illuminated93:
Billy I need your input on this. I'm almost done reading the book "our ultimate reality". The author isn't in any way a proponent of Christianity.
He's of the opinion that, God isn't resident in some far away heavens like the christians believe.
He claims we all are aspects or sparks of God. If we are aspects of God,it means in our core ,the subconscious (God) dominates. So in a sense,man is dual in nature.
The author also mentioned that our ultimate destiny is to unite with God,or see God.
Here comes the paradox, he claims that the Christian claim of God residing in some heaven is wrong,but he also claimed we need to journey the celestial levels in order to get to God. Both claim God resides in a heavenly level. Subjectively, they are both right.
Billy you claim we are created to journey the cosmos. Will this journey ever come to an end?
If it has an end, where is the end,or rather, what is the end?

End, only makes sense in physical reality, the plane of time and space. If you are to fly outside our solar system, where our sun plays no role, there is no day and no night, everything remains still. Every just exists there. That is the what we mean when we say eternal. Time is just a construct on this level of our solar system.

So are we going to journey onward forever?
At what point are we going to unite with God going by the logic of the author
or is he wrong to think that, when we are attained full ennoblement,we are going to unite with God?

Billyonaire:


End, only makes sense in physical reality, the plane of time and space. If you are to fly outside our solar system, where our sun plays no role, there is no day and no night, everything remains still. Every just exists there. That is the what we mean when we say eternal. Time is just a construct on this level of our solar system.

illuminated93:
So are we going to journey onward forever?
At what point are we going to unite with God going by the logic of the author
or is he wrong?

Your semester on Earth is presenting you with the opportunity to grow to the knowledge of God Realization, and you are on the journey already. Keep going. Meditate and Soul travel and know the cosmos.

TheIlluminatus:
Hi. Thanks for your input.

The Old Man argues that man has never had an original thought since his thoughts and reflections are reactions to external information and are therefore determined by external causes.

I believe you must have heard of the TABULA RASA theory which states that mind is originally blank, a white canvas to be painted in any color by the external world. It denies the concept of innatism, and rather asserts that every knowledge and thought that exists in the mind is gotten from experience and perception which are externally generated. But the Old Man's argument is NOT entirely predicated on this theory. While the tabula rasa theory supports the NURTURE aspect of the nature-nurture debate, the Old Man accepts that there is such thing as nature - the MAKE, which is born in a person - but it is informed, determined and made active by external causes i.e NURTURE. So his position is not so different from yours.

So, we have:

You - There is NATURE and there is NURTURE. Both are INDEPENDENT of each other, but can INTERACT to determine the a person's thoughts and behaviour (although this is NOT always true, since NATURE alone determines it at times).

The Old Man - There is NATURE and there is NUTURE. Both a DEPENDENT on each other for meaningful effect an expression. Their INTERACTION ALWAYS determines the thoughts and behaviour of a man. NATURE is passive and is only activated as a REACTION to NURTURE. Therefore, a man's thoughts and behaviour are determined by EXTERNAL INFLUENCES.

TABULA RASA - There is only NURTURE, and it determines what you think, how you behave and what you become. There is NO innatism. You are created and informed by your experiences and perceptions only, which are externally generated. So, WHILE ACCORDING TO THE OLD MAN, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT NATURES WILL PRODUCE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN SUBJECTED TO EXACTLY THE SAME OUTSIDE INFLUENCES, ACCORDING TO TABULA RASA, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME OUTCOMES WHEN SUBJECTED TO EXACTLY THE SAME NURTURE, SINCE NATURE IS A PHANTASM. IN YOUR CASE, HOWEVER, NATURE ALONE CAN GENERATE OUTCOMES WITHOUT A NEED FOR EXTERNAL INPUT.

Which is right?

In fact, for my purpose, I'll combine your position with the Old Man's and dispense with the tabula rasa idea. That will leave us with the position that BOTH nature and nuture exist and they CAN interact to determine the behaviour and thoughts of a person (let us leave out the debate on whether they're INDEPENDENT or not for now, since that's your objection against the Old Man).

Now, let's return to the Old Man's argument. According to him, we can take NO CREDIT at all, for our thoughts, behaviours and achievements because they DEPEND totally on our MAKE (nature) and OUTSIDE INFLUENCES (nurture) [their INTERACTION, that is]. Since we're NOT RESPONSIBLE for our NATURE neither can we determine how we're NURTURED, then nothing we do, including our thoughts is of our own merit. In other words, WE HAVE NO FREE WILL. WE'RE NOT SELF-DETERMINED, BUT RATHER DETERMINED BY THE ONE WHO CREATED OUR NATURE, AND THE EXTERNAL CAUSES THAT INFLUENCE IT.

What do you think of this?

I think that there are certain basic attributes of human nature, and I think that humans are very influenced by their environments, but everyone has a will. An example is that of love, another one is prejudice. Love causes us to Intrinsically give and sacrifice, and put others above ourselves. We can be INFLUENCED by an environment of love, but in the end it remains a choice to love, a learning.

The old man made a serious and wrong statement, borne partly I think as a result of his inadequate comparison of man and machine. He said "PREJUDICES CAN ONLY BE RID BY OUTSIDE INFLUENCES OR NOT AT ALL"

Wrong. Prejudices can ONLY be rid by choice. Outside Influences can impart a desire for change, but choice makes the ultimate decision to path to a betterness of life

TheIlluminatus:
The definition of MIND might not be as simple as you put it. If mind is consciousness, what about UNCONSCIOUSNESS? Is it part of mind or not? You must have heard of the Sleep-walking phenomenon.

Of course by consciousness, I don't mean wakefulness, or even plain awareness of surroundings, I mean sentience and a mind state of self-awareness.

Billy I've read to understand that the mind is the most powerful tool a human possesses. I'm told with imagination and visualisation you can accomplish almost anything. While taking a nap,
a very short nap indeed, I found myself arguing with someone about the stupidity of actually believing a bullet won't hurt you even when you know a bullet has the potential to kill. In my sleep state, I was of the opinion that if you take a bullet just because you think you won't get you hurt is stupid because,you will get hurt and possibly die.
I was of the opinion that for the simple reason that you believe that a gun has the potential to kill,but will not kill you because of your belief,will actually get you killed. I argued that for the simple reason that you know a gun kills but won't hurt you,there exist a very slight possibility in your mind that you can get killed when the trigger is pulled. Its stupid to say that If I eat a healthy egg I will die,cos I know an egg can't get me killed.
Taking it a step further,it's sensible to say if get shot at ,I will get hurt. But then,I found someone arguing with me that I won't get hurt if I believe 100% on the efficacy of my mind.
Here comes the paradox, I'm told that as a man thinketh so is he. If this is true, why then did a miracle pastor die even when he thought he won't get killed eating a poison?
The Crux of the argument is this, if you know in your heart that being the recipient of an action will get you killed, but still went ahead being the recipient thinking you won't get harmed will actually get you killed. The simple fact that you know something is harmful,is you believing and thinking it's harmful. So you believing it's harmful but still went ahead to believing that it won't harm you is stupid. Do I make sense to you?

Billyonaire:


Your semester on Earth is presenting you with the opportunity to grow to the knowledge of God Realization, and you are on the journey already. Keep going. Meditate and Soul travel and know the cosmos.

illuminated93:
Billy I've read to understand that the mind is the most powerful tool a human possesses. I'm told with imagination and visualisation you can accomplish almost anything. While taking a nap,
a very short nap indeed, I found myself arguing with someone about the stupidity of actually believing a bullet won't hurt you even when you know a bullet has the potential to kill. In my sleep state, I was of the opinion that if you take a bullet just because you think you won't get you hurt is stupid because,you will get hurt and possibly die.
I was of the opinion that for the simple reason that you believe that a gun has the potential to kill,but will not kill you because of your belief,will actually get you killed. I argued that for the simple reason that you know a gun kills but won't hurt you,there exist a very slight possibility in your mind that you can get killed when the trigger is pulled. Its stupid to say that If I eat a healthy egg I will die,cos I know an egg can't get me killed.
Taking it a step further,it's sensible to say if get shot at ,I will get hurt. But then,I found someone arguing with me that I won't get hurt if I believe 100% on the efficacy of my mind.
Here comes the paradox, I'm told that as a man thinketh so is he. If this is true, why then did a miracle pastor die even when he thought he won't get killed eating a poison?
The Crux of the argument is this, if you know in your heart that being the recipient of an action will get you killed, but still went ahead being the recipient thinking you won't get harmed will actually get you killed. The simple fact that you know something is harmful,is you believing and thinking it's harmful. So you believing it's harmful but still went ahead to believing that it won't harm you is stupid. Do I make sense to you?

Because he believed if will be killed even though he said he wont get killed. What a man 'thinketh' not what he says.

Billy please read again, I edited.

Billyonaire:


Because he believed if will be killed even though he said he wont get killed. What a man 'thinketh' not what he says.

Honestly speaking,do you think a bullet can Pierce through your skin.. Don't think I'm being sarcastic,your answer will help me a lot.

Billyonaire:


Because he believed if will be killed even though he said he wont get killed. What a man 'thinketh' not what he says.

illuminated93:
Honestly speaking,do you think a bullet can Pierce through your skin.. Don't think I'm being sarcastic,your answer will help me a lot.

Of-course yes, I believe a bullet will go through my skin and even end my mortality if shot at a vital organ. Why are we discussing about such issues anyway.

The mind I'm told is powerful. I'm told everything is energy. And this energy can be altered by the mind to manifest anything it desires. As a man thinketh so is he,but then with your answers I've come to learn that there are 2 thinking processes,
conscious and subconscious thinking processes, and the subcoscious accounts for the reason we are limited. So if the subcoscious and conscious can think in the same direction 100% then we can influence anything to the direction we want.

Billyonaire:
Of-course yes, I believe a bullet will go through my skin and even end my mortality if shot at a vital organ. Why are we discussing about such issues anyway.

I now know why the colonialists defeated Africa kingdoms despite their supposed voodoo powers. The colonialists never knew about the supposed potency of voodoo,so they had zero respect for it. On a subconscious level, they never believed in the efficacy of charms. They must have laughed and gushed over how beautiful the art works the Africans called gods found in the shrines and the king palaces were. They even stole some and nothing happened. Subconsciously they had zero thought for voodoo. To them,it never existed,so how could they possibly get conquered by something that's non existent. The colonialists won the subconscious battle,so the charms did them no harm.Even a king like jaja of opobo was defeated and sent on exile.

Billyonaire:
Of-course yes, I believe a bullet will go through my skin and even end my mortality if shot at a vital organ. Why are we discussing about such issues anyway.

Billyonaire:
Of-course yes, I believe a bullet will go through my skin and even end my mortality if shot at a vital organ. Why are we discussing about such issues anyway.

hehehe I thought you were immortal? looks like I'm not the only one thinking like that as well.