaking it for actual wisdom is, frankly, foolish.

And who decided that "truth" is exclusively synonymous with light and love? There are dark truths out there that could drive a person mad, but truth is truth, damn it.

blueeagle22 said:Look, life is just one long lesson. There won't be some final exam where God grills us on everything we learned. He put us here to experience things, plain and simple. I don't even buy the whole hell concept; the fact that we suffer right here on Earth proves that pain is just an unavoidable part of the deal. Even in other faiths, they teach that both good and evil come from the same source. Honestly, there’s no point in arguing about this anymore. I'm done talking because I don't have all the answers. Who knows what tomorrow holds? Life might throw me a curveball that turns me into the worst version of myself. It isn't easy. For some, life is heaven; for others, it's a living hell. We'll see what happens. No one knows what kind of plan God has in store for us, but I'll keep fighting to be a better person. Everyone has their limits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEHuSH-qW38

Of course there won't be a hell—if you ask me, just try to guess whose original invention that was. It's nothing more than a fabrication born from a disturbed mind, really.
Furthermore, if one were to study the Bible with any degree of attention, they would realize that hell is simply separation from God—and that separation is happening... right now!
We suffer precisely because we are disconnected; however, that disconnection itself was imposed upon us. One has to wonder—why can't you recall who or where you were before this lifetime? And go ahead, guess who is responsible for that amnesia. 🙂 I have already provided the answer.

"mostly there's no point in arguing anymore, I won't talk about it further because I don't know everything, I don't know what tomorrow brings—maybe life will force me to become the worst person in the world, life isn't easy, for some it's heaven and for others it's hell, we'll see what life brings."

Fine then; live your life and we shall see.
And yes, none of us knows everything—which is precisely why engaging in these discussions is worthwhile; it is the only way to actually arrive at any semblance of truth.

blueeagle22 said:It’s a simple fact: any living thing acts against itself, not against God. You can't actually harm God. When we sin, we aren't attacking the divine; we're just sabotaging our own happiness. I'm convinced God set this whole game in motion because life is essentially a classroom—we're here to learn, and the lessons never stop. There's a line in the Quran I've always liked where it says God is a river and life is merely a game and a diversion; we shouldn't take the whole thing too seriously. Sin exists within religions because there is truth in them, which is why they've endured for so long. Truth is eternal, whereas a lie is a hollow nothingness with no foundation, destined to eventually destroy itself. Every evil eventually meets its end, and that's proof enough that God exists. If there were no God, everything would be permitted. Whether you look at the Quran or the Bible, truth is woven throughout, which is why God has allowed these faiths to persist for thousands of years.

"Life is a school, we are here to learn"—well, if you sit with that thought for a moment and really dissect it, you'll realize it's a falsehood. Do you drive a car just to memorize every technical detail of the operation, or do you do it to actually experience the drive? Life is an experience, plain and simple. This same tired philosophy repeats itself in New Age circles—they claim "life is a lesson," but honestly, people have no idea how much they are being lied to. http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/enli...-not-a-school/ Personally, I might even strike the word "evil" from my vocabulary; it would be far more accurate to use the term "imbalance." God is balance—yes—and "evil" is simply a deviation from that equilibrium. However, both are intrinsic parts of life and the Creator. Consequently, you don't need any specific Quran; everything you require, all the answers, already reside within you. Forget about any "holy books"—those are often nothing more than works of Lucifer.

blueeagle22 said:Let’s get one thing straight: God is the ultimate sovereign and the smartest being in existence. Nothing escapes Him. It makes zero sense to suggest He could create angels only to have them turn rogue and start working against Him on Earth. He knows everything—He knows their hearts, assuming those things even exist. If any angels turned away, it’s because He permitted it as part of His design. Absolutely nothing happens in this world without His consent, and nobody can pull a fast one on Him. The idea that God sent Jesus to save humanity because we somehow "messed up" His original plan is just as ridiculous. To claim He sacrificed His Son because He didn't see our sins coming? That's nonsense. God is perfect. He knew exactly who we would become before He even breathed life into us. A perfect Being doesn't make mistakes or deal with unforeseen errors. It's all just foolishness.

The Creator—or perhaps more accurately, the Creation itself—generates life and grants it the free will to act as it chooses. Naturally, it is entirely possible for life to choose, by its own volition, to sever itself from the source and begin acting against its own interests. Of course it is. And yes, we possess free will, though down here on Earth, that autonomy is suppressed and neglected due to the rigid systems and hierarchies those entities established to serve their own agendas. Do you truly imagine "He" functions like a police officer? That He micromanages every single movement? Good grief. It doesn't work quite like that. Try to step into those shoes for a moment—imagine you are God. It sounds simple enough, so let me attempt to frame it this way: close your eyes. What do you see? Darkness. That darkness—that "nothingness," that vacuum, that void—existed at the beginning, yet within it, there was consciousness. That consciousness grew weary of its own solitude and decided to initiate a game to accumulate experience. Thus, it created the game: the universe. This consciousness then fractured into billions of individual expressions—us. It is entirely plausible that the intention was to experience pain, hatred, and fear; after all, those are vital components of life and experience. The Creation is perfect, and we are as well; these fairy tales regarding "sin" are utter nonsense. Such concepts were manufactured to instill shame in us—and one might ask, who exactly authored these religions? Is that clearer now? As for these "angels" you mention—when a person passes, their spirit leaves the body; initially, the spirit retains a form similar to the physical vessel, but after a period, that "spiritual" energy—which vibrates at a much higher dimensional frequency—condenses into a single point. That is what we call the soul. "Angels" would simply be souls that have gathered more experience. However, it would be best to discard this notion of spiritual hierarchy that we project from our earthly perspective. Such structures do not exist there; in that realm, there is only harmony and balance. There is no hierarchy—there simply IS.

I believe people have fundamentally misunderstood the situation—really, they’ve gotten it all wrong. We aren't dealing with a single entity known as Satan; please, try to grasp that. What we are actually facing is a collective of entities that were symbolically depicted in the Bible as Lucifer. They are simply disconnected from the Creator—they possess their own consciousness that operates entirely independently from the Source. They have their own agenda, which is precisely why they have arrived here. To achieve this agenda, they had to sever our connection to the consciousness of the Creator, to the Source, to life itself. They accomplished this by possessing individuals, using that as a mechanism of control to establish a hierarchy—essentially creating the broken state of modern society we see today. They have implanted within us a specific type of consciousness—one that consumes and destroys other life, spreading like a malignancy; one could call that particular consciousness Satan. There is another group besides them—conspiracy theorists like David Icke have referred to them as reptilians—but even he, much like everyone else, has misinterpreted them. People are out there searching for physical evidence of someone being a reptile—it's almost laughable, really. Just go onto YouTube and watch some videos on the subject. These, too, are non-physical entities, a form of life roughly equivalent to the Lucifer group; they are astral entities, demons—call them whatever you like. By "astral," I am referring to the lower 4th dimension from which they originate. All of them were created by the Creator, just as we were. We are equals. The only difference is that they have separated themselves from the Source and act against it, much like we do. This isn't some grand, cinematic battle between good and evil—forget about that concept—it is simply a matter of things being out of balance.

blueeagle22 said:According to the Quran, God intentionally lets Satan run loose. He isn't some separate entity acting outside of God's control; nothing is more powerful or smarter than the Creator. If God wanted to, He could wipe Satan out in a heartbeat, but instead, He allows him to exist to throw obstacles in our path so we can actually learn who God is. Nancy Wilson2, what kind of books are you reading if this is what you've come to believe?

I don't read anything on the subject; certain truths are simply known through experience and deep reflection.

goldenscout14 said:But I find myself wondering, at what specific point in history did this actually take place? Who exactly was authorized to sign away our collective rights in some cosmic sales agreement on behalf of every single one of us? And if Satan is truly this dominant force on Earth, why isn't there a single holiday dedicated to him?🤔

🤦

It happened roughly a millennium ago, give or take.
As for who signed the contract? No one—it was forced upon us against our will.
And don't be naive; there are plenty of "holidays"—just ask any Satanist or our dear Illuminati overlords when they hold their ceremonies to summon spirits and invite possession.

Ronald Nelson2 said:I agree with you. The music we listen to, the things we buy, politics... essentially, everything is under Satan's domain. Why? Because humanity sold itself to the devil, and that is why so many suffer. I am fully aware of this. We are a part of this machine, and in a way, we finance it ourselves.
But I believe in God. I pray to God, and amidst all this evil, I try my hardest to be good and to do good. And I won't give up, because my faith is unshakable.

It is curious how you find common ground with me, even though I view the matter quite differently from what your faith preaches. But no matter.
Satan isn't the one pulling the strings here. Think of him merely as a sort of electric shock used to keep us trapped inside a prison. Who do you think built the prison, and who is actually controlling Satan?
The Antithesis—symbolically referred to in the Bible as Lucifer. Go ahead, look up the meaning of that name; you will realize where these forces originated. It isn't just about one individual figure. There is an entire group that emerged following them.
And make no mistake—humanity didn't just surrender to this destructive consciousness on a whim; at that time, we simply had no other choice.