Skip to content

Debunking the “Reality is Evil, Therefore God Doesn’t Exist” Claim

November 20, 2012

1. God is not bound to any moral code, rather, he is the moral code- meaning that because God is justice, everything he says, does, believes, and creates, is right, just, good and flawless.

2. God created us, and as we are created in the image of perfection, we inherit the goodness of God. So as the offspring of God, we cannot be evil in the eyes of God, and as he is the standard of good, we are good indeed.

3. Even if we were good or evil, it would be impossible for us to definitely determine was is good and what is evil, as we are not God, but merely his offspring. So any notions we have about what is right, wrong, good, evil, good, bad, just, wicked– these are human measures of morality, and do not hold and real moral value, cosmically speaking.

4. Human standards of morality, ethics, virtue, value, norms, etc….are constructs of society, culture, etc.– conditioned into our thinking in order to promote moral solidarity, and are based not on what is definitively known to by right or wrong, but on what the establishment determines, usually on a hierarchial basis (individual, family, workplace, boss; neighborhood, law enforcement, council, mayor, board; deacon, priest, pope; union leadership, special interests, Obama; grassroots coordinators, Tea Party, Sarah Palin….you get the point). This all has nothing to do with God, of course. For the most part, our moral conditioning is determined entirely by a complex bureaucracy of people using morality as a tool to exchange power.

5. As history is our witness, nearly every measure of right and wrong has changed through the evolutionary shifts of culture, and adaptations to accommodate certain core needs.

Throughout history, many things we consider “evil” today- blood feuds, human sacrifice, animal/child abuse, wife beating, slavery, prejudice, racism, intellectual property theft, trespassing, genocide, religious crusades, raping and pillaging, piracy, misogyny, persecution, gladiators cannibalism…..the list goes on and on– all of these things were throughout history considered either necessary or morally acceptable in major cultures, and all of them are considered morally acceptable in some cultures even to this day (even human sacrifice).

Conversely, many things we consider morally acceptable today (homosexuality, promiscuous sex, birth control, raising families outside marriage, female leaders, professional women, blacks in power, sexuality, violence, and illegal drugs in film and television, Christianity, monotheism, industrialization, hypnotism, dating, expatriatism, draft-dodging, writing (if you weren’t an authorized scribe), reading the Bible (if you’re not a church official), falling in love (with someone who wasn’t pre-chosen by your parents), a woman speaking (if she isn’t spoken first to), taking a different occupation than your family, talking to people from a different social class than you, etc. — as you know, none of these things are considered “evil” in mainstream cultures.

6. For the most part, morality is truly a luxury- In an impoverished city, being a good person is a good way to get robbed, bullied, and shot. In many parts of Africa, there is not any morality by any standard of right and wrong. People are regularly raped, abused, assaulted, and murdered, and it’s not considered wrong in many areas of Africa at all. It’s considered, in fact, a rite of marriage. The killings continue, but it is not in any way wrong, it only appears to be wrong to those that have the luxury of making such a distinction. You only believe it to be wrong because you don’t live in a country/region/city/neighborhood so impoverished that morality cannot be afforded.

8. Finally, and this point should be stressed the most: good and evil, right and wrong, just and wicked– these values are determined ultimately by one’s relative perception. Something is only appearing to be good or appearing to be evil, because of its relationship to your expectations of reality. If something happens that is different from your expectations of good, or fulfilling of your expectation of evil, then you apply those labels to it, and reinforce your perception of morality, in relationship to reality, through maintaining that contrast of values. In the end, right and wrong are not about interpreting reality, but about identifying with the perceived moral substance of reality via attaching values to it– the values of the individual, family, group, culture, society, government, religion, race, etc.

Ultimately, the underlying truth here is that morality as we know it is a human invention, so to try to discredit God’s existence by saying he does not conform to all our expectations of a moral God, and we as his creation are not projecting according to such expectations, is patently ludicrous.

Advertisements

The Exchange of Power and Its Effect on Relationships

November 5, 2012

In general, I prefer to ignore the exchange of power, seeing it mostly as a construct of the Ego, legitimate only in hierarchy-driven societies. But as I become more serious in my personal romance, I have come to see how undeniably essential the exchange of power is in relationships. There are so many decisions to be made, and so many responsibilities to be fulfilled, and there are many issues in which a compromise is neither practical nor optimal. In many of such cases, an exchange of power must be made to resolve conflicts in the decision-making process

For example, I plan to have at least two children, and I have very strong beliefs about their education, their health, their morality, and the structure present in their lives. There are many things (such as vaccination, working parenting, baby formula, pornography, abortion, public schooling, casual dating, promiscuity, materialist/consumerist behavior) that I am extremely against, and predictably enough, my own opinions about raising kids are often in conflict with that of my wife’s opinions.

While diversity of opinions can be a good thing, it proves to be a terrible obstacle when it comes to raising children, because compromised parenting is, at least in my firm belief, absolutely unacceptable. A consensus must be reached in all decisions regarding child-rearing, and if they cannot be, there are two options:

(1) We give up on raising the kids. It’s better to not raise kids at all, than to raise them in such a manner that compromises their future.

(2) One of us chooses to acquiesce to the other’s view(s) about parenting.

Option 2 is where  the exchange of power comes in. One of us has to submit authority over the given matter to the other, so that consensus might be reached through one of the two opinions being determined as legitimate, at the expense of illegitimizing any conflicting opinions. In some cases, I submit to her opinion. I have relented on her desire to wear heels during pregnancy, on the condition that she stop wearing them if she is feeling nauseous, pained in her feet, off-balance, or otherwise stressed. I have also agreed our kids will be placed in traditional schools, so long as they are private schools, and we provide supplementary education at home. Conversely, I have compelled her to submit to my opinion on such issues as breastfeeding and not working during pregnancy. So we both have relatively equal power in decision-making, but nevertheless, the exchange of power is an integral part of everything important decision we make.

Not just in decision-making, but also in physical expression of love, the power exchange is more prevalent than I ever thought possible. Even in such simple actions as a hug, a kiss, or holding hands, the initiator has a clear degree of physical dominance, and this influences the dynamics of that expression. These dynamics are particularly pronounced in the act of making love, where a dominant/submissive relationship is necessary for the sex to be natural, creative, and elegant. Without the exchange of power, lovemaking of any kind becomes an awkward and unsatisfactory experience.

I’m only beginning to understand the importance of these things, as until now I preferred to deny power as a legitimate existence. The truth is, I really don’t understand power at all, so I have much to learn before I can achieve a true appreciation of the exchange of power and its effects on humanity, life, and all of reality.

Compromising Values

October 20, 2012

To one like myself, who is accustomed to a particular set of beliefs which guide my life, the notion of compromise isn’t something I’m used to; indeed, I hoped (a futile hope it seems) that I would never have to compromise on what I believe in to live my life happily and completely. But outside this fantastical dream of perfection lies reality, and in the real world compromises are necessary to cooperate, live with, or even interact with others.

I have forgotten this simple truth, because I am used to, at least in my own mind, being alone. I have taken solace in my solitude, and it has been a great virtue to me. I can sit, think, analyze, observe, and freely believe what I believe and draw my own conclusions of what I think is right. No one can tell me what I should do, who I should be, or what I should believe. Indeed, solace is necessary for true liberty, and herein lies the problem, a sort of expanded “hedgehog’s dilemma”: Should I wish for freedom, or happiness?

Alone, I am completely free, but I am also empty, melancholic, dissatisfied, incomplete. To quote the Bible, “It is not good that man should be alone”. So I must have a woman, right? But to have a woman who is completely in agreement with me, that is impossible, and even if it were possible, it would be unbearably boring. Disagreement is good then, as it makes life interesting, and challenges the opposing halves to grow, improve, and ultimately- synthesize their differences into new life, new creation. This is the meaning of life, to find the unity underlying all diversity.

I have found my one and only, so all that remains is for us to find that balance between agreement and disagreement. We have our own beliefs, interpretations, behaviors, values, and ideas about life. There is much we have in common, but much also that we disagree about. We have some difference of opinion about virtually every topic commonly discussed, and while when we agree the agreement is wholehearted, when we disagree it seems at times unresolvable. We are both very stubborn, passionate, and opinionated about what we believe in, and this sometimes creates a chasm between us.

Compromise is about building the bridge between worlds, between my world and hers, between my beliefs and her own, to cross the chasm of difference to synthesize a greater unity, thereby creating a new world entirely. These differences exist to be conquered, by conquering does not mean to agree or to disagree, but to be inspired by each other’s differences to forge newer, greater beliefs altogether. This is the challenge of all relationships, but particularly that of a man and his wife, the spiritual twins bound to be together for all eternity. This is our journey!

Evolution In My Perception

August 16, 2012

This post is a follow-up to my post “change in my perception”, written in 2007:

I’ve come to realize that how I perceive my reality is only wholly dependent upon my beliefs (rational state) and my mood (emotional state). When I am sad, reality seems dim and flat, and when I am happy, reality seems lively and meaningful. But it even goes beyond that, my reality is no longer changing with my emotions and thought patterns, it is now evolving!

As I solidify my beliefs in Oneness, and sublimate them from mere “ideas” to real convictions, I’ve seen my reality shift to an evolutionary state. As time goes on, my reality has become more crisp, more 3-dimensional, more real. Whereas with “change in my perception” everything looked so fake and meaningless, things look more real and meaningful than ever before, and with each day that passes, that reality continues to grow in its beauty, meaning, and love. As I continue to embrace the world as the manifestation of the Oneness of which I am part, my reality is evolving to match that belief.

In other words, as I evolve my reality within, my environment shifts to match that inner-evolution. This appears to contradict the solipsist view, which says that because I am not the thinker, I cannot modify the reality that is being thought. But if this reality we live in is actually created by all, and “God” is just a means of conveying the underlying unity of that diversity, then we are all creators, since we are all part of God. Furthermore, since (in my view) “reality” is not actually a “creation”, but an interpretation, then what my reality truly is, is ultimately decided by me, the creation, the arbiter, “the observer”. In other words, because this is my reality, and my perception, I am the one who interprets reality, and thus I am the decider of what reality “really” is.

When this idea is applied to Oneness, it becomes something truly magnificent! Because we are all One, we are all the interpreters of reality, all the arbiters, although our interpretations may differ and our values vary or even conflict, we are still one through our relationship to the “creator”. That is, while we may interpret the pattern of reality differently, We are all living in the same world, interpreting the same reality, communicating the same emotions, participating in the same struggle, living the same life, and there will always be more that unifies us than divides us.

Why should we be in conflict? The reason for this is pride, for it is in pride that differences are emphasized and the power struggle abounds, and it is in the power struggle that division overtakes unity, hatred overwhelms love, doubt infects trust, fear defeats faith. The problems in the world always start within, for it is within that the barrier separating us from the world, the barrier known as “Pride”, is born, growing like a great weed, taking root within until the pristine reality of selfless and unconditional love, trust, and faith….is lost.

As I kill this Ego of mine, this mess of pride that would prevent me from seeing reality through eyes untainted, the world becomes crisp, real, meaningful, connected. All of that “fakeness” and detachment is replaced by love and trust for humanity, until finally….eventually….I will understand wholly. “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” – 1 Corinthians 13:12

Solipsism: a dual-solipsist interpretation

August 16, 2012

If the solipsist’s reality only exists in his mind, then he should be able to easily change his reality when he wishes. So since we cannot change reality simply through conscious will for reality to change, that would appear to disprove solipsism. After all, if reality exists only in the mind, then whatever the solipsist should be easily modified through exercising their imagination.

Thus, if a solipsist wanted to be a woman, a dog, a tree, a car, a blade of grass, a ray of sunshine, he could easily transmute himself, because all of these things are part of his mind, and thus changeable by force of will, since the will is also part of the mind.

Additionally, if the solipsist wishes for world peace, lot’s of money, never to have to eat or breath again to survive, to have a perfect life completely free of suffering, then they could easily accomplish these things. So again, the fact that the solipsist did not accomplish these things despite having both the will and imagination to, seems to refute solipsism.

So, in order to show solipsism to be a valid conception of reality, there must be a modification to the theory. this is where the “two solipsists” dualism idea comes in:

There is the solipsist who is doing the thinking. This solipsist is the one who creates your reality, but that solipsist is not you. You are the creation of that thought, not the one thinking it. Thus, you are not actually real (according to solipsism), since you are not the “thinker”; that you are not the thinker is further evidenced by the fact that you did not create yourself.

Therefore, the material reality is not actually real, it is the “mirror reflection” of the thinker who is looking at himself. According to Berkeley’s conception of solipsism, “The Thinker” would be God, and we are the reflection he looks in the mirror to appreciate himself.

The thinker is the one who’s thoughts reality (creation) proceeds from. For this reason, this particular conception of solipsism would be classified as “idealism”, since it is based on the premise that reality (creation) originates from thought. We are that reality, and are not actually real in the sense that we are the mirror reflection of the thinker.

So although the reflection might consider itself real, that is only because the reflection does not realize that they are only an illusory image that the thinker (who is real) has created. In the Bible, this idea is supported when it says “And God said ‘Let there be light’, and there was light”. God’s (the Thinker’s) thoughts spoke reality (creation), into being. and like a mirror image, creation is made in the (finite) image of God. In reality though, God (The Thinker) is the only real aspect of reality, since it is from the thoughts of the thinker that this reality originated.

My Journey to Oneness, and other thoughts

June 13, 2012

I have spent the last 5-6 years self-analyzing and speculating on spirituality. I started with a question: “What is our purpose?”, and used that as the substance for my first philosophical entry  (it’s listed on my blog as 3rd I believe, but back when I first started I published my work via a subdomain website, it was not until my 10th or so piece that I started publishing via blog format), “Our Purpose”.

http://th3g1vr.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/our-purpose/

From there, I made the decision to continue the thought wherever it would lead, with that original post providing the pattern upon which all future work would build. I continued writing for a long time after all, eventually adding more and more blogs to support my increasingly diverse repertoire.

While my initial goal was not spirituality, over time, especially after I turned 19 and my original Christian beliefs had deteriorated into nothing, I realized that I needed to develop a stronger, more meaningful belief system, and decided that the strongest beliefs to have would be ones that were not dependent on any external authority.

This seemed to be the most rational approach since unlike the logically fallacious beliefs of religious system, which are dependent on appeals to authority, emotion, consensus reality, and an intellectually-volatile exchange of power, originally-acquired beliefs are self-inherent, thus I can trust in such beliefs wholeheartedly– that is, because I sublimated all my beliefs from my very essence, my inner-being, I can have full confidence in what I believe in, because they are part of who I am.

As such, all my beliefs are almost wholly independent of any knowledge, ideas, or information I acquired from an external source; everything I believed in and believe in has its origin in an idea which, for all I consciously knew, was original and unique to me.

The conscious development of my entire belief system started with my blog “th3g1vr”, beginning just a few posts after my breakthrough post “Enlightenment”

http://th3g1vr.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/enlightenment

My first real post of th3g1vr was “Luck of the Draw”;it was here that I started consciously developing my philosophical speculations into concrete beliefs.

Since then, I’ve been continuing to build on that foundation, with one thought being a continuation of the next, letting my intuition guide with, and having full confidence in the resulting thoughts. One thought led to another, until finally, I serendipitously stumbled upon Oneness. I don’t actually know how I came to believe in Oneness, as like all other concepts it was one I genuinely thought up independently of any knowledge of it, I really thought it was unique to me when I first wrote about it here:

https://nspyraishn.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/one-for-all-and-all-for-one/

The funny thing is that I write about Oneness as if I already know about it, and had already written in depth about it before….but while I remember the mysterious feeling that led me to it (that mysterious feeling was the basis for the first chapter of “Essence of the Soul”, “The Mysterious Piano”), I don’t remember talking about Oneness before. The closest reference I know of prior to then, was in my post Agony:

http://th3g1vr.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/agony

In that post, I write about some of my theories regarding the soul, and the choice between the positive essence, the negative essence, and synthesis (denial). I did not understand exactly how this worked until recently:

Positive = Oneness
Negative = Separateness
Synthesis = Spiritual Zombies.

Humanity had adapted to create fake souls to deal with overpopulation and the increasing corruption of souls due to separateness corrupting both spiritual and physical integrity, and further worsening the synchronization process, requiring more tedious and extended soul/body purification between lives.

Because immense corruption + overpopulation = shortage of pure/compatible souls, our bodies have adapted by creating fake souls which simulate souls through referencing DNA structures (DNA is the physical manifestation of the soul), and used these “artificial souls” (what are known as “homunculae”) to animate the bodies. They are essentially the same thing as what we call “zombies” or “ghouls”, but sadly these poor creatures now account for a growing number of humans. I’m not sure if they are a majority yet, but they will be soon if this dilemma is not resolved.
___________________

The Spirit Science videos +Alyssa del Rosario recommended me to explains in amazing elegance, clarity and detail over 95% of all I’ve been writing about spirituality the past 5 years, so if you watch the whole series of videos you’ll not only be far more informed about Oneness, the history of the earth, and a lot of very useful meditation, OBE, and psychic enhancement knowledge and resources, but also will be on extremely solid footing with me regarding my knowledge and beliefs about everything that’s important to me. This series is so amazingly comprehensive, that I can honestly say it’s the rational expression of my spiritual beliefs in their entirety, all in just 6 or so hours of video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSpiritScience

You should watch the entire series, it’s totally worth it!

What are your thoughts about my beliefs about “spiritual zombies”? I haven’t heard of their existence directly in the Spirit Science videos, although they do allude to a phenomenon in their “Lucifer Project” segments, where they talk about how Martians tried to create their own civilization based on a false pattern, and it became extremely unstable until they completely destroyed themselves. then they came to earth to consume our resources too. The videos also said that currently a similar thing is happening to earth as did on Mars in Project Lucifer.

Note: FTR, I thought of the “Spiritual Zombie” beliefs long before I started watching these videos, with my first expression of said beliefs being via conversations with my friend Cristina Chance.

Freedom vs Expression

June 7, 2012

(extracted from a conversation with my good friend Liza Persson): To me, freedom and expression are one and the same, I am free because I express, and I express because I am free.

So freedom not able to be expressed is not freedom? Thus those deprived of ability to express their freedom are not free? What about if they experience that they are free, because they have never experienced the limitations on their ability to express themselves?

That would depend on whether you consider perceptual freedom and the expression thereof as the legitimate metric of actual freedom. In the layer of material expression, one could say that constriction of freedom to express freedom materially would be synonymous with slavery. Conversely, if you believe freedom to be an idea that is independent of material expression, then freedom cannot be taken away, only the material (perceptual) expression thereof.

I was asking YOU whether YOU think it matters whether one is “Free” when
one is constrained in ones ability to enact it?

I have been severely limited in the expression of my freedom by financial, social, psychology, emotional, and spiritual constraints, but I never once felt constrained, or any less free. These are just conditions of the environment, they are not part of my character.

So having changed my environment dozens of times, I have confirmed beyond all doubt that when I am constrained in my expression of freedom by my environment, it is not myself that is constrained, but my environment. This is confirmed because when I shift to a less or my free environment, while my environment is altered, I am not. For this reason, I am not only of the opinion I am free, I know it through and through, because with the dozens of shifts of environment and the countless conditions of which such environments are comprised, none has altered my character, nor made me any more or less free than I already was, am, and will be.

So in other words, no, constraints on my expression have no bearing on my actual freedom, they are only a superficial means of expression. The human Ego seeks to prove itself through expression, and by expression validation, but this is a fallacy, as you should know– because I am already one with God, even though my consciousness cannot appreciate this oneness, I already am free. There is no need to validate freedom through expression, this is something I do not to prove I am free, but to appreciate that freedom.

But as you started out by saying that expression and freedom are one and the same, and that your environmental, social, financial and economic circumstances are constraining your ability to enact your freedom, then does that not logically produce the outcome that constrains upon your ability to express/act upon your freedom mean decrease of that freedom?

You misunderstand. when I say “expression” here, I am referring to material expression. But even as far as material expression goes, I already have. when I say “freedom and expression” are the same thing, it is not referring to expression now, but expression in general. I am free thus I express, I express thus I’m free. it’s not so hard to understand. the difference here is that there is no need to express what has already been expressed, or liberate what is already free. Now if you were to say “is the idea of freedom and the material expression the same thing, then I would say ‘of course not’,

But this is obvious I think. If we judge freedom based off material expression, there will always be constraints. I cannot die and still be alive. I cannot jump off a bridge and not get hurt. I cannot breath without inhaling oxygen or CO2, I cannot live in a city without having to deal with civilization. Even if there were no constraints placed on my freedom by humans, animals, or God, I would still be limited in the material sense, because I live in the material world. This is nothing to do with freedom though, these are the very constraints put in place to make material freedom appreciable. So to judge freedom based on material constraints is inherently self-defeating, wouldn’t you say?

I won’t judge my freedom based off material constraints, because if I did I would probably commit suicide, since my greatest virtue (freedom) would be impossible to fulfill by the very nature of life. But I don’t think there is any more material freedom in death, as then I would be limited from being alive, so in this sense everything has some sort of limits on them, even God has limits on what he cannot do directly, that’s why we’re here– to fill in the empty void that he could not fill in (directly) himself.

It would be absurd to expect the material world to be in any way free, instead, I see freedom not as a black-and-white objective, but an incremental ideal to work towards, like the pattern of a fractal. To me, life is a fractal to begin with, so building the fractal of my life towards the evolutionary ideal of freedom makes perfect sense. So suppose that I seek to add a bit more freedom to my life with each iteration. So I say 50+25+12.5+6.25+3.125….over time the idea gets closer and closer to freedom, until freedom and expression become virtually indistinguishable. Of course, this is all theoretical, but it is definitely a goal worth pursuing, yes? Even though I will never we entirely free, with each day I pursue it, I will become that much more free! (in material expression).

%d bloggers like this: