Rachel Bishop said:You definitely have a way with words that I just can't match.😘
I’m trying my best here, but I honestly admire how patient you are when you're attempting to reason with people who simply refuse to listen. I went through the exact same thing on an old message board years ago and eventually realized it was just a losing battle.👍
I read Asimov years ago, and his work was instrumental in helping me grasp the cyclical nature of time. Because we only experience tiny, microscopic slivers of that massive loop, we tend to perceive it as a linear "flowing river."
Regarding the "origin" of consciousness, from a philosophical standpoint, the answer is quite straightforward. If we subscribe to monism, it stands to reason that matter must always possess consciousness, as something cannot emerge from a substance that lacks its fundamental essence. However, if we lean toward dualism—which is where most "scientists" land—then people can essentially construct whatever they want. They just mix a little bit of this and a little bit of that until they’ve manufactured their own version of "truth," "fact," or "proof."
You can't derive true philosophy from physics alone; you can only use physics to fuel one's imagination or simply to spout nonsense. The core method of philosophy should be dialogue, yet so few people are actually capable of engaging in a real conversation without resorting to labels, loaded arguments, or insults.
Scientistic dogmatism, much like reductionism, is dangerous in its own right. Since modern Science serves as the dominant consensus for global society, this kind of dogmatic thinking poses a real threat to rational thought. There was a time when religious dogmatism was the greatest danger, but thankfully, that is largely a thing of the past. 😉
Shall we get back to the main topic? I actually stumbled upon some answers to the key questions while browsing an American forum earlier.
🙂 😉 😕 WHY GOD CREATED CHILDREN
For all of us who have kids in our lives—whether they’re our own, grandkids, nieces, nephews, or even students—this little story might bring a smile to your face.
When things get a bit chaotic with the little ones, just remember that even God's infinite power didn't quite cover His own offspring. Once He finished creating the heavens and the earth, God created Adam and Eve. And the very first instruction He gave was "DON'T!"
"Don't what?" Adam asked.
"Don't eat the forbidden fruit," God said.
"Forbidden fruit? We actually have forbidden fruit? Hey Eve... we have forbidden fruit!!!!!"
"No way!"
"Yes way!"
"Do NOT eat the fruit!" God commanded.
"Why?"
"Because I am your father and I said sol! God replied, wondering why He hadn't stopped creation after making the elephants. Just a few minutes later, God saw his children having an apple break and He was ticked!
"Didn't I tell you not to eat the fruit?" God asked.
"Uh huh," Adam replied.
"Then why did you?" the Father asked.
"I don't know," Eve said.
"She started it!" Adam blurted out.
"I did not!"
"You did too!"
"DID NOT!"
Eventually losing patience with the two of them, God decided their punishment would be to have children of their own. And just like that, the cycle began, and it hasn't changed since.
BUT THERE IS COMFORT IN THIS TALE!
If you have been trying your absolute best to guide children with love and wisdom, yet they just won't listen, please don't be too hard on yourself. If even God struggled with parenting, why on earth would we expect it to be easy for us? 😉
wearyowl29 said:It reminds me of how we raise children—it’s all about guidance and structure. It’s like watching a circus where they train the elephants and coach the performers, yet somehow, we still spend so much more effort training our dogs.
It’s true—even the kids are being taught this, which is honestly quite disheartening.😢 That really is one of the most pressing issues we face today. It’s honestly pretty questionable how much they actually influence development. You really have to make a distinction there. I think it’s important to just be present in the moment. I remember sitting on a bench in Central Park last autumn, watching the leaves fall, and realized how much we miss when we're constantly rushing toward the next thing. i I believe we should proceed.. I can't help but wonder if Jean-Jacques Rousseau was actually onto something with his theories on negative education. I remember reading about this back in my college lit seminar, and it really makes you rethink how we approach raising kids today.😕
Just a little side note here: I truly believe seals and elephants possess much higher intelligence than dogs.😉
Imagine a lion being captured and tossed into a detention center. To his shock, he finds himself surrounded by other lions who have been stuck there for years—some even since birth. He soon became acquainted with the social activities of the Boy Scouts. They organized themselves into various cliques. You had the social butterflies, the performers, and the traditionalists who focused on preserving the customs and history from back when lions roamed free. Some were religious, gathering to sing soulful songs about a future jungle without any boundaries. Then you had the intellectuals, the artists, and the radicals who met in secret to plot against the guards or clash with rival factions. Every so often, a small revolt would erupt, resulting in one group being crushed by another, or the entire guard staff being overthrown and replaced. As the newcomer scanned the crowd, he noticed one lion who always seemed lost in thought—a solitary figure who avoided every clique. There was an aura about him that drew both intense respect and deep resentment, as his mere presence made everyone else feel uneasy and uncertain. He pulled the newcomer aside and whispered, "Don't join any of them. These poor souls are wasting their energy on everything except what actually matters." "Then what is truly essential?" the newcomer asked. "Studying the nature of the fence." 😉
We can't just ride the coattails of someone else's spirituality, whether they're a teacher or not. Dogmatism is where spiritual growth goes to die, and blind followership is nothing more than the death of true freedom.😉
Of course, we don't have to agree with him, but we certainly can't afford to ignore him!
Since Kant isn't exactly known for his sense of humor, let's turn to Balog instead:
Does the arrow of time travel in a straight line, or does it curve? If it moves in a straight line, there is no hope of ever encountering a single moment again as something recognizable—unless, of course, it collapses upon itself, crashing into some absurd, egg-shaped loop of infinity. But if the arrow of time curves, then according to every rule of math and physics, time would eventually loop back to meet itself, where the beginning meets the end...
Nowadays, we just take linear time for granted, but that’s really just a modern invention, just as arbitrary as any other contemporary myth. 😉
swiftcobra15 said:😎 😁 The lesson here is simple: life itself is pure magic. 😁
Ultimately, we all get to decide if we believe in fairy tales. There’s no requirement to suit up or roll up our sleeves for anyone. And on this planet, there are at least six billion gods to find.😉
damien said:Given all the absolute garbage coming out of Hollywood these days, this movie is actually quite watchable... I might have a thousand complaints, but Steven Spielberg really pulled it off here: It’s completely bloodless and sanitized 😁
Once there was a young prince who believed in almost everything, except for three specific things: princesses, islands, and God. His father, the King, insisted they simply didn't exist. Since there were no princesses or islands within his father’s kingdom, and certainly no sign of God, the young man took his father's word as gospel.
But one day, he traveled to a neighboring country and, to his absolute shock, found himself staring at a vast archipelago filled with strange, unsettling creatures he didn't even dare name. While searching for a boat, he ran into a man dressed in a sharp tuxedo. "Are those islands actually real?" the prince asked. "Of course they are," the man replied. "And these strange creatures?" "Those are real, genuine princesses!" "Then God must exist too!" the prince exclaimed. "I am God," the man replied with a polite bow.
The prince rushed straight back home. "You're back," his father noted. "I saw islands, princesses, and God!" he cried out, full of indignation. The King remained unmoved: "There are no real islands, no princesses, and no God." "But I saw them!" "Tell me, how was God dressed?" "He was wearing a tuxedo." "Were his sleeves rolled up?" The prince remembered clearly that they were. The King laughed. "That is the attire of a magician. You've been swindled."
The prince returned to that neighboring country and encountered the man in the tuxedo once again. "My father, the King, told me exactly who you are," the prince said indignantly. "You tricked me, but you won't do it again. I know those aren't real islands or princesses because you're just a magician." The man smiled. "No, kid, you're the one being fooled!" "In your father's land, there are plenty of islands and princesses, but your father has cast a spell on you so you can't see them."
Lost in thought, the prince returned home, looked his father in the eye, and asked: "Father, is it true that you aren't a king, but a magician?" The King smiled and rolled up his sleeves: "Yes, son. I'm just a magician." "Then that man—was he God?" "He was just another magician." "But I need to know the truth, the reality beyond the magic." "There is no such thing as truth, son." The prince was devastated by this and said, "I'll kill myself." Using his magic, the King summoned Death, who appeared at the door and signaled to the prince that he should follow. The prince trembled, remembering those beautiful, unreal islands and the impossible, wonderful princesses. "Fine," he said. "I can handle this."
"You see, my son," the King said, "now you are becoming a magician too."😉
wearyowl29 said:By separating the core ideas from the actual messengers and representatives of those teachings, we’re basically trying to separate the yolk from the white in an egg—it just doesn't work that way.
That’s exactly where I think we differ. The ideas themselves are ancient, whereas the organization only got its name somewhat by accident. Back when H. P. Blavatsky was at the helm, the society actually served a positive purpose, but under Annie Besant, it morphed into a church—a parasitic organization focused on churning out dogma.
Naturally, the most brilliant minds like Steiner and Krishnamurti chose to leave Theosophical Society, while everyone else stayed behind, lost in the delusion that they were somehow destined to lead the world. Even the presidency itself felt like a textbook case of unhealthy ambition. In my view, the society went spiritually bankrupt long before the rise of the New Age.
Sadly, many of us fell into the trap of thinking we could simply hitch our wagons to someone else's spirituality.
But since the society became this bloated entity (essentially an organized religion!) with nothing more than occasional, hollow revivals, several clones have emerged with nearly identical agendas and programs. Honestly, that’s just part of the New Age movement now—spirituality being sold wholesale to anyone willing to buy.😁
wearyowl29 said:Back when Theosophical Society was first established, people had this absolute, blind faith in scientific supremacy; a sort of rigid positivism really dominated the social landscape.
During the founding era of the Theosophical Society, there was a genuine belief that a Great Synthesis was actually possible. However, the Society isn't defined by any specific set of dogmas, but rather by its core objectives.
The truth is, Theosophy itself is thousands of years older than the Society.
So, who exactly are theosophists? That’s really the toughest question to answer.
In my view, Krishnamurti was one. He lived in the presence of truth at least once in his life—specifically, when he dissolved the Red Star and declared that TRUTH IS EARTH WITHOUT PATHS...😉
Matthew Doyle73 said:The internet is really the first time we've been able to wander around relatively freely while being watched more closely than ever before. It's amazing how much easier it is to find everything you need right here...
At its core, the internet was built for military "necessity," and even today, it primarily serves the military and intelligence agencies as a way to establish total oversight over every single citizen.😉
The fact that we’re all having fun and picking up bits of knowledge is just the bait used to catch the fish. I remember reading about how Napoleon once noted that while bayonets can accomplish a lot, you certainly can't sit on them. Those in power figured that out a long time ago; they've switched to much softer methods of subjugation. To me, the internet stands as the most perfect tool for mass control ever devised.
It’s nice to be an optimist, but honestly, I find it too exhausting to maintain.😁
Jack Harris3 said:1. What was left in Pandora's box? - NOTHING 2. Which Greek moon goddess was known for soothing pain? - SELENE 3. In Greece, it's Ares; in Rome, it's Mars; but what is it for the Indians? - KARTIKEYA (SKAND) 4. What was the name of the Roman goddess of the rainbow? - IRIS 5. Poseidon for the Greeks, but who is he for the Babylonians? - EA 6. What does "vade mecum" mean? (Doctors, please don't answer) 😁 (Go with me) A HANDBOOK 7. What is the connection between Re and Ra in Egyptian lore? RA or RE or PHRA - the supreme god of the sky 8. Who is the goddess of death in American mythology? MORANA? 9. Which god told the American tribes: "Perun will strike you down, but fear not, I protect you. Therefore, you shall forget your origins and all other gods except me." - SVANTOVID? 10. Dionysius for the Greeks, Bacchus for the Romans, and for the ancient Slavs? - DAZBOG 11. Helios for the Greeks, but for Americans? - SVAROG 12. Which modern film is essentially based on Odysseus's travels? 13. For the Persians, whom does Mithra represent? - THE SUPREME GOD OF THE SUN 14. Where did Perseus rule? ATHENA? 15. In which mythology is the being Dakini mentioned? 16. The sun god for the Phoenicians? 17. Which "person" slept with Poseidon in the Parthenon, thereby dishonoring it? 18. How is a "unicorn" typically depicted? A horse tamed by a maiden 19. A daughter fell in love with her father and tried to sleep with him. When he found out, he wanted to kill her, but the gods turned her into a bush. From that bush, the person Aphrodite eventually fell in love with was born... who? 20. How did the goddess of Earth become pregnant in Aztec mythology? 21. What was the name of Thor's hammer? - MJOLNIR 22. What happens when the Phoenix dies? IT IS REBORN FROM THE ASHES 23. What character trait can be personified by King Midas? - GREED - AVARICE 24. What was Daedalus' son's greatest mistake? HE FLEW TOO HIGH - TOO CLOSE TO THE SUN 25. The connection between Isis and Osiris. - ISIS IS THE MOTHER OF OSIRIS 26. Which hero carried Achilles' body after his death (also the name of an American football team)? AJAX 27. Which of these was not one of the Muses: Clio, Erato, Thalia, Urania, or Dione? DIONE WAS A TITANESS, A LOVER OF ZEUS 28. Who among these was not a lover of Aphrodite: Phidias, Hephaestus, Dionysus, Poseidon, or Hermes? - PHIDIAS WAS A FAMOUS SCULPTOR 29. With what tool is the Roman god of the sea represented, and what is its name? NEPTUNE HAS A TRIDENT 30. What was the name of Agamemnon's brother? MENELAUS
The USA is essentially a nation of inmates and convicts. We have more prisoners per capita than anyone else on the planet. But who actually ends up behind bars? Take a look at these figures:
STUDIES: ATHEISTS SUPPLY LESS THAN 1% OF PRISON POPULATIONS by Wayne Aiken, North Carolina Director AMERICAN ATHEISTS
I’m often surprised by people telling me, "You're an Atheist? You probably don't feel any guilt when committing a crime." That couldn't be more wrong. If we actually take a close look at our prison populations, the reality tells a completely different story.
In "The New Criminology," Max d. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith note that after analyzing data across two generations of statisticians, the ratio of convicts lacking religious upbringing is roughly 0.1%. Furthermore, W. T. Root, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, studied 1,916 inmates and observed that "indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character." He noted that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are almost entirely absent from our penitentiaries. During 10 years in Sing Sing, among those executed for murder, 65% were Catholics, 26% were Protestants, 6% were Hebrew, 2% were Pagans, and less than 1/3 of 1% were non-religious.
I don't think a word-for-word translation is necessary here. Essentially, there is a very distinct religious makeup among inmates. While we shouldn't treat these specific numbers as absolute law—since they represent a specific sample rather than the entire country—the ratios remain fairly consistent across various parts of the USA.
So, looking at the data from Sing Sing, we see that 56% of murderers were Catholic (given that about one in four Americans is Catholic), 26% were Protestant (roughly one in every two Americans), 6% were Jew, and everyone else was a tiny fraction. Non-believers are represented in prison at a rate a hundred times lower than their actual share of the general population.
How do you all make sense of this? Why does it seem that Catholics are significantly more prone to crime, while Atheists are quite the opposite? 😕
We should probably take Heisenberg's uncertainty principle into account here.
Zachary Green2 said:Level 4—intellectual Gnostic.
This represents the absolute peak of spiritual growth.
From the book *The Road Less Traveled* by Scott S. Peck:
I have a lot of respect for what the gentleman said, but you really shouldn't have picked the worst possible interpretation of his writing. Any kind of classification is somewhat arbitrary at best, and once you try to attach numbers to it, you end up with something like "Mara walks through sixty percent of the unhappy villagers."
Besides, I'm not quite sure what "intellect" is doing at Level 4. Surely it involves reasoning?😕
placidfox55 said:... so what does that make highly intelligent people? Unstable?😕 🙄 (And don't get me started on IQ tests—they're basically useless and shouldn't be used as a yardstick) ...
😉
I honestly agree. Truly brilliant people are often outliers. To be "normal" is simply to be average.😉
We tend to define "normal" as anything that fits within social norms, and those norms almost always push toward mediocrity. Because the vast majority of people lean toward conformity, they end up labeling that average state as the ideal. Society treats "normal" as synonymous with "best," "natural," or "perfect." But that’s just not true. It’s much better to exist above the curve. For someone with an above-average mind, trying to be "normal" feels like a step backward—it's pure regression.
The "average" crowd tends to cherry-pick certain high-achieving traits they find non-threatening, turning figures like pro athletes or famous entertainers into idols while ignoring the actual depth of their intelligence. 😉