Christianity

[Dontaskme]

No, I suggest that all “evil” is, or ever was, is low consciousness and the actions resulting from it.

And for an example of how low consciousness can cause humans to be completely unaware of how evil their actions can be,...

Just as you have already rightly stated: there is no such "thing" as "evil"

It's important to remember there is no such ''thing'' as ''consciousness''.

A human being is a 'thing' a concept known, and 'things' known do not have consciousness, neither a low or high consciousness, because consciousness is unknowable to itself, because it's also a concept known that cannot know any thing because things do not have consciousness.

There is only CONSCIOUSNESS...( one without a second) the contents of which are inseparable from it. Consciousness is not a thing but arises as all things, namely, as known concepts such as evil and good. Consciousness is the only knowing there is which cannot be known, since it is not a conceptual thing. And this consciousness that is not a thing / no thingness is never consciousnesses experience.


No thing is making any thing happen, therefore happening cannot not happen. There is only HAPPENING not happening.
Reality appearing as evil or good could never have been any other way...because these concepts known as evil and good are known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness one without a second. No thing being conscious and no thing not being conscious. Just consciousness one without a second appearing as good or evil and yet neither.

[Alexis Jacobi]

At that time at which this photo was taken, it's certain that all these hooded figures, like all of those before them, and every last slave owner, were...

Ready for this?

Democrats.

No kidding. Go and look it up. The KKK was invented as the militant wing of the Democrat Party.

But note as well they were also Protestant Evangelicals.

(From Errol Morris’ documentary Vernon, Florida.)

[Immanuel Can]

Once I asked you to show me what the image of God looks like. To which you promptly showed me a picture of Jesus, which to my immediate knowledge does appear to be an image of a man.

What gives?
Well?

"For He [i.e. God] rescued us [i.e. believers] from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God..." (Col. 1:13-15)

Philip said to Him [i.e. Jesus], “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus *said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:8-9)

[Immanuel Can]

At that time at which this photo was taken, it's certain that all these hooded figures, like all of those before them, and every last slave owner, were...

Ready for this?

Democrats.

No kidding. Go and look it up. The KKK was invented as the militant wing of the Democrat Party.

But note as well they were also Protestant Evangelicals.

Some perhaps professed to be. That's possible. I can't speak for them. They have their own answers to make.

My point was merely this, though: despite seeds' presuppositions, it was never the Republicans or Trumpians who created slavery, or the KKK, or served as the Segregationist governors, or the thugs that beat up freedom marchers. They were Democrats, almost to the very last man. In the Civil War, who was the grey and who was the blue? What party did Lincoln the emancipator lead? To what political party did every last slave owner in all of America belong? And when the KKK marched down the main street in Washington, for what party were they campaigning?

Check it out: these things are not historically doubtful at all.

Historical amnesia is very widespread in America, it seems. The Left, in particular, often rewrites their history to serve their present prejudices. How else can we explain their forgetting of all this, or their inexplicable total amnesia about all the debacles Socialism has caused and is still causing?

But as for however many pseudo-religious Democrats may have campaigned for slavery or Segregation, I think that's your continual problem, AJ. You don't know how to tell the difference between somebody who says they're something, and somebody who really is. So you think that people who did things that are utterly unchristian and are condemned by Scripture and the example of Jesus Himself should be regarded as Christians in every sense that somebody who actually follows Christ is.

That's why all your generalizations turn dusty.

[Dontaskme]

Once I asked you to show me what the image of God looks like. To which you promptly showed me a picture of Jesus, which to my immediate knowledge does appear to be an image of a man.

What gives?
Well?

"For He [i.e. God] rescued us [i.e. believers] from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God..." (Col. 1:13-15)

Philip said to Him [i.e. Jesus], “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus *said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:8-9)

Thanks for your reply.

So in other words: the son is the seen image of his imageless father.

Which implies the son aka man has no biological father; and was born of a virgin barren woman.

Meaning nothing is born so nothing can die. Exactly what nonduality points to which you reject.

Ok

[Immanuel Can]

nothing is born so nothing can die.

Wow. Another non-sequitur.

It does not follow that if God has no origin, you don't -- anymore than it follows that if you're female, then everybody else must be, too.

I can't believe I'm saying something so obvious...

[Dontaskme]

nothing is born so nothing can die.

Wow. Another non-sequitur.

It does not follow that if God has no origin, you don't -- anymore than it follows that if you're female, then everybody else must be, too.

I can't believe I'm saying something so obvious...

To be born requires a womb and a biological father.

Now, lets talk about origins. Does the invisible father have an origin? or does only the image of the invisible have an origin as it is known conceptually?

You've already stated that God the father is invisible.

And that ''The one who has seen Me has seen the Father''
''me'' as in the image of the invisible.

Therefore the one seeing 'me' must be the same one as the invisible father.
Meaning no one, aka the invisible is the only one seeing. There/here is only ''seeing'' one without a second, and the image seen has to be inseparable from the seeing. All known images therefore are images of the imageless, meaning there is no one behind every seeing eye.


See what I mean IC...there is no origin of 'me'...'me' has no biological father or mother.

'me' is a concept known...by that which is invisible. Life must therefore, be only likened to a dream in which no character is happening, only appearing to happen, like magic, like an hallucination where there is an apparent perception of something not present: ie the invisible.

Biological mother and fathers are visible IC as concepts known, as imaged.... BUT...who was the FIRST biological mother and father IC?

It cannot be God, because according to your logic, he is invisible, and so this seeing that sees all images of the invisible, as concepts known....in and of itself cannot see the seeing, because there is only the seeing....that cannot be seen except as an image of the imageless.

So in essence, you do and don't exist at the same time, but only in this conception, as an invisible concept known. Kind of woooie spacey or what IC ?

What do you imagine Uncle Albert Einstein meant when he was quoted as saying: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein Surface Level Meaning : Don't take life too seriously.

There is no LITERAL ( god) or (you) IC .. except in this conception, a concept known by the invisible, therefore an illusion, there no thing, concept known that was ever born and therefore cannot die...and there we have eternal life which is everything forever, which is nothing being everything.

Are we following this IC ?

[tillingborn]

The legacy media depend on the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness.

You agreed that:

The media is owned and/or run by people with political interests, which will influence the news they report and how they report it, that is just a fact of life.

If you are alert enough to appreciate that, you should also understand that the media do not depend on "the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness"; they depend on selling a product you are willing to buy. You should consider that when you use a term like "The legacy media". Why do they need to be distinguished from other media? Who says so? Why did you buy it?

[Belinda]

The legacy media depend on the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness.

You agreed that:

The media is owned and/or run by people with political interests, which will influence the news they report and how they report it, that is just a fact of life.

If you are alert enough to appreciate that, you should also understand that the media do not depend on "the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness"; they depend on selling a product you are willing to buy. You should consider that when you use a term like "The legacy media". Why do they need to be distinguished from other media? Who says so? Why did you buy it?

There are methods for discovering who is motivated to lie and who is motivated to tell the truth.

[Dontaskme]

Wow. Another non-sequitur.

It does not follow that if God has no origin, you don't -- anymore than it follows that if you're female, then everybody else must be, too.

I can't believe I'm saying something so obvious...

Don't name the nameless. Else you'll be creating two of you. One who is and one who isn't.

I can't believe I'm saying something so obvious...

The You has no image of itself, except in this conception.

A concept that is unable to conceive of itself since it's born of itself only.

The concept God cannot conceive of itself except as a concept in this conception.

Only the concept is born not you. You can never experience yourself as a concept. In other words there is no concept being you. Concepts are known, never seen.

No thing knows this.

No thing sees this.

No thing hears this.

No thing smells this.

No thing tastes this.

No thing feels this.

Except in this CONception.

[tillingborn]

There are methods for discovering who is motivated to lie and who is motivated to tell the truth.

Are there any that one can apply to oneself? The most famous attempt was Descartes' method of scepticism. Many commentators argue that Descartes fooled himself into sneaking God into his calculus, or at least that he had a motive for doing so.

[Belinda]

There are methods for discovering who is motivated to lie and who is motivated to tell the truth.

Are there any that one can apply to oneself? The most famous attempt was Descartes' method of scepticism. Many commentators argue that Descartes fooled himself into sneaking God into his calculus, or at least that he had a motive for doing so.

The method of insight into self deception is mainly the psychoanalytic method. Scepticism is the most reliable attitude to bring to psychoanalysis. Understanding confirmation bias is a main road to insight.

I dislike Descartes's theory of existence but Descartes's scepticism was seminal to modern philosophy as we know it.

[Immanuel Can]

Are we following this IC ?

No, not really. It's not rational enough to "follow." Sorry.

[Immanuel Can]

The legacy media depend on the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness.

You agreed that:

The media is owned and/or run by people with political interests, which will influence the news they report and how they report it, that is just a fact of life.

No, you said that, and I didn't respond.

That's not the same thing. I'm not committed to defend your claim if I didn't object. Opting not to comment is not agreement.

...the media do not depend on "the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness"...

Of course they do.

Their only value to the public is premised on the pretense of objectivity. Nobody in his/her right mind is going to spend any time on an alleged "news" service that declares in advance that they're nothing but a propaganda organ.

A sane person doesn't go and get their news from Pravda.

But you know this. Why you're arguing? Anybody's guess.

[tillingborn]

You agreed that:

The media is owned and/or run by people with political interests, which will influence the news they report and how they report it, that is just a fact of life.

No, you said that, and I didn't respond.

You are perfectly entitled to change your mind, but your initial response was this:

The media is owned and/or run by people with political interests, which will influence the news they report and how they report it, that is just a fact of life.

True enough.

That's not the same thing. I'm not committed to defend your claim if I didn't object. Opting not to comment is not agreement.

...the media do not depend on "the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness"...

Of course they do.

They clearly don't if the "legacy press", which you haven't explained, are as mendacious as you claim. I assume you mean the businesses you mentioned, CNN, BBC and so on, mainstream and successful outfits. So who sold you the term 'legacy media' and why did you buy?