The Meaning of Life

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: So, truly just can not be removed because truly just is who we really are, is this nearly right?
Also, are you saying that I am truly just now because it is who I am already? If not, then when do I actually become truly just, for myself?
Further to this could I already be the truly just Creator, but you are just unaware of this yet? And if you think I could not be yet because I am asking questions, then remember I might just be asking you for clarification to see just how close or not you are to being the truly just Creator and/or knowing who/what the truly just Creator actually IS.
Truly just is what we're meant to be, not what we are, unless we are already truly just.
You are the one who wrote, "..., you are truly just, it is who you are." So, I was just trying to clarify.

But now I think you mean ALL beings are meant to be truly just creators and until they become truly just creators then they are just beings.

You have stated that you are already a truly just creator and that by being truly just you have reached life's apex. You have won the race, as you said. You have also stated, that I am not there yet.

You have also asked me to imagine that I/you were a truly just creator, as it were. And, as such you are not a part of this planet and vastly more powerful than anything upon it.
Rhodnar wrote: It's not a riddle.
It may well not be, to you. But the way you are trying to describe this, some may suggest that it appears to be like a riddle.
Rhodnar wrote: We are a species of life on the planet Earth by the way. You seem to think that others use pronouns in the same way that you do.
I do NOT seem to think that others use pronouns in the same way that I do. What I do now propose though is if you had any humiliation, openness and inquisitiveness to learn and become wiser, then you would find that the way I use pronouns will very simply and easily explain what it is that you are trying to explain.

I do NOT think others should do anything, but what I do KNOW is I have a definition for ALL words that I use, which on all occasions I can identify and show them and show how each of those definitions fit perfectly together like a puzzle. So, that when ALL the definitions or pieces of the puzzle are together they form a true and whole picture of Life, Itself. Therefore, if there were any mysteries or puzzles in Life before, then they are non-existent NOW.
Rhodnar wrote:When I say "me" or "I", I mean just that, there is no other meaning. I am me.
I have asked you Who 'I' am, and you are unable to answer the question. That is fine, but do not expect Me to know exactly what you mean when you say, "I am me".
Rhodnar wrote:Given that I have no proof that I'm not just an avatar or any other form of being external to my present form, I am content to be me. It's the only me that I know, and I like me. Proof to me is in no way subjective, it's an absolute. "Visions of Gods" and "Feeling the presence of Gods" etc: are all subjective, they can all just be products of our own minds. There is no proof.
It is entirely possible that you or anybody else could be an avatar of a truly just creator. It would actually be just for a truly just creator to be born into this world, to see if it could find its way back. To ensure that the system was functioning correctly.
I am not sure what this about. I was just asking an open-ended question to find out if you clarify some thing. You could not answer, but that is still perfectly fine and perfectly understandable, from where you are.
Rhodnar wrote:From what do you draw the conclusion, that there is only one? I know that it's your theory/belief, but what proof do you have?
There is NOT only one. There are countless different things, which when put together is 'ALL there is'. This 'ALL there is' there is only One of. I drew that conclusion from 'ALL there is'.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: Okay. You are already "there" right? If so, then when will I or others know we are there also, with you?
When I was young, I went on holiday to meet my grandparents. Over the course of the three weeks we went jigging for cod multiple times and caught nothing. On the day before we were to return home, we went jigging for cod one last time. By this point I had thought that I'd caught something, and hauled my line all the way up from the bottom, countless times. Finally out of boredom/frustration/curiosity, I asked my grandfather, "How will I know when I've caught one?", "Oh, you'll know." came his reply. No sooner had the words left his lips than I caught one. He was absolutely right, "Oh, you'll know.".
Oh, I ALREADY do know. I just asked to see if you could explain yourself better.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: How do 'you' know 'I' die? 'I' might just keep on existing, and from the species that has evolved to the point that its body can write thing down, HERE and NOW, I just continue on writing and TRYING to express Who or what 'I' really am. Being able to write is one thing, but being able to truly listen is another.
I don't.
Yes I have noticed 'you' do not.
Rhodnar wrote:A god:
- the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
- a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Is that what 'god' IS? Or, is that what you think 'god' is?
Rhodnar wrote:A truly just being is just a being. Everybody reading this is a being, everything aware of its own existence is a being. Every living thing is a being, where there is life there is being. I know you like to be precise, so everything that exists is in a state of being, but if it isn't alive, for my purposes here it isn't a being.
A god is something to be worshiped, something that is better than lesser beings.
That certainly is NOT what 'God' IS, to Me.

The following quotation might help you understand the distinction:
Rhodnar wrote:“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg
There are NO good people and there are NO bad people, to Me. ALL adult human beings can, and do, do good and bad things. So, that quotation did not help Me at all to understand the distinction.

It just shows Me HOW judgmental human beings can be.
Rhodnar wrote:A truly just being is not a god.
If that is what you say I can only take your word for it that there is truth in it. You will not provide any sufficient explanations, definitions, nor evidence of what exactly a truly just being is, so I can only go on what you say here. The definitions you provide for what exactly a god is could NOT be true, so all i have is is that a truly just being is not some thing that does not even exist.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: HOW could it be the only truly acceptable source of the Universe if it is pure conjecture.
That's a bit like asking "How could telepathy be a better means of communication than the cellphone?".
If a person says telepathy is a better means of communication than the cellphone, and that person is asked how could it be better, then just provide the information that shows how telepathy IS better. That is how it is done.

It's an hypothesis. People willingly accept all sorts of hypotheses about the origin of the Universe (religions), and they too are pure conjecture.
This is the only truly just one. Therefore; the only truly acceptable one.[/quote]

This is where people and I differ tremendously. If people are willing to accept things as being true, without any evidence nor proof whatsoever, then so be it. But I do not and will not do that.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: In My opinion, formed on the basis of incomplete information supplied by you, I conclude that there is only One Creator who is Truly Just, and that Creator is the Universe, Itself.
Perfectly reasonable conclusion, I have no evidence to suggest to you that you are wrong. I'm still not sure where you're getting the "one" from though. I see no reason to concluded a "one" over a "two"...a "billion"...etc.
If the 'Universe', is All there is, and the Universe is made up by countless number of parts, and the sum of ALL those parts is All there is, or the Universe, Itself, then that Universe is the one and only One. Can you now see where I am getting the One from?
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote:
Rhodnar wrote: If the Universe was not "created" at all, and it just "is", then life has no meaning.
But YOU are the one who said the meaning of life IS "true happiness".
Because it is.
Did you mean to write the meaning of life, from YOUR perspective is "true happiness", OR, are you seriously suggesting that the meaning of life IS "true happiness" and that is the absolute Truth?
Rhodnar wrote: If the Universe was not created for a reason, there is no actual "meaning", but life itself is a continual search for happiness, and true happiness is continual happiness. Again, describing blue...
Again what do you mean by "life itself is a continual search for happiness"?

I would suggest that trees, flowers, planet earth, and a lot of animals, besides the human animal of course, are NOT in any search, let alone a continual search, for happiness. Please explain and describe how a tree or a planet like earth are in a continual search for happiness.

I have experienced feelings, even happiness, so using the describing blue to a blind person does NOT work. Describe to all of us here, who are by the way emotional feeling beings, how ALL living things are in a continual search for happiness, and how this then leads on to the conclusion that the meaning of life IS "true happiness".

You also were the one that wrote that the tree cannot be truly happy, but the human can.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: But there is also the case that the Universe is being created, right HERE, right NOW, and being created by Its Self. This being 'ALL there is' must be truly just, because there obviously is no other being nor thing. So, if this is the case, then the Universe is being CREATED, and by your logic then life has meaning. Like I do with all words that I do not know, for sure, their meaning or definition I go and look it up in a dictionary. The dictionary I looked in for the definition or the meaning of 'life', said, living, being alive. That definition was perfect as it fitted in perfectly together with all the other answers that I came to also.
If the Universe was not created, then it is truly just. How could it not be?
What do you mean by "IF the Universe was "not" created? Of course it was created. You could NOT be in the position that you are in right now if there was NO thing created previously. The evidence that the Universe was, IS, and will always be created is the words you are reading write now, let alone every other thing that also exists, including 'you'.

The Universe was created and It is truly just also.
Rhodnar wrote: What I mean by that is, we are products of nature, we "make our own beds" as it were. That is truly just to the beings within a non-created universe. Cause and effect.
For clarification- A universe not specifically brought into existence by a being or beings.
Obviously NO thing external brought or created the Universe into existence. And just as obvious is the fact the Universe is being created right NOW, through cause and effect. To Me, the truly just Creator is just the Universe, or Nature, Itself, and It just allows every single thing or ALL of Its parts to move freely about. It does not intervene in any way, shape, nor form other then giving ALL things the freedom to move about. The human beings, which are just as natural as any other thing or part, also has this freedom to move about completely freely or with free will. ALL adult human beings can choose to do what is right or choose to do what is wrong, and, from whatever they choose to do, they end up being the creators of the world that they eventually end up living in.

The way human beings have created a way of life, or this world, as it is also known is solely their responsibility. This war-torn, pollution-riddled, greedy world that we human beings live in now was and is of course created by us, human beings. And, a truly just being or creator would not just sit, in this type of world, and just say I have reached the apex of life and I sit here now in "true happiness", with ALL this going on around them. If they did, then that would be truly unjust. To sit here and watch children being abused and dying of starvation continually and also state that I am in a state of "true happiness" is totally unjust. That is NOT just at all. That is certainly NOT just for all.

The one and only Truly Just Creator, the Universe, Itself, will NOT do anything to intervene. In the scope of eternity and infinity It does not care one solitary bit about a species such as human beings. If they wipe themselves out or if they learn to live with each other in peace and harmony is of NO concern to the Truly Just Creator. It will NOT intervene. However, human beings themselves CAN BE truly just beings or creators themselves. If and when they learn and discover HOW to do this, then they will realize that they can NOT be in a state of True Happiness until they have done ALL they can to create and make the world a better place for ALL to live in together, in peace and harmony.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: When exactly did you become truly just, and how did you get there?
Could you explain more so that others will know how to get there, themselves, and when that will be for them also?
In 2008, and by resolving to change, then doing so.
It is a journey of the mind. A re-examination of self to find true self. A child is born into this world, and made into what it becomes, by this world. There are genetic differences, that cause us all to be fundamentally different from each other, regardless of external stimuli, but we all still have a true self.
That resolving or Wanting to change, and then doing so, was a part of HOW I got here also. Although you believe you are far ahead of what I am.
Rhodnar wrote:Unfortunately, we are subject to evolution, and genetic differences can express themselves in ways that would make finding a true self that is truly just, impossible for some.
I am not sure that this is truly the case, but I would have to hear your reasons for why you think this would be impossible for some, first.
Rhodnar wrote: However; any such anomalies can be explained away simply by assuming that the creator(s) of the Universe are truly just.
e.g. We could postulate that we in fact live in a multiverse (in this case), and anybody incapable of finding a truly just true self in this Universe will find it in another.
But WHY postulate some thing that is not true at all.
Rhodnar wrote:I'm only using that as an example, there may be many other possibilities. Without all of the information I cannot tell you what would be truly just or what would not be. However; if the Universe was created by the truly just, then the solution to any apparent anomaly will be truly just.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: Okay, good and fair enough summary. But how can 'you' still be waiting to be born if, as you allege you are, are already a truly just creator, who has already reached the apex of life?
I never said anything about me creating anything. I'm waiting to be born in the sense, that I am now in a place that I could be trusted to be a creator. If the Universe was created by the truly just, for the purposes of reproduction, I am now ready to be born.
HOW ready are you?

Are you prepared to let go of ALL of your assumptions, beliefs, biases in order to learn and discover ALL there is? Are you OPEN enough to have ALL of Life's mysteries revealed to you?
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: Again I really am a slow and simple one, what may be obvious to you in that film clip was certainly NOT obvious to Me. I do NOT like to assume any thing and prefer to just ask for clarity? Are you saying that we are all fools and that you love us all, and, that we should come and join the joy ride that you are on because you have no unresolved questions and because you have already become a truly just creator who has already reached life's apex?
'I'm' not saying that, no. I didn't write the song or produce/shoot/edit the video.
By the way, "Hello, you fool I love you." doesn't strike me as insulting. It is akin to a parent saying to its child "Come here you little scamp you." and giving the child a hug. So, no I wouldn't say that anybody is being called a "fool".
I NEVER saw it as insulting at all either.
Rhodnar wrote:If you're in the right place and time, you'll see it. If not...It's a nice happy song anyway.
If your way of answering open-ended clarifying questions is by saying things like, "If you are in the right place and time, then you will see it" instead of explaining the best way possible of ALL you know, then I think that just maybe you are not ahead of others and you would truly love to be.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCorJG9mubk[/quote]
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
Rhodnar wrote:
Happiness / contentment drive evolution and keep the living alive
I think you will find happiness / contentment are emotions
Happiness is an emotion and contentment is a state of mind
When human beings try to tell Me some thing and they use the word 'mind'. I then ask them what exactly is the 'mind'? I rarely get an answer. Maybe you would like to attempt it?
Last edited by ken on Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rhodnar
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Rhodnar »

ken wrote: Why is describing true happiness like describing blue to a being that does not possess the power of sight? Are you suggesting that the rest of us human beings do not possess the power of emotions, and therefore could not feel true happiness? Or, that because we do not yet possess the power of true happiness so we would not or could not understand what you are trying to describe here?
You can only understand blue by experiencing blue.
You can only understand true happiness by experiencing true happiness.
ken wrote: For what it is worth I am pretty sure I have always KNOWN what it is that you are trying to describe. I have just been asking questions in the hope that by answering them that that will help you describe better what you are trying to explain.
In that case, you tell me. Wouldn't that be easier. Then I could just cut and paste your quotation.
ken wrote: All life? Does that include trees, planets, et cetera? If so, then how can they strive to be happy/content at any time?
By bending their leaves' towards the light. By absorbing water/nutrients through their roots. By doing what they do to stay alive. I explained this point in a previous reply to surreptitious57.
ken wrote: Also, if any thing is "striving" to be happy/content, then I think they will never reach it. For example, if I am making great efforts or struggling or fighting vigorously to be happy/content, then by definition "striving" to be happy/content just does not fit right.
If I'm lost in the desert, near death from thirst, and dragging myself towards an oasis, I'm striving for "happiness/contentment". The satiation of my thirst. Hopefully, I'll make it, but if I fail, I'll still die "truly happy".
If you can grasp that concept, you'll be closer to understanding what I mean by "true happiness".
ken wrote: I think you will find happiness/contentment are emotions, of which that not many things really have emotions, it could even be argued that human beings might be the only things that have these two emotions, and I am pretty sure evolution was around way before human beings came into the picture.
By whom could that be argued?
All emotions are the result of evolution, and all emotions have their roots in evolutionary history.
Or are you suggesting that human beings are somehow apart from evolution, "Special" in some way?

An organism that reproduces asexually is relatively static in evolutionary terms, because it can only pass on it's own genes. An organism that reproduces sexually, has greater evolutionary potential. An organism that experiences pleasure from the act of reproduction, greater still. Et cetera.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

Rhodnar wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote: I think you will find happiness / contentment are emotions
Happiness is an emotion and contentment is a state of mind
In that case I would add "and true happiness is a state of being".

Emotions are argued about amongst people who make the study of emotions their life's work, so we'd get nowhere, and neither position would be wrong.

Wikipedia - "Contentment is a mental or emotional state of satisfaction maybe drawn from being at ease in one's situation, body and mind. Colloquially speaking, contentment could be a state of having accepted one's situation and is a milder and more tentative form of happiness."
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Contentment
To make this easy for Me I just separate these non-visible things into either emotions or thoughts. Within every human body there are two sections one is thoughts and the other is emotions. There is said to be a list of about 430 or so emotion or feelings words, 'happy' and 'contentment' both being on that list. ALL human beings are able to have or feel these emotions. The rest of the non-visible going ons within the human body are in the thoughts section, knowledge, knowing, thinking, assuming, believing, ideas, preconceived ideas, preconceptions, values, beliefs, views, opinions, biases, memories, and any others I may of left out, are within the thoughts section, including the thoughts, themselves. All of these non-visible things exist, or are stored, or are held within the brain I would suggest, but even if they are not they are within the human body somewhere.

To Me, I found what fits perfectly together and forms a true picture of a human being is;
The visible human body is the 'human' part in 'human being'
The non-visible thoughts and emotions are the 'being' part in 'human being'.
The 'being' is the person.
The 'person' is the invisible thoughts and emotions.
The 'personality' is the visual or sound cues given out by the way the body behaviors.
The 'behaviors' come solely from thoughts, which can be influenced from the emotions, but which for an adult human being can be wholly controlled.
The 'actions' are a reactive movement from the body. Say when walking down a trail and a snake is seen, for example, and the body moves or flinches in a way that happens before it could be fully controlled or the way the arm, for example, is pulled back when the fingers touch a hot stove.
An 'adult' is the being or person within a human body of an agreed upon certain age, who is then totally responsible for all of its behaviors.
A 'child' is the being or person within a human body up to an agreed upon certain age, who is in now way responsible for absolutely any of the behaviors of that body.
'Thoughts and emotions' are stored within the brain.
'All thoughts' are a result of the any or all of the five senses, transferring information from external to the human body, into the brain. All these thoughts are subjectively gained to form a subjective view of the "world" or 'ALL there is'. There is, however, another knowledge base, also stored within the brain, which comes from a genetic knowing of what is right and what is wrong in Life. The tree of knowledge of good or evil or everything. Is the branches of ALL human beings knowledge coming together to from One knowledgeable tree. This rooted in ground and solid knowledge base is from from common sense.
'Common' just meaning shared by ALL, equally.
'Sense', just meaning what comes from the any or all of the five senses. Every 'person' is a unique and individual being because of the unique and individual physical bodies and what each of those bodies uniquely and individual experience from the "world" that it is living within. All the knowledge that is gained from all these bodies, when agreed upon and accept as being true form one Truth.
The 'Mind' is a totally separate thing from the brain, of which there is only one Mind, which all human beings share or have access to equally. This Mind by the way is always truly Open, and IS what allows all new ideas, imaginations, dreams, inventions, plans, and anything else new that helps us keep creating more and new things. The truly open Mind is also what allows us to view, learn, see, understand, and reason things for what they really are.
The 'brain' holds who we think we are, which is just a unique and special individual human being, or self. Or what might be called a being who could be a truly just creator.
The 'Mind' IS who we really are. That is the collective of ALL beings as One, or the true Self. Or what might be called thee one and only Truly Just Creator.
The 'True Self', in the physical sense, is ALL the physical things, while,
The 'True Self', in the spiritual sense, is the Mind.

Learning and discovering who/what the 'I' is in the question who am 'I' comes from seriously Wanting to change, for the better, Honesty, and from being truly Open. WHO I really am is revealed when an individual person is being a truly Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change, for the better, person. That is HOW all meaningful and metaphysical mysteries and questions are revealed, found, discovered, and learned.
Rhodnar
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Rhodnar »

ken wrote: Obviously NO thing external brought or created the Universe into existence. And just as obvious is the fact the Universe is being created right NOW, through cause and effect. To Me, the truly just Creator is just the Universe, or Nature, Itself, and It just allows every single thing or ALL of Its parts to move freely about. It does not intervene in any way, shape, nor form other then giving ALL things the freedom to move about. The human beings, which are just as natural as any other thing or part, also has this freedom to move about completely freely or with free will. ALL adult human beings can choose to do what is right or choose to do what is wrong, and, from whatever they choose to do, they end up being the creators of the world that they eventually end up living in.

The way human beings have created a way of life, or this world, as it is also known is solely their responsibility. This war-torn, pollution-riddled, greedy world that we human beings live in now was and is of course created by us, human beings. And, a truly just being or creator would not just sit, in this type of world, and just say I have reached the apex of life and I sit here now in "true happiness", with ALL this going on around them. If they did, then that would be truly unjust. To sit here and watch children being abused and dying of starvation continually and also state that I am in a state of "true happiness" is totally unjust. That is NOT just at all. That is certainly NOT just for all.

The one and only Truly Just Creator, the Universe, Itself, will NOT do anything to intervene. In the scope of eternity and infinity It does not care one solitary bit about a species such as human beings. If they wipe themselves out or if they learn to live with each other in peace and harmony is of NO concern to the Truly Just Creator. It will NOT intervene. However, human beings themselves CAN BE truly just beings or creators themselves. If and when they learn and discover HOW to do this, then they will realize that they can NOT be in a state of True Happiness until they have done ALL they can to create and make the world a better place for ALL to live in together, in peace and harmony.
From your standpoint this may sound insulting, it isn't meant to be,I'm just explaining it concisely:

That is why your belief system has not resulted in true happiness. Belief systems never do because they are unproven. True happiness can only be found in a system that requires no proof. I have answered all of this for you already, but given the verbiage involved so far, I can understand why you're repeating yourself.
You deal in absolutes and are not, as you suggest, open minded. If you are open minded, how can you categorically state that a multiverse does not exist? How can you dismiss whatever I tell you, because it doesn't mesh with your own belief system.
You have found your answer, and are not open to other answers. You are merely attempting to find ways to dismiss any viewpoint that differs from your own.
You may feel that you are different from all others, but you are as stuck as any other person of faith. You've found what you sought, and it's your "truth".
ken wrote: You are the one who wrote, "..., you are truly just, it is who you are." So, I was just trying to clarify.

But now I think you mean ALL beings are meant to be truly just creators and until they become truly just creators then they are just beings.

You have stated that you are already a truly just creator and that by being truly just you have reached life's apex. You have won the race, as you said. You have also stated, that I am not there yet.

You have also asked me to imagine that I/you were a truly just creator, as it were. And, as such you are not a part of this planet and vastly more powerful than anything upon it
ken wrote: I do NOT seem to think that others use pronouns in the same way that I do. What I do now propose though is if you had any humiliation, openness and inquisitiveness to learn and become wiser, then you would find that the way I use pronouns will very simply and easily explain what it is that you are trying to explain.
I wasn't criticizing your use of pronouns, it works well for you and for what you believe. However; I don't claim to be more than I can prove. For example, the only time I have used the term "truly just creator" in reference to myself, it was prefaced by "Imagine that I am", for the purposes of a thought exercise. Whereas, you keep referring to me as a truly just creator, and I have never claimed to have created anything.
ken wrote: It may well not be, to you. But the way you are trying to describe this, some may suggest that it appears to be like a riddle.
I was referring to my use of pronouns, not being a riddle, but neither is my hypothesis.
ken wrote:
Rhodnar wrote:A god:
- the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
- a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Is that what 'god' IS? Or, is that what you think 'god' is?
That is the dictionary definition.
ken wrote: If the 'Universe', is All there is, and the Universe is made up by countless number of parts, and the sum of ALL those parts is All there is, or the Universe, Itself, then that Universe is the one and only One. Can you now see where I am getting the One from?
Yes, your belief system.
ken wrote: Did you mean to write the meaning of life, from YOUR perspective is "true happiness", OR, are you seriously suggesting that the meaning of life IS "true happiness" and that is the absolute Truth?
Both, when applied to the two different scenarios. If there is nothing more to the Universe than physics it is my meaning, and if the Universe was created by the truly just, it is the meaning.
ken wrote: That resolving or Wanting to change, and then doing so, was a part of HOW I got here also. Although you believe you are far ahead of what I am.
We're not both "here". I'm truly happy, you are not. You may claim to be "testing me", but my explanations would have been perfectly clear to you if you were "here" too.
ken wrote: HOW ready are you?

Are you prepared to let go of ALL of your assumptions, beliefs, biases in order to learn and discover ALL there is? Are you OPEN enough to have ALL of Life's mysteries revealed to you?
Been there, done that. Truly happy.
ken wrote: If your way of answering open-ended clarifying questions is by saying things like, "If you are in the right place and time, then you will see it" instead of explaining the best way possible of ALL you know, then I think that just maybe you are not ahead of others and you would truly love to be.
Or that it's an accurate answer that requires no further explanation.

If you want to get there, you'll need to remove your own biases first.
Your answer may ultimately prove to be correct, but it isn't truly just, it just isn't unjust.

It occurs to me that having pointed out that you are in essence “a person of faith”, that a perfectly valid question might be, “Well what are you then?”.
I require no faith. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, but I have no “need” to be right. I “want” to be right, but I cannot alter reality.
Any possible reality, is possible, but the only possible truly just reality, is a reality created by the truly just.

There is no “Them” in “Just”, only “Us”.
Last edited by Rhodnar on Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: Why is describing true happiness like describing blue to a being that does not possess the power of sight? Are you suggesting that the rest of us human beings do not possess the power of emotions, and therefore could not feel true happiness? Or, that because we do not yet possess the power of true happiness so we would not or could not understand what you are trying to describe here?
You can only understand blue by experiencing blue.
You can only understand true happiness by experiencing true happiness.
I already do understand blue and I already do understand true happiness because I already know what both blue and true happiness are. I possess both sight and emotions so I have already experienced blue and true happiness.

I can also explain how to experience true happiness to human beings in an understandable way because human beings possess emotions.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: For what it is worth I am pretty sure I have always KNOWN what it is that you are trying to describe. I have just been asking questions in the hope that by answering them that that will help you describe better what you are trying to explain.
In that case, you tell me. Wouldn't that be easier. Then I could just cut and paste your quotation.
But as I already explained that I might not be right. This is your theory, I am just trying to understand your perspective of it better. I can NOT tell you what you are trying to explain. I can only try to get a better understanding of what it is that you want us to understand. I do this by asking clarifying questions. That way I might understand more clearly what your theory actually is, and/or you may improve in your ability to explain it better.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: All life? Does that include trees, planets, et cetera? If so, then how can they strive to be happy/content at any time?
By bending their leaves' towards the light. By absorbing water/nutrients through their roots. By doing what they do to stay alive. I explained this point in a previous reply to surreptitious57.
But trees bend their leaves towards light and they absorb water and nutrients to stay alive. They do NOT do these things to be happy. Trees just are living, being alive. Trees can NOT be truly happy, anyway. Even you agree with this. So, I have not been able to follow that the meaning of life is "true happiness" when most living things can not even be happy. I would have thought the meaning of life would have to relate to ALL life, and not just to the ones who have emotions, for example.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: Also, if any thing is "striving" to be happy/content, then I think they will never reach it. For example, if I am making great efforts or struggling or fighting vigorously to be happy/content, then by definition "striving" to be happy/content just does not fit right.
If I'm lost in the desert, near death from thirst, and dragging myself towards an oasis, I'm striving for "happiness/contentment". The satiation of my thirst.
I suggest, in that example, you would be striving in order to stay alive and keep living. If you were happy or sad, for example, would probably be one of the last things you would be worrying about at that time. You may feel more, or, happy when you quench that thirst, but as I suggest you are striving for life, not for happiness.
Rhodnar wrote:Hopefully, I'll make it, but if I fail, I'll still die "truly happy".
HOW can you be striving for happiness and propose that you are truly happy at the exact same time anyway?

If you can grasp that concept, you'll be closer to understanding what I mean by "true happiness".[/quote]

You can accept that this is the way Life just is and as such you can feel happy and feel contentment with what 'just is'. You can even class that as "true happiness", but if that is what you do personally, then that is fine. But I would suggest that a person who is feeling truly happy and truly content when they, themselves, are a cause that children are being continually abused and that they the ones who are allowing others to die when they could prevent their death are a person who is completely blocking the empathy that they have.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: I think you will find happiness/contentment are emotions, of which that not many things really have emotions, it could even be argued that human beings might be the only things that have these two emotions, and I am pretty sure evolution was around way before human beings came into the picture.
By whom could that be argued?
By some human beings of course. They are the only ones, that we are aware of, that can argue.

All emotions are the result of evolution, and all emotions have their roots in evolutionary history.[/quote]

Yes I agree that that is true. BUT, you are the one who wrote, "Happiness/contentment drive evolution and keep the living alive.

I was just saying I am pretty sure evolution was around before happiness/contentment evolved or came into being. Unlike you I do NOT believe happiness and contentment is in ALL living things. Although I am still confused as to what you believe because you also say in contradiction that some living things can NOT be happy nor content.
Rhodnar wrote:Or are you suggesting that human beings are somehow apart from evolution, "Special" in some way?
NO, and I would suggest not making assumptions again as the can be totally and absolutely wrong and incorrect like this one is, which by the way has NOTHING at all to do with anything I have been saying. This is just leading off the path of trying to understand how happiness drives evolution as you propose it does.

I suggest happiness, instead, is just another feeling, which arises within emotional beings, and this has been created because of evolution.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: Obviously NO thing external brought or created the Universe into existence. And just as obvious is the fact the Universe is being created right NOW, through cause and effect. To Me, the truly just Creator is just the Universe, or Nature, Itself, and It just allows every single thing or ALL of Its parts to move freely about. It does not intervene in any way, shape, nor form other then giving ALL things the freedom to move about. The human beings, which are just as natural as any other thing or part, also has this freedom to move about completely freely or with free will. ALL adult human beings can choose to do what is right or choose to do what is wrong, and, from whatever they choose to do, they end up being the creators of the world that they eventually end up living in.

The way human beings have created a way of life, or this world, as it is also known is solely their responsibility. This war-torn, pollution-riddled, greedy world that we human beings live in now was and is of course created by us, human beings. And, a truly just being or creator would not just sit, in this type of world, and just say I have reached the apex of life and I sit here now in "true happiness", with ALL this going on around them. If they did, then that would be truly unjust. To sit here and watch children being abused and dying of starvation continually and also state that I am in a state of "true happiness" is totally unjust. That is NOT just at all. That is certainly NOT just for all.

The one and only Truly Just Creator, the Universe, Itself, will NOT do anything to intervene. In the scope of eternity and infinity It does not care one solitary bit about a species such as human beings. If they wipe themselves out or if they learn to live with each other in peace and harmony is of NO concern to the Truly Just Creator. It will NOT intervene. However, human beings themselves CAN BE truly just beings or creators themselves. If and when they learn and discover HOW to do this, then they will realize that they can NOT be in a state of True Happiness until they have done ALL they can to create and make the world a better place for ALL to live in together, in peace and harmony.
From your standpoint this may sound insulting, it isn't meant to be. I'm just explaining it concisely.
From My standpoint this does not sound insulting at all. And, as you already somehow know it is not meant to sound insulting at all.
Rhodnar wrote:That is why your belief system has not resulted in true happiness.
But I have already reached true happiness. I have already stated that.

What was it exactly that led to WHY my belief system has not resulted in true happiness. To Me, there is only one belief "system". There is no "my belief system". There is a system where beliefs arise. If I recall correctly I have NOT yet told you that I do NOT believe nor do I disbelieve anything whatsoever. Hopefully I will never have to repeat, to you, that I do not have a belief in anything. Everything I say and write are just views I have obtained, which could be true, right, and/or correct or partly true, right, and/or correct. Just to reiterate I do NOT have a belief in anything.

Happiness is an internal feeling, which is an emotion. Beliefs may help in producing this happy feeling, but a "system" from where beliefs arise is just a system that when understood fully explains HOW beliefs arise and how they can also be prevented from arising. The belief "system", itself, does not result in any feelings, including happiness.
Rhodnar wrote:Belief systems never do because they are unproven. True happiness can only be found in a system that requires no proof.
Do you mean beliefs, themselves, are unproven? This may or may not be true because some things people choose to believe in can actually be proven. Some beliefs could be proven. But they can only be proven to people who are open to the idea that some things can be proven, and open to that what is trying to be proven.
Rhodnar wrote: I have answered all of this for you already, but given the verbiage involved so far, I can understand why you're repeating yourself. You deal in absolutes and are not, as you suggest, open minded.
You obviously have NOT answered all of this correctly and understandably for Me already.

Just because I repeat that does NOT mean I am not, what you call not open minded. The reason I repeat is because you keep saying things that completely oppose what I say, which means you obviously did NOT see, read, listen, and hear what I wrote and said the first time, OR, you just flatly continue to oppose what I wrote and will just continue on with what you think or believe is true, without ever refuting what I say, challenge what I say, and/or question what I say with open-ended clarifying questions.
Rhodnar wrote: If you are open minded, how can you categorically state that a multiverse does not exist?
I can NOT be "open minded" because there is one Mind, which is truly OPEN always, and there is a brain. The big or collective real 'I' IS, in the spiritual sense, the Mind anyway, or the Truly Just Creator. The little or individual personal 'i' can look from the the truly open Mind and obtain a truly objective and/or absolute view of things, or i can look from the brain only, and only obtain a truly subjective and/or personal view of things.

If I look at how a multiverse can not exist from the open Mind, then I can categorically state the a multiverse does not exist because if, and only if, the 'Universe' means 'ALL there is', then obviously there could NOT be any thing else other than the Universe, which also obviously includes a multiverse.
Rhodnar wrote: How can you dismiss whatever I tell you, because it doesn't mesh with your own belief system.
I have NOT dismissed whatever you tell Me. And, I have certainly NOT dismissed any thing you said because it does not match with my views. I have already explained I do NOT have beliefs. The reason I am still in the process of dismissing your view that the meaning of life IS "true happiness" is because I do not see how many living things can be happy. If a thing can NOT obtain happiness, then that thing would not be seeking nor wanting happiness, and from that I do not see how "true happiness" could have any meaning to a living thing that can NOT be happy. I think the meaning of life would apply to ALL life. So, from this I still see the meaning of life is what it literally means, living, being alive, which can and does apply equally to ALL living things. Your answer given for the meaning of life only applies for some living things, from My perspective.
Rhodnar wrote: You have found your answer, and are not open to other answers.
Why would you say I am NOT open to other answers. I NEVER dismissed your answer from the onset. I spent a lot of time asking you simple straight-forward, open-ended clarifying questions to grasp and understand what your view is exactly. I did this without any preconceived ideas nor making any assumptions prior to giving you a chance to explain yourself fully. I waited patiently for you to explain yourself. I, however, was not able to see and understand HOW your answer could and would fit in with other answers to form one unambiguous, confirmed, and indisputable picture of Life.

Just because I can not see and understand how your answer fits into this, this does not mean your answer is not true. This just means I have not seen it yet. I, by the way, will always remain OPEN to any and ALL views.
Rhodnar wrote: You are merely attempting to find ways to dismiss any viewpoint that differs from your own.
This is NOT what I am doing. I literal look for how any and all viewpoints fit in with 'what is'.
Rhodnar wrote: You may feel that you are different from all others, but you are as stuck as any other person of faith. You've found what you sought, and it's your "truth".
Obviously every person is different than any and all other people. I will say can NOT be stuck as a person of faith is because I do NOT have a belief in any thing. The only thing I sought was to change, for the better, so yes I found what I sought, but I guess that would and could be disputed by some people. But I sincerely NEVER sought any thing else. ALL the other things that I stumbled upon or that were revealed to Me, which have formed some views, are obviously true to Me, I would not express them if I thought otherwise. But what is certainly true IS I do NOT believe that my views are true, right, and/or correct, because if I did, then I would NOT be OPEN. And, being OPEN is I found the most important thing in learning and discovering more and anew. I WANT to learn and discover more and anew so that I can become wiser. I want to become wiser so that I can discover how to express better. I only think these views are true, that way I will always remain OPEN.
Rhodnar wrote: I don't claim to be more than I can prove. For example, the only time I have used the term "truly just creator" in reference to myself, it was prefaced by "Imagine that I am", for the purposes of a thought exercise. Whereas, you keep referring to me as a truly just creator, and I have never claimed to have created anything.
To Me, the Universe, Itself, the Creator of ALL things is the Truly Just Creator, who does NOT meddle into anything. It creates ALL things by giving ALL things freedom and/or free will. Human beings, on the other hand, are the creators of the 'world', or the way of life, that they eventually end up living in. You along with ALL other adult people created this world that you are all living in now. You have said that you are truly just already. I have meant that to mean that you are a truly just creator, which is totally my mistake and I apologize totally for this. I can not find where I thought you had written some thing. Again my wrong doing for mistakenly referring you as a truly just creator.

However, you if you did claim that you are already truly just, then I do not think you have proved this yet. I think I can prove when human beings are or will be truly just creators but how you define that you already are truly just, to Me, is NOT proved, yet.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: It may well not be, to you. But the way you are trying to describe this, some may suggest that it appears to be like a riddle.
I was referring to my use of pronouns, not being a riddle, but neither is my hypothesis.
Your hypothesis and/or the way you are explaining may not intentionally be a riddle, but to Me what you have explained does not logically follow. So it does require some ingenuity to ascertain how your answers and/or meanings fit in with 'what is', which already exists.
.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote:
Rhodnar wrote:A god:
- the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
- a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Is that what 'god' IS? Or, is that what you think 'god' is?
That is the dictionary definition.
Depending on how both of these are being looked at will influence how much truth is in them and seen.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: If the 'Universe', is All there is, and the Universe is made up by countless number of parts, and the sum of ALL those parts is All there is, or the Universe, Itself, then that Universe is the one and only One. Can you now see where I am getting the One from?
Yes, your belief system.
Did you notice the very first word I used? If you did not is was 'If'.

Obviously if the Universe does NOT mean 'ALL there is', then what I wrote would not work.

That view IS NOT a belief. It is just a view I obtained that I have kept because, to Me, that view fits in perfectly with all the other views in forming an unambiguous, confirmed, and indisputable picture of Life.


Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: Did you mean to write the meaning of life, from YOUR perspective is "true happiness", OR, are you seriously suggesting that the meaning of life IS "true happiness" and that is the absolute Truth?
Both, when applied to the two different scenarios. If there is nothing more to the Universe than physics it is my meaning, and if the Universe was created by the truly just, it is the meaning.
Well the Universe is obviously being created, but that in of itself does NOT mean "true happiness" IS the meaning of life.

In fact your sentence does not follow logically at all, to Me anyway. Unless of course you can explain how just because if there is nothing more to the Universe than physics, then that means the meaning of life is true happiness is only your meaning? AND, how just because if the Universe was created by the truly just instead, then that means the meaning of life IS true happiness IS the absolute TRUE meaning of life, for any and ALL? Also, how do those two things actually relate to each and to what you propose they conclude?
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: That resolving or Wanting to change, and then doing so, was a part of HOW I got here also. Although you believe you are far ahead of what I am.
We're not both "here". I'm truly happy, you are not. You may claim to be "testing me", but my explanations would have been perfectly clear to you if you were "here" too.
We are here, in the place we are, in the journey. You just propose that you are truly happy. I do not propose such a thing while I am allowing the abuse of and the starvation to death of children. After I have shown how to prevent ALL abuse completely, thus done ALL I could, then I can be in that truly happy and contented place, feeling truly satisfied, contented, and happy. Until then I will continue to show you how you can stop abusing children and stop allowing others to die.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: HOW ready are you?

Are you prepared to let go of ALL of your assumptions, beliefs, biases in order to learn and discover ALL there is? Are you OPEN enough to have ALL of Life's mysteries revealed to you?
Been there, done that. Truly happy.
Okay fair enough. Sounds like you have nothing or not much more to learn. But why do you not help others to reach that place? If it is as good as you appear to be saying it is, why not help others who want help?

What is the real reason of coming here and telling us that you are truly just and truly happy?
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: If your way of answering open-ended clarifying questions is by saying things like, "If you are in the right place and time, then you will see it" instead of explaining the best way possible of ALL you know, then I think that just maybe you are not ahead of others and you would truly love to be.
Or that it's an accurate answer that requires no further explanation. If you want to get there, you'll need to remove your own biases first.
Name the biases you allege that I own.
Rhodnar wrote: Your answer may ultimately prove to be correct, but it isn't truly just, it just isn't unjust.
You can say things, which do not fit in with your beliefs, are not truly just, but until you can clarify in an understandable way what 'truly just' actually IS, then do you really expect others to understand what it is that you are trying to get us to see and/or do?
Rhodnar wrote: It occurs to me that having pointed out that you are in essence “a person of faith”, that a perfectly valid question might be, “Well what are you then?”.
What just happened here shows Me that you are more open than others, which is great. Being open means we can both learn and discover more. You thought about how you assumed I am some thing, and have 'labelled' Me as that thing, but on reflection it would be much better to just ask a simple, straight-forward, clarifying question instead.

'You', the label given to a person or people, are the invisible thoughts and feelings within a human body.
Rhodnar wrote: I require no faith. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, but I have no “need” to be right. I “want” to be right, but I cannot alter reality.
Are you suggesting here that the reality is that you are not wrong, or that if you are wrong then you can not alter that wrongness?

I also require no faith. Everything I say could also entirely be, or partly be, wrong. I also have no need to be right. But this is where we differ. I do NOT want to be right nor do I want to be wrong either. I just want to remain open, in order so that I am able to and can and will learn and discover more and anew.

I do NOT care if I am right or wrong. I just want to be able to see as clearly as I can 'what is actually right'.
Rhodnar wrote: Any possible reality, is possible, but the only possible truly just reality, is a reality created by the truly just.
And, the 'truly just' IS again?

I could say the only possible truly just reality, is a reality created by the truly unjust, but I will not because it does not really make much sense at all.

Are you suggesting that this world of "reality" where human beings are polluting each other over greed, killing each other with wars and weapons, allowing others to die just from lack of a few nutrients, et cetera is created by the truly just?
Rhodnar wrote: There is no “Them” in “Just”, only “Us”.
Can that "Us" be a collective One? Like the One I talk about. Remember it is you who says you can not understand the 'one', which I speak of. That would imply then that things are separate, obviously with "them's", would it not?

I am the One who says 'ALL there is' or ALL of 'us' together as One is the one and only Truly Just Creator. You brought the words "truly just" to this thread but it seems to be I am the only One who is prepared to provide a definition for the 'truly just'.

To Me it appears we are pretty close on the same path. We seemed to have started out the same way anyway. We, however, just ended up with different conclusions of the meaning of life. To Me, your meaning of life fits pretty strongly with only human beings or a select few others. I think your answer does not work in with, and for, ALL life. To Me, the meaning of life would have to work in with and be for ALL life equally.

By the way there is no "Just"
Rhodnar
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Rhodnar »

ken wrote: To Me it appears we are pretty close on the same path. We seemed to have started out the same way anyway. We, however, just ended up with different conclusions of the meaning of life. To Me, your meaning of life fits pretty strongly with only human beings or a select few others. I think your answer does not work in with, and for, ALL life. To Me, the meaning of life would have to work in with and be for ALL life equally.

By the way there is no "Just"
That sounds like a parting shot to me, and if it is, what follows would be mine to you.

You tell me that you are "truly happy", and yet continue to ask me how a being can be truly happy while suffering and injustice still exist.
I tell you that I am truly happy because I know why suffering and injustice exist, I understand.

You tell me that true happiness can't be the meaning of life, because all life can't be happy.
I explain to you how happiness relates to the evolutionary process, and that evolution is a race of sorts.
e.g. A cat or a tree may be incapable of finding true happiness at this moment, but who knows what the future holds? And they are both parts of an evolutionary system.

I tell you that you are as much a person of faith as any other person of faith.
You tell me that you are not a person of faith, and yet use terms like "revealed to me".

You ask me how I can be truly happy if I'm not doing everything that I can to help.
I tell you that I am.
What do you expect me to do exactly?
I've already explained to you that even if I were a "truly just creator" and had the power to end all suffering, to do so would be unjust.

I tell you that you're not as open minded as you believe yourself to be.
You tell me that you are, and then attempt to explain your closed mindedness away.
You are in effect a theist answering the question "Why do believe that there is a God?" by replying "I know there is. I've met Him".

And the list goes on...

All that I can do is try to explain why a system created by the truly just, for the purpose of reproduction, is the only possible truly just scenario.
If you refuse to accept it, because you do not wish to see, there is not much else that I can do.
I can clarify, where it is possible, but I cannot describe blue to a sightless being, especially if that being has its fingers in its ears and saying, "La, La, La, I'm not listening to you!".

Anyway, I hope that one day you do find true happiness, but you will have to look for it first.
ken wrote: By the way there is no "Just"
Isn't that an absolute? - a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid
And yet you claim to have no "belief system".
There is no "just", in a system in which there is no "right" or "wrong", but to conclude that this is such a system requires either proof or faith.

I have no "belief system".
I require neither proof nor faith.
I am truly happy.

In short, if the Universe was created by the truly just, I'm waiting to be born. If not, I'm truly happy, regardless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCorJG9mubk
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

ken wrote:By the way there is no "Just"
Rhodnar I will have to apologize sincerely, before I reply to your response. The statement above was I included accidentally. It was not meant to be there. I was going to write there is no [something] in "Just" and finish of with something about how if i is in Me, then it is "Mine", but it was not working so I gave up. I only just saw your reply not and realized I did not delete the start of the sentence. A honest mistake and apologize for the confusion it would cause.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: To Me it appears we are pretty close on the same path. We seemed to have started out the same way anyway. We, however, just ended up with different conclusions of the meaning of life. To Me, your meaning of life fits pretty strongly with only human beings or a select few others. I think your answer does not work in with, and for, ALL life. To Me, the meaning of life would have to work in with and be for ALL life equally.

By the way there is no "Just"
That sounds like a parting shot to me, and if it is, what follows would be mine to you.
Again I apologize for the confusion that sentence would cause. It certainly NOT meant to be a parting shot at you, or anyone. As already explained that was certainly NOT what I was going to write. It certainly is NOT what I did intend nor would of intended to write or mean. I certainly would NOT say that because I, like you, think and would express that there IS a 'Just'. There is a 'Just' way of doing things, which when all are doing, then to Me that is when it would be 'Truly Just'. To Me, the 'truly just' do not stop doing 'what is truly just' until ALL are being truly just and thus doing 'what is truly just'. If and when ALL are being and doing 'what is truly just' or what I call doing 'what is right', then that is when I would say the one and only 'Truly Just Creator' is allowed to do Its work, that is creating a truly peaceful and harmonious "world" for Everyone. That to Me is also only when True Happiness can come about. Doing what is Truly Just or What IS Right brings with it a satisfaction and thus feeling truly satisfied with what we are doing, because we are doing what is right for US, Everyone as One, Our True Self. Feeling truly satisfied from knowing what it is that we truly want in Life, we are ALL working together towards the same one shared goal, and then when this goal of living together in peace and harmony is actually being created then this brings with it also a true sense of achievement, which brings with it a True sense of contentment, when then allows True Happiness to exist and be felt.
Rhodnar wrote:You tell me that you are "truly happy", and yet continue to ask me how a being can be truly happy while suffering and injustice still exist.
I NEVER told you that I am truly happy. I even said that you claim that you are truly happy and that I do not propose I am truly happy, and then went on to explain the very reasons why I could not be truly happy, at this moment in Life, with the way the "world" is now.

If I have alluded to the fact that I have experienced True Happiness and that I have thus been Truly Happy, then that is because I have been there and done that. But as explained already I do not wish to stay there unless Everyone as One is there also. I came back this human made place, and live with ALL emotions so that way I can USE them to help show Me what needs to be done and how.
Rhodnar wrote:I tell you that I am truly happy because I know why suffering and injustice exist, I understand.
This is the first time I have heard you say you know WHY suffering and injustice exist, or this is the first time I recognized you said this. Now that I know that you say that then that is great. I will now ask the clarifying question WHY does suffering and injustice exist? If I had recognized that you said that previously then I would have asked the same question for clarity earlier. I also came to understand WHY ALL suffering and injustices exist. I wonder if we came to the same answer and understanding here or this will also be different like the answer to the meaning of life is?

By the way you do know and accept that there is no right and wrong answers here, that is until the Right and Wrong answers are found? You do also know how the Right and Wrong answers are found, right?


Rhodnar wrote:You tell me that true happiness can't be the meaning of life, because all life can't be happy.
I NEVER told you that true happiness can not be the meaning of life. I said, to Me, the meaning of life is some thing different. I also pointed out that some things can not be happy, which you agreed with, you said, a tree can not be happy. I also pointed out that, to Me, the meaning of life would be for ALL, equally.
Rhodnar wrote:I explain to you how happiness relates to the evolutionary process, and that evolution is a race of sorts.
Yes you said that but that does not mean it really explains much, nor does it mean the explanation is without contradiction.

ALL things evolve. This implies a slow gradual process of change. So, what is evolution supposedly racing towards, and what for?

There is NO final destination or outcome, is there?

I have heard of a "rat race" in relation to human beings racing to obtain as much monetary wealth as they can, by taking or stealing as much as they can from their one and only planetary home, before they die, but what kind of race would evolution be in?

Sure some things might have more intelligence than others for example, like human beings do over say trees for example, but as you alluded to earlier, human beings would not be here on this earth if it was not for trees. Absolutely Every thing has to be in the exact place or position it was in and is in now, for absolutely any thing to be in the exact position it is NOW, or be at the place it is in right HERE & NOW. Intelligence would not be here without human beings and human beings would not be here without every thing else prior. So, I have not seen nor any understood any evolutionary race yet, but I do see and understand that evolution takes place and is necessary for 'what is' HERE & NOW.
Rhodnar wrote:e.g. A cat or a tree may be incapable of finding true happiness at this moment, but who knows what the future holds?
The Truly Just Creator knows what can be created, so i guess it could in a way also knows what the future holds.
Rhodnar wrote:And they are both parts of an evolutionary system.
Yes they are, but why should some be a part of the meaning of life while others are not? Why should some only become truly a part of the meaning of life later on, in the future? Why can they not be a part of the meaning of life, NOW?

To Me, the meaning of life would be for ALL, right HERE, and right NOW.
Rhodnar wrote:I tell you that you are as much a person of faith as any other person of faith.
And, I could tell you that you are as much a person of faith as any other person of faith. But just because i say some it, does that mean i and it is absolutely true, right, and/or correct?

Also, one person telling another person what they are exactly, based solely on a very rough guess of a thousand or so words, is really not going to be that too accurate, is it?

Just within our very short discussion and writings we have proven how quickly and easily misinterpretations can and do appear. So, based on that fact alone how can you accurately tell Me that I am a person of faith or any thing else?

Also, no person can in all truth and reality tell another person what they are, no matter how long they have known each other for. The Truth is one person can say what they THINK another person is, but we all know that that subjective truth can and might be completely or even oppositely different from the actual and real truth is of another person. Or, that subjective truth can be completely different or even oppositely different from what the actual and real truth of any thing is really.

By the way I have already defined what 'you' ARE from an objective view and perspective. This it will be found has far more truth in it then any subjective view or perspective has.
Rhodnar wrote:You tell me that you are not a person of faith, and yet use terms like "revealed to me".
I also used terms like "stumbled upon", "learned", "discovered", and others that I forget now, I do this to try to make sense to as many different types of readers as I can. I have also noted on numerous occasions that it is much better to listen to and read any thing completely opening, which comes from not having any preconceived thoughts, beliefs, biases, assumptions, etc.
Rhodnar wrote:You ask me how I can be truly happy if I'm not doing everything that I can to help.
I tell you that I am.
You tell Me that you are what exactly?

If you mean "doing everything you can", then obviously if you know WHY suffering and injustices exist then that mean you have the "magic" formula of HOW to prevent suffering and injustices from ever occurring again. So, if I was you and had this formula and answer, which by the way I do have, then I would be doing much more than you and just stating things like, "I am truly just and I am truly happy". And, if you want to know how to get HERE or feel what it is truly like, then you will just have to wait until you experience it for yourself.

But if you are telling Me that you are "truly happy", I know this already. You have told Me enough times.
Rhodnar wrote:What do you expect me to do exactly?
I do NOT expect you to do anything because if I did, then I would to quickly and easily feel annoyed and upset. You are free to do any and every thing that you want can choose to do.

If, however, personally, I would think that a person who proposes that they know WHY suffering and injustice exist and who also proposes that they are truly just and truly happy, then would do ALL they can to explain how to rid the "world" of suffering and injustices, altogether. And also explain the processes that took them to becoming truly happy and truly just. I would think this person would want this for ALL and not just themselves or a select few others.
Rhodnar wrote:I've already explained to you that even if I were a "truly just creator" and had the power to end all suffering, to do so would be unjust.
But thee 'Truly Just Creator', who will end ALL suffering, is NOT unjust. The opposite is true. To NOT end ALL suffering and injustices would be unjust.

How I, thee Truly Just Creator, can and will end ALL suffering and injustices is by just explaining HOW it will be done, by showing how quickly and easily it can be done, by the way.

I do NOT and will NOT do any thing for 'you', human beings, that you, yourselves, can do. But what I do do, and will continue to do, IS tell 'you' HOW you can ALL stop abusing things, but that is ONLY IF you are prepared to be truly Honest, Open, and Willing to change, for the better.

I have been telling ALL of you HOW you can change for the better, but in all honesty who of you has ever really listened to Me?

The power to end all suffering IS just the knowledge of HOW to do it. Obviously, with know-HOW anything can be created, and thus achieved. If I did NOT keep persistently learning how to better express My Self, and this knowledge, which CAN end ALL suffering, then I would suggest that would be unjust. The end of suffering is near, but some things just gradually evolve, slowly.
Rhodnar wrote:I tell you that you're not as open minded as you believe yourself to be.
Again you appear to write as though what you tell others IS thee Truth.
Rhodnar wrote:You tell me that you are, and then attempt to explain your closed mindedness away.
First you will have to highlight the alleged what you call closed "mindedness" before you can allege that I attempt the to explain "My" alleged closed "mindedness" away. I have already explained HOW there can be no such thing as closed mindedness because of what the Mind is, To Me. But you have just decided to dismiss this completely as you have not referred to it at all.

By the way OF COURSE I am going to attempt to explain away any thing that you say that I think is NOT true. Especially when it directly is in regards to Me.
Rhodnar wrote:You are in effect a theist answering the question "Why do believe that there is a God?" by replying "I know there is. I've met Him". And the list goes on...
WHAT?

I have already suggested do NOT let your preconceived thoughts get in the way of that what I am actually writing and saying.

Your wrong assumptions, based on those preconceived thoughts that came from those previous experiences that that body has had, leads to completely totally and utterly wrong conclusions, like the one you have just proposed here.

If, by the way, you have not just noted down what you believe is true, you are also actually believing it to be true. Based on NO actual facts at all.

The ridiculousness of what you just wrote here regarding Me, personally, is outstanding.

Also, feel free to write as many things on that list as you like.
The more you write,
then the more proof,
of how wrong they are,
mostly likely to be,
in regards to Me.
Rhodnar wrote:All that I can do is try to explain why a system created by the truly just, for the purpose of reproduction, is the only possible truly just scenario.
You have previously stated that you are 'truly just', and here you state that a "system" created by the 'truly just', for the purpose of reproduction (or whatever), is the only possible truly just scenario.

These type of contradictions here is when I start feeling annoyed because I have to start all over again asking very simple, straight-forward, clarifying questions. I have to do this AGAIN because you do NOT answer before.

Are you truly just?
Was the system created by the truly just, BEFORE the Universe began, or is it being created NOW?
What exactly is this truly just thing that can create such a system, or what is the thing made up of, that creates this system for the purpose of reproduction?
What is the actual "system" that you speak of exactly?
What is this "system" made up of exactly?
How do you KNOW this system is for the purpose of reproduction?

By the way you have NEVER really tried to explain the above, nor much else for that matter, what you do instead is just try to say 'it IS the case'. If you started answering My questions, then that would show you are trying to explain to all of us here what it is that you write about.

WHY EXACTLY is a system created by the truly just, for the purpose of reproduction, IS the only possible truly just scenario?

WHY can there NOT be any other scenarios?

By the way NONE of these open-ended questions infer that I see things in the opposite way nor differently at all. I am just very curios as to what you see and understand. One way I learn how to better explain and express things is by seeing how other explain and express things.
Rhodnar wrote:If you refuse to accept it, because you do not wish to see, there is not much else that I can do.
That would be a true statement if it were true, but it is NOT. I do NOT refuse to accept "it", (whatever "it" is) because I do not wish to see. I just see things differently than you do, obviously, and you have not yet been able to explain HOW what you say fits in what 'what IS'.

If you believe wholeheartedly that what you are trying to express is the Truth, which can be disputed, then you should be able to explain and show how that is possible.
Rhodnar wrote:I can clarify, where it is possible, but I cannot describe blue to a sightless being, especially if that being has its fingers in its ears and saying, "La, La, La, I'm not listening to you!".
If what you are saying is True, then of course you would possible to be able to clarify.

Again you say you cannot describe a color to a sightless being. NO one is asking you to do that. What I asking you to do is describe true happiness to emotional beings, and describe truly just to all of us who you say is what we really are anyway.

I am not asking you to describe truly happy to emotionless beings, nor asking you to explain truly just to justless beings. I am just asking you to answer some questions to clarify. If you are unable to do that, then so be it. I NEVER said that you could nor that you would have to do it.
Rhodnar wrote:Anyway, I hope that one day you do find true happiness, but you will have to look for it first.
Again, I have already found, discovered, or stumbled upon True Happiness, or that It was revealed to Me. And, I have already explained that I could NOT stay there because of all the suffering and injustices taking place. I did NOT feel comfortable being there alone. I wanted to show others how to experience True Happiness and allow them to experience THIS by and for themselves, so that is why I did not stay there.

By the way I NEVER looked for True Happiness. The only thing I looked for was to change, for the better. When I was doing that properly that is when I found, discovered, or stumbled upon True Happiness. A beautiful place, by the way, but lonely there.
Rhodnar wrote:
ken wrote: By the way there is no "Just"
Isn't that an absolute? - a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid
I, again, apologize profusely for what that undeleted remark would cause. I would never write that because is see the opposite is true.

And yet you claim to have no "belief system".[/quote]

I NEVER claimed I had no belief system. I claimed that there is a system of how beliefs are formed and held but that I choose to NEVER have a belief in anything.
Rhodnar wrote:There is no "just", in a system in which there is no "right" or "wrong", but to conclude that this is such a system requires either proof or faith.
If that was fact, then it could also be said factually, "There is truly just, in a system in which there is only truly just, but to conclude that this is such a system requires either proof or faith.

To allege that a person who holds view of a completely opposing system to which you hold a view of requires either proof or faith would also infer and suggest that your view also requires proof or faith, correct?
Rhodnar wrote:I have no "belief system".
What is this system exactly, what is it made up of, and how does it work exactly?

Why do you not allegedly have it, but others do?

Do you NEITHER believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing, also?
Rhodnar wrote:I require neither proof nor faith.
Does that mean you just accept things if you just choose to do so?

What leads a person to accept some thing if there is no proof nor faith?

What is the exact thing that allows a person to accept some thing if there is absolutely no proof nor faith in it?
Rhodnar wrote:I am truly happy.
As I have suggested before, that is great. But so what?

Again, why are you telling us this?

I hope you stay truly happy forever more if that is what you truly want. But I would prefer you felt that anger feeling and got angry about the suffering and injustices that you do, and that are being, to others and used that anger to help rid suffering and injustices once and for ALL.
Rhodnar wrote:In short, if the Universe was created by the truly just, I'm waiting to be born. If not, I'm truly happy, regardless.
'You' will be born one day, but only after you are prepared for it.

Just being truly happy will NOT prepare you to be born. What is needed IS Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want or Willingness to change, for the better. That is HOW you come prepared for what WILL happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCorJG9mubk[/quote]
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
When human beings try to tell Me some thing and they use the word mind I ask them
what exactly is the mind? I rarely get an answer. Maybe you would like to attempt it?
Sometimes mind and brain can be used interchangeably. This is technically wrong because while they are
related terms they are not identical ones. And so mind is a function of the brain. It is not the brain per se
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
When human beings try to tell Me some thing and they use the word mind I ask them
what exactly is the mind? I rarely get an answer. Maybe you would like to attempt it?
Sometimes mind and brain can be used interchangeably. This is technically wrong because while they are
related terms they are not identical ones. And so mind is a function of the brain. It is not the brain per se


If happiness is an emotion and contentment is a state of mind, as you stated previously, then does that mean contentment is a state created from a function of the brain?

According to your conclusion, one can feel happy but they can NOT feel contented, right?

If so, then the word 'content' should be removed from the list of emotional and feeling words, right?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by surreptitious57 »

I see happiness as being temporary and in the moment and contentment as being more permanent and a way
of feeling about life. Now they are both mental states but beyond that simple fact they have less in common
Rhodnar
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Rhodnar »

Although the two words are interchangeable if one goes by their dictionary definitions alone, popular usage has given them different connotations.
Happiness is viewed in terms of having just got the cake, and contentment in terms of having just eaten it.
Caged in those terms, “True Happiness” can be seen as, always having just got the cake and always having just eaten it.
Post Reply