~Speaking of Seth~

I recently read Dawson's Church From Mind to Matter, The Astonishing Science of How Your Brain Creates Material Realty. Two thumbs and two big toes up (as I don't have four thumbs).

I had intended to review the book, took some notes, but his Afterward really says it all so I've copied & pasted that here. In the rest of the book, Dawson shows us how we make our reality in science-backed terms, using examples of how our mind shapes our physiology and health, human magnetic fields and how we influence each other, brain wave activity levels and how they can affect our health, (major) spontaneous healings, then on to local vs. non-local mind, examples of people merging with non-local mind during deep meditation, a rapture-like experience, that changed their health and lives forever.

I bought the Kindle version of the book, then later bought the Audible version (at a discount) because I have more time to listen than sit down and read. I'm glad I got both versions! The Audible version was very enjoyable because the author narrates it himself, but the Kindle version also has a lot of graphics and many pages of references to back up studies and experiences mentioned in the book. In addition, Dawson has a website for the book that has extended play links with exercises and videos that demonstrate concepts he talks about in the book. Two of my favorites are below. The first is about cymatics (sound waves) and demonstrates how that energy affects matter (Chapter 2, How Energy Builds Matter), and is also a very enjoyable music video. The second is from Chapter 6, where he talks about synchronicity and resonance. It's a large collection of metronomes (64) that synchronize with each other in less than 3 minutes. Kind of hypnotic to watch. I had visions of the Chinese Army marching in step.

Quote from: Dawson Church
AFTERWORD
Where Mind Takes Us Next

I'm privileged to live among awesome creators. You and I are creating the world around us by our thoughts in this very moment. And in every moment. We are members of a community of artists, painting our world into existence moment by moment. The visions we see in our mind's eye translate themselves, thought by thought, into the concrete reality of material form all around us. As we choose our thoughts, we are in fact choosing our material reality, whether we are consciously aware of it or not. What sort of world will we create in the coming moments, days, months, years, and decades? I'm convinced it will be a world of peace, of compassion, of beauty, of opportunity, of wisdom. In the past centuries, we've practiced creating survival, fear, anger, war, resentment, competition, shame, guilt, rivalry, and other forms of strife. As a species, we've had thousands of generations to experience the material circumstances that result from that type of thinking. We have seen the suffering it produces. Now, I believe, we are ready for a new experience. We are ready to paint a new world. As we realize our ability to choose that world, we begin to select thoughts, feelings, experiences, and beliefs that facilitate its creation. When we first make the discovery that we create with our minds, we produce our first small deliberate creations. Like a baby taking its first steps, we're tentative and uncertain. But if you've ever watched a child learn to walk, you know that this hesitancy quickly gives way to exuberant confidence. Now free to explore the world, the child strides about enthusiastically. She goes places she has never been able to go before. Her circle of influence expands ever wider, as she ventures farther and farther from her point of origin. She quickly adjusts her mind to the new reality and assumes a degree of mobility and freedom she never knew before she took the first step. That's us today. As a species, we have just begun to scratch the surface of our power. We have no idea yet what we are capable of. We've hardly taken even our very first step. We are only just beginning to realize what we might accomplish. While the future is unknown, shrouded in mystery, we can look back and see clearly what has happened in the past. We see the two world wars of the 20th century, and the even bloodier conflicts of the 19th century and earlier times. We see the ignorance, poverty, starvation, injustice, and cruelty in which our species has been bred for millennia. While a millennium of progress in science and philosophy has given us the first glimmers of enlightenment, human existence has been driven by the stark requirements of survival for most of our history.

As a species, we've been there, done that, and bought the T-shirt. Now it's time for more. When we didn't know that our thoughts created our reality, we assumed that all the suffering in which we lived was a fixed and objective reality. Now we know better. We have begun to understand the immense potential of our minds to create reality. We understand the leverage we possess over both the microscopic and the macroscopic levels of form. On the microscopic scale, we understand that our thoughts are shaping the anatomy and physiology of our cells at every moment, calling molecules into and out of existence, like a medieval alchemist's fantasy. On the macroscopic level, our thoughts combine with those of the rest of our species to create the broad sweep of history. The history we create once we understand our power is very different from the history we created when we labored blindly under the illusion that reality was composed of random events that simply happened to us. As conscious creators, we choose differently. When our survival needs push us to think angry and bitter thoughts, born out of the illusion of scarcity and competition, we choose not to think them. Not thinking them, we join with the millions of other people making similar choices. We find ourselves drawn into the reality fields of that new community. Multiplying the resonance of those shared fields, we shift the direction of society. When you choose not to think that negative thought, and you replace it with a positive one instead, you aren't just shifting your own reality. You're shifting reality for the whole human species. You're adding to the sum of kindness and compassion in the world. You're reinforcing that new reality field. You're one of millions of people adding their positive energy to the new reality. You're helping transform it into an irresistible force that turns the tide of history. While the forces of misery—people driven by survival and ignorant of the fact that they were creating the same dark world that they feared—may have been running the show for millennia, today is different. We understand our power. We make different choices. We use our power to shape first our own personal reality and then, collectively, the reality of the planet. Having experimented with fearful thinking and its consequences, I believe that we have now embarked on a new experiment. Like that toddler taking her first steps, we are shining light into the darkness of our old conditioned thinking. That first beam of light, like that first step, gleams hesitantly. Yet the light feels good. The molecules we create in our bodies when we lighten our thinking feel good. The circumstances we create in the world around us when we enlighten our minds are infinitely more enjoyable. In a positive feedback loop, this reinforces our desire for more of the same. Growing increasingly confident in our newfound power to create a positive world, we begin to think boldly. We imagine what a world without war, hunger, or poverty might look like. That subjective immaterial vision is the embryo of objective material reality. This is the work we now do together. Joining with the millions of other people all over the world who have made the commitment to a positive future for themselves and humankind, we produce an irresistible field of love. The field of love we create opposes no one. We don't judge, condemn, or complain. We simply love. As the field of love grows stronger, it bathes everything within its circumference. Out of this shared reality field of love, a new material reality is born. The material reality reflects the energy of the vibrational reality. In the new material reality, people act instinctively with kindness and compassion. Respect and altruism are the new normal in human relationships. From the moment they are conceived, the children of the future grow up with these assumptions. Bathed in love from conception onward, children experience nothing else. They become vibrant creators, with their play, social interactions, and life expectations saturated with the certainty of love. Growing up in a world of love, they create love in their careers and families. The world changes to reflect their expectations. I have no idea what our children, or our children's children, might create. I am certain that the types of creations produced by human beings saturated with love will be the products of happiness. I believe that their fresh creations will take science, technology, education, art, music, philosophy, religion, architecture, the environment, civilization, and society to places far beyond what our generation can conceive of. That's the world I plan to live in for the rest of my life. That's the world I choose to create with my personal thoughts from the moment I open my eyes at the start of each new day. That's the world I invite you to join me in creating with your personal thoughts moment by moment. There is no better place to live. Thank you for partnering with me in this journey of exploration. We have seen how the proposition that mind creates matter is not mere metaphysical speculation, but scientific fact. We have discovered that our minds create reality and become aware of the potential each of us has to create a benevolent reality using the astonishing power of thought. As we play together from this point on, I look forward to co-creating this delicious world of love and joy with you.

Church, Dawson. Mind to Matter. Hay House. Kindle Edition.

I just finished reading the hard copy a few days ago. Thanks Deb for linking the videos. I had not checked out any of the online material, but the first thing I was going to check was the 64 metronomes. Fascinating! The music and effects in the other video made me think of Blue Man Group with their blending of percussion and various technologies. The first images with the sand on the plate changing patterns with the musical tones reminded me of synesthesia. I enjoyed the book, especially the anecdotal segments (printed with gray backgrounds in the hard copy). I will have to check out more of the online material.

I enjoyed the book enough to consider listening again.

And OMG Blue Man Group, yes! I hadn't thought about that but I totally get it. I saw BMG twice in Denver during their Complex Tour, and once in their little theater in New York. Totally turned me on to Venus Hum and Dave Mathews. Venus Hum (Annette) blew out the sound system first time around.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Wow. Thanks for posting that information Deb.

It sounds like this book needs to go high on my list of next books to read.

I just read the "Afterward" that you posted and it was great. To be perfectly honest, starting from the point where he says, "When you choose not to think that negative thought, and you replace it with a positive one instead, you aren't just shifting your own reality.", his Afterward sounds very much like a sermon, that anyone might hear from any number of "New Thought Church ministers" on any given Sunday.

New Thought – think people like Mike Dooley.

Anyway it seems to me that his philosophy, New Thought philosophy and Seth's philosophy all have a lot in common.


I really liked those videos too.

-jbseth

Funny you'd say "New Thought Church ministers" when his last name is Church. 

BTW I got a notice from Audible that I can share the book for free, if anyone is interested.

Also, thinking about the music from the cymatics video jogged my memory of Animusic. I had one of their DVDs, not sure what happened to it, but at the time I was blown away by the animation and also liked the electronic sound.

Remember this?

thank you Deb,

        that is good beyond words I can think of to write.   

and love the animusic video!!

Fun music and animation!

Back to the 64 metronomes, there is one near the top of the 4th column that does not seem to want to cooperate. It is out of sync even at the end. The video is mesmerizing to watch, and I finally noticed that the table started to move in the same rhythm as the metronomes. I think it was moving in reaction to the direction of the majority of the metronomes. This movement would disrupt the minority and cause them to "correct" their movements to be in sync with the majority. This would also explain why all (or nearly all) of the actions corrected not just to the same rhythm, but also to the same direction.

Quote from: LarryH
there is one near the top of the 4th column that does not seem to want to cooperate

I hadn't noticed that, it's just off a little bit. I did notice the table moving, and I figured while the metronomes caused the table to rock, the rocking would also bring the metronomes into synchronization. I guess there's always one oddball in the crowd. I wonder what allows that metronome to resist? Could even be something mechanical like dust in the pivot.

That video is a great demonstration of how individuals can affect the mass and in the process other individuals, and makes me wonder if something like this can be responsible for things such as mass hysteria and mob mentality. Or if that's just herd instinct.

It seems brain entrainment and binaural beats are effective on an individual level, and music can unite a crowd.

Also from Chapter 6, here's a YT of human metronomes. The small crowd starts off restless, people doing their own thing, and then a couple minutes in they settle down, are swaying and singing together.

The metronomes remind me of this old Derren Brown bit:

Interesting. I had to search on Derren Brown to know who he is. Do you suppose that was real, or unreal reality TV? I always tend to learn towards skepticism, because I really want to know the "truth."

They did a great job of organizing random warm-up sounds into music, at some point I could sense the direction their sounds were taking.

Quote from: Deb
Do you suppose that was real, or unreal reality TV? I always tend to learn towards skepticism, because I really want to know the "truth.

Derren Brown is a mentalist who does not believe in psychic phenomena. He does a pretty good job of faking psychic stuff while saying he is just using other non-psychic techniques. I am sure there is some editing, but he does include the occasional failure of his techniques. Sometimes, he explains exactly what he was doing to manipulate people or to "read" people. He comes off a bit arrogant, but I find his talents fascinating.

Hi Deb, Hi LarryH, Hi All,

That orchestra video was really awesome.  I've watched it now several times now and I really enjoy it.



Maybe. Maybe. It's really not quite as incredible as it seems to be, "maybe".

My wife just watched a show called "The Umbrella Academy". Anyway, in this show, one of the characters, Vanya, is a violinist in an orchestra, but she's not the "first chair". As I understand it, in my extremely limited understandings of the operations of an orchestra, the first chair is the lead and follows the conductor, while the other chairs (who also follow the conductor) also follows the first chair.

So, in the video. Sometime after a brief warm up period, the conductor eyes the first chair violinist, who then starts to follow his visual signals and tunes into his directions. Directions for playing their instrument in a certain way. To the tune of, "Ode to Joy".

Then, sometime after this, the second and third chair violinists start to follow the first chair.  At this point, the entire violin section begins to more or less sync up with each other and create this common tune.

Next, above the din of all the common noise, other members of the orchestra start to pick up on this more or less common tune that's being played by the violin section and they start to follow along.

As time goes on, more and more members hear this common tune that's being played and start to follow along. Soon afterward, in a way very similar to the metronome video, the entire orchestra is playing the tune of "Ode to Joy".


Perhaps someone who has more knowledge than me (I have virtually none) of how an orchestra operates, can tell me if I'm perhaps onto something here or perhaps way off base?



Below is an amazing video I found of starlings participating in what is called "murmuration".

What I see here is a bunch of fast flying birds that all seem to be flying in unison and in such a way that they all seem to be reacting to new directions almost instantaneously and simultaneously.

What I don't see here is a bunch of fast flying birds that are flying into each other at high rates of speed and knocking each other out of the sky in an extremely large scale. 

I marvel as to how it is that this doesn't occur.  Are these starlings all tapping into some sort of group consciousness (like the Borg)? Does this group consciousness somehow guide them "all" so that they don't fly into each other?

Do people also sometimes share in some sort of group consciousness experiences like this as well?  Is this part of the reason why this orchestra kind of thing occurs?


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/starling-murmuration-swarm-video/


-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
Below is an amazing video I found of starlings participating in what is called "murmuration".

Good questions. I don't know anything about orchestras, but after watching the video below, your explanation of first chair does seem similar to murmuration. I was only able to watch the video for a few seconds and then was prompted to make an account with NatGeo, so I thought I'd look on YouTube instead to see if there was a similar video. I've seen starlings do this, I've seem starlings flying around in road intersections at high speeds in all directions and not crash into each other. I've seen geese making formations, fish schooling, bats flying out of caves, bees, ants... and always thought there was some sort of psychic communication or instincts involved.

I did find a good video (there are a lot of them) titled Math and the Mystery of Murmurations that says each bird takes its cues from a handful of birds around it, and that is multiplied into an entire flock. They have to have lightening reflexes. And it seems not everything about what's going on there is known. I like that.

Quote from: Deb
I did find a good video (there are a lot of them) titled Math and the Mystery of Murmurations that says each bird takes its cues from a handful of birds around it, and that is multiplied into an entire flock. They have to have lightening reflexes. And it seems not everything about what's going on there is known. I like that.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

After becoming familiar with Seth's philosophy and the information in the book NOME, where he talks about the limitations of scientific ideas, I have come to notice that in some situations, some scientific findings certainly might be suspect.  I think that in regards to these Starling murmurations, this very well might be a good example of this.


It seems to me that a very plausible explanation for these Starling murmurations could be that these Starlings are all, individually, reacting to some form of "group consciousness".  The problem here is that scientists, as a rule, either don't believe in "group consciousness" and/or don't or won't investigate this idea. As a result, they are then left to come up with some other plausible explanation. This other plausible explanation is that each bird follows the nearest 5 to 7 local birds and they all have very fast reflexes. However, along with this, as you pointed out, it seems that not everything about what's going on here is known or understood, and this, I think is a big hint here that something's not right.



Having been in the US Air Force many years ago, where I was trained and taught how to march as a member of a group, I'll use the following analogy to explain what I think might be going on here.


Analogy:

Consider a group of scientists, who all live in a foreign land where everyone is deaf. As a result of this, all of these scientists do not believe that human verbal communication exists. In their world, all human communication comes from either visual or touch data.  These foreign scientists closely study a film of a group of 4 columns of US Army soldiers, who march along in formation. This group of Army soldiers are marching north on a road and their DI (Drill Instructor) is marching along with them, to their right. As these scientist are watching this film, suddenly the DI calls out, "Column, Halt", and all the soldiers, almost instantly come to a complete stop. Then the DI calls out, "Right Face" and all the soldiers, once again, almost instantly turn right, each now facing due East.


Even though these scientist can plainly see the DI's mouth move, they can't hear and they don't believe in the existence of verbal communication. Thus, when they theorize what's actually going on here, they completely disregard any possibility of "verbal communication" even though this concept seems to be entirely plausible.  Given this then, they come up with a theory that what's actually going on here is that these soldiers are all responding to the actions of the 5 to 7 nearest soldiers in their immediate surroundings and that each one of them is reacting with fast reflexes. Finally, given their theory, the rest of it, (why all the soldiers suddenly stopped and why they all suddenly turned right) remains a mystery.




These scientists, by almost automatically rejecting the possibility of verbal communications have limited the possible causes of this marching behavior. Furthermore, they have done this in such a way that makes it very difficult for them or anyone else to actually see that this is what's actually taking place.  Not surprisingly, when they do come up with a theory, their theory doesn't completely explain all of the action that's actually occurring, and so a mystery remains. This is actually often a clue that the theory presented, isn't completely valid. Unfortunately this point is occasionally completely ignored.



In just this way, we can sometimes be "fooled" into believing something that's not actually true, whenever we automatically accept scientific findings, just because they are scientific findings.


- jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
These scientists, by almost automatically rejecting the possibility of verbal communications have limited the possible causes of this marching behavior.

jbseth, most scientists are dogmatic atheists. They reject anything "supernatural". Atheism is actually irrational, The existence of God (or All That Is) cannot be proved scientifically, but it also cannot be disproved. But the idea that God is a "person" is nonsensical. All That Is is not a person.

Definition of a person:

"3a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4aarchaic : bodily appearance
b: the body of a human being
also : the body and clothing
unlawful search of the person
5: the personality of a human being : SELF
6: one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Quote from: Sena
jbseth, most scientists are dogmatic atheists. They reject anything "supernatural". Atheism is actually irrational, The existence of God (or All That Is) cannot be proved scientifically, but it also cannot be disproved. But the idea that God is a "person" is nonsensical. All That Is is not a person.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I completely agree with everything that you've said here except perhaps "Atheism is irrational". I'll have to think about that one some more. 

It seems to me that "the age of enlightment" that occurred in the 1400's -1800's timeframe, was mostly a "Western" man, event. It also seems to me that it was largely a reaction to the teachings of the "Christian" Church.

For the most part, Christianity has always been an "exclusive" religion. That is, generally Christians believe that only Christianity contains the "correct" beliefs about God and life. All other religious beliefs systems are wrong and invalid. Furthermore, if you believed in any one of these other religious belief systems then you could be excommunicated or even burned at the stake.

Many of these enlightened men, were brought up in a Western Christian based environment.  In addition to this, many of these enlightened men were either pseudo-Christians or former Christians. When these "enlightened" thinkers, discovered many of their new ideas, they also found that many of these ideas were in opposition to the ideas and beliefs that were held by the "Christian" church, at that time.  As a result of this, these enlighten thinkers had the choice to either: 1) continue to follow the beliefs of Christianity or 2) to reject them.

By rejecting them however, given the "exclusiveness" of Christianity, they were automatically rejecting "all" religious belief systems.

This, I believe, is how and why many scientists today are Atheists.




I wonder how many of today's scientists, are even aware of the fact that in the development of much of the enlightened thinking, there was an embedded belief in this idea of Christian "exclusivity". That is, there was an embedded belief in this idea that only Christianity contained the "correct" beliefs about God and life.

The scientific community seems to be totally focused upon the idea that you either believe in Christianity or you believe in science; those are your two options. What about all the people in the world who believe in Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, or Seth, for example?


This is one of the biggest issues I personally have with science. They very often seem to be very limited and very close-minded in their thinking. Science seems to be totally focused upon the rejection of the "Christian" idea of God and they totally ignore all other belief systems.

Furthermore, since they reject the "Christian" ideas of God, and since they don't even consider any other belief systems, then they don't even "recognize" the possibility that: 1) there actually could be a God and 2) this God might not exist in the terms described by Christianity. This God could exist along some other lines like Seth's "All That Is" for example.

How closed-minded is that?  Geese. 

-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
For the most part, Christianity has always been an "exclusive" religion.

jbseth, atheism is a reaction to the exclusivist theology of Christianity.

Quote from: jbseth
How closed-minded is that?  Geese. 

What's all this talk about geese being closed-minded? I mean, how would we know? -Emily Latella

But seriously, I have long maintained that agnosticism is the only logical position related to the existence of a god, short of evidence. Personally, I feel that there is ample evidence for the existence of some sort of ultimate consciousness. But to conclude that there is no god (atheism) when one really does not know (agnosticism) is arrogant. I would go so far as to say that all atheists are agnostics, they just don't know it (or can't admit it). I also think many scientists do believe in a god, but they worry that if any of their peers knew that, their credibility would come into question.

Quote from: jbseth
In just this way, we can sometimes be "fooled" into believing something that's not actually true, whenever we automatically accept scientific findings, just because they are scientific findings.

Scientific materialism and what can be observed with our senses (and instruments), oh those lovely liars.

With typical good timing, someone put a post up on FB yesterday that I think fits well here.

Quote from: Ron CardRob gets so perceptively close to the realization of what God is, put in words, he's got it superbly figured out, and this was 1982. Simply put, God is the energy force--source from which all existence springs.

From: Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1, Essay no. 8, for May 23, 1982.

Rob: "But I think that the continuum of consciousness, or All That Is, contains not only the phenomena of quantum mechanics, but also Seth's nonphysical EE (electromagnetic energy) units, and his CU's (or units of consciousness). (These theories are themselves quite incomplete, since at this time they incorporate only three of the four basic interactions in nature: electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

To me, consciousness or All That Is is an omnipresent, really indescribable awareness that to us human beings has no limits, "one" containing not only the attributes of time and space and of all feeling, thought, and objectivity, but numberless other properties, manifestations, and probabilities that lie outside our very limited interior and exterior perceptions."

Rob's description of ATI is something that even scientists might consider, containing a bit of science and a bit of theology (or at least philosophy).

Quote from: LarryH
What's all this talk about geese being closed-minded? I mean, how would we know? -Emily Latella

Ha ha ah, good one Larry! And I've always considered myself agnostic. Well except when I was 4 and wanted to be nun.

Quote from: LarryH
How closed-minded is that?  Geese.

What's all this talk about geese being closed-minded? I mean, how would we know? -Emily Latella

But seriously, I have long maintained that agnosticism is the only logical position related to the existence of a god, short of evidence. Personally, I feel that there is ample evidence for the existence of some sort of ultimate consciousness. But to conclude that there is no god (atheism) when one really does not know (agnosticism) is arrogant. I would go so far as to say that all atheists are agnostics, they just don't know it (or can't admit it). I also think many scientists do believe in a god, but they worry that if any of their peers knew that, their credibility would come into question.

Hi LarryH, Hi Sena, Hi All,

I probably should have spelled that "Gheese" and not "Geese". I apologize to the many Geese in the world, I meant no offense. 



In regards to your statement, "I also think many scientists do believe in a god, but they worry that if any of their peers knew that, their credibility would come into question." I also suspect that this may be true.

However, not only that, but I also suspect that some scientists may not necessarily buy into some of the other scientific concepts (The Theory of Evolution, Survival of the Fittest, the Nature of Consciousness, etc.) but don't air their personal views for the same reasons, fear of attack upon their credibility.

"Some" scientists, people line Mario Beauregard, a neuroscientist, who wrote "Brain Wars" and who does believe in consciousness in a manner similar to how Seth describes it, do come forward and make their beliefs known.


For many however, if you're a scientist, you better tote the scientific line (whether its valid or not) or your credibility will likely be challenged.

How open - minded is that?

-jbseth

Hi All,

It seems to me that there is a difference between: 1) "knowing" that there is a God or "knowing" that there is no God and 2) "believing" that there is a God or "believing" that there is no God.

I think that when most people claim to "know" that there is a God or that there is no God, what we are actually hearing instead is their "belief" about God.


I'm not sure that it's even possible for any human to "know" whether there really is a God or is no God.  However, it's also possible that I could be wrong about this.

One problem I have is this, even if someone did "know", one way or the other, how would I ever know, that they knew?  It's an interesting dilemma.




If I ever said or say, that I "know" there is a God, what I actually mean is that I "believe" that there is a God.

Please understand, that when I say I believe in God, I'm talking about God in terms of ATI as described by Seth, and not some Judeo-Christian, Islamic  or Hindu idea about God.



On Google, they define Agnostic as follows:

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."


Based upon this definition, I don't actually consider myself an "Agnostic".

That is, I'm not a person who "believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."  Instead, I "believe" that Seth did know something of both the existence and the nature of God and he described this to us in some of his books. Given what Seth described as the nature of ATI in some of his books, I now also understand something about the nature and existence of God.

 
Thus, I consider myself as a person who "believes" in God, and a person who "believes" specifically in the nature and existence of God or ATI as Seth described in some of his books.


I have no problems however, with anyone who believes this same thing but considers themselves to be an Agnostic. 


- jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

I guess I haven't been living by the dictionary definition. My idea has been that since I've never been religious (well except for that brief period when I was 4), I've never believed in the "typical" depiction of god as I was taught in catechism, but I've kept an open mind that could be some sort of creator, I just don't know for certain. It just isn't an old white haired man sitting on a throne in heaven punishing people on Earth when they don't do what he wants. I guess that second part of the definition is more accurate for me. ATI makes more sense to me than a jealous and violent god.

From the Wiki definition, a little different: "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of a God or gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God or gods that they believe in."

As far as knowing vs. believing, that's probably an entire new topic. I have this mental impression of Yoda (or was it Seth?) saying, "Knowing there is not, only belief."    If I am open to the concept that we make our own reality based on beliefs, then I am believing everything in my reality into existence. I used to know that tables and other material objects were solid. Seth and science made me reconsider that. I used to know that 2+5=7 until I saw the math problem attached.

Quote from: Deb
From the Wiki definition, a little different: "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of a God or gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God or gods that they believe in."

I didn't consider myself an agnostic, but I guess I am an agnostic theist!

Quote from: jbseth
Please understand, that when I say I believe in God, I'm talking about God in terms of ATI as described by Seth, and not some Judeo-Christian, Islamic  or Hindu idea about God.



On Google, they define Agnostic as follows:

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."


Based upon this definition, I don't actually consider myself an "Agnostic".

jbseth, I agree with you. Prior to reading Seth, I was probably an agnostic. I am no longer an agnostic.

Hi All, Hi Deb,

Just after I posted Reply #20 above, about not considering myself an Agnostic, I came across the following sets of definitions on the internet:


Gnostic Theist
Believes a God exists
Claims to know God exists

Gnostic Atheist
Does not believes any God exists
Claims to know no God exists

Agnostic Theist
Believes a God exists
Doesn't claim to know this belief is true

Agnostic Atheist
Does not believes any God exists
Doesn't claim to know that no God exists


Given this set of four definitions, then I guess I'd say that I'm an Agnostic Theist.



Deb,

Regarding your math question, there's probably some simple answer that I'm totally overlooking but I'm thinking that the answer might be 96.

1 + 4 = 5 because 1 x 4 = 4 and 4 + 1 = 5

2 + 5 = 12 because 2 x 5 = 10 and 10 + 2 = 12

3 + 6 = 21 because 3 x 6 = 18 and 18 + 3 = 21

And so, following this same pattern we have:

8 + 11 = 96 because 8 x 11 = 88 and 88 + 8 = 96.

- jbseth

Thanks for the further definitions of gnostic and agnostic.

And yes, you got the math problem correct. I thought it was clever, just a matter of figuring out the pattern. 

Quote from: jbseth
Hi All,

It seems to me that there is a difference between: 1) "knowing" that there is a God or "knowing" that there is no God and 2) "believing" that there is a God or "believing" that there is no God.

I think that when most people claim to "know" that there is a God or that there is no God, what we are actually hearing instead is their "belief" about God.


I'm not sure that it's even possible for any human to "know" whether there really is a God or is no God.  However, it's also possible that I could be wrong about this.

One problem I have is this, even if someone did "know", one way or the other, how would I ever know, that they knew?  It's an interesting dilemma.




If I ever said or say, that I "know" there is a God, what I actually mean is that I "believe" that there is a God.

Please understand, that when I say I believe in God, I'm talking about God in terms of ATI as described by Seth, and not some Judeo-Christian, Islamic  or Hindu idea about God.



On Google, they define Agnostic as follows:

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."


Based upon this definition, I don't actually consider myself an "Agnostic".

That is, I'm not a person who "believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."  Instead, I "believe" that Seth did know something of both the existence and the nature of God and he described this to us in some of his books. Given what Seth described as the nature of ATI in some of his books, I now also understand something about the nature and existence of God.

 
Thus, I consider myself as a person who "believes" in God, and a person who "believes" specifically in the nature and existence of God or ATI as Seth described in some of his books.


I have no problems however, with anyone who believes this same thing but considers themselves to be an Agnostic. 


- jbseth

Hi jbseth

Your post made me wonder, what does anybody know for sure anyway? We can't help seeing the world through the perceptional filter of the belief system we started adopting at an early age. I am convinced that we start finding evidence to back up our beliefs when we are open to it or looking for it. It is generally NOT the other way around!

That is not to say that we can never change our beliefs. For example, in my earlier teenage years, I was of a scientific mind-set and - despite an undeniable interest in ESP and other hard to explain phenomena - adopted the basically materialistic world view that generally comes with that. Only later was my interest in the spiritual awakened, not least by certain famous books written by people like Zukav and Capra who talked about modern physics in the context of Eastern religions.

In retrospect, I find the purely materialistic view implausible and deeply unsatisfying. It just no longer resonates with so many experiences I have made and conclusions I have reached. The idea of some kind of universal spirit simply makes so much more sense to me. So I would say I actually know of its existence to the extent I have ever known anything in my life.

This does not imply that I already have the answers to all the questions regarding it, though. And I am not sure anybody (or anyone without body, for that matter ) has them.

Consciousness seems to be on an eternal journey towards the mind of its Creator, ever evolving in the process. And I for one can't see an end to this, at least not anytime soon... Hey, if there was one, where would be the fun in it? 

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Consciousness seems to be on an eternal journey towards the mind of its Creator, ever evolving in the process.

Michael, as I understand the Seth teachings there is no single Creator with a capital C. We are all creators:

"You are indeed learning to be creators... and you are already, in your terms, creators. And by the products of your creations shall you learn to see yourselves and know what you are. And through the mirror of physical reality do you see materialized the inner selves. And through your creations shall you realize your abilities and your responsibilities even as we."
—TECS2 ESP Class Session January 13, 1970

"The psyche, as it is turned toward physical reality, is a creator of events, and through them it experiences its own reality as through your own speech you hear your voice."
—NotP Chapter 8: Session 784, July 19, 1976

"I will purposely avoid using the word "God" because of the connotations placed upon it by conventional religion. I will make an attempt to explain the characteristics of this divine process throughout this book. I call the process "All That Is." All That Is is so much a part of its creations that it is almost impossible to separate the "creator from the creations," for each creation also carries indelibly within it the characteristics of its source."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 882, September 26, 1979

"Using the inner senses, we become conscious creators, cocreators. But you are unconscious cocreators whether you know it or not."
—SS Chapter 2: Session 515, February 11, 1970

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Consciousness seems to be on an eternal journey towards the mind of its Creator, ever evolving in the process.

Michael, as I understand the Seth teachings there is no single Creator with a capital C. We are all creators:

"You are indeed learning to be creators... and you are already, in your terms, creators. And by the products of your creations shall you learn to see yourselves and know what you are. And through the mirror of physical reality do you see materialized the inner selves. And through your creations shall you realize your abilities and your responsibilities even as we."
—TECS2 ESP Class Session January 13, 1970

"The psyche, as it is turned toward physical reality, is a creator of events, and through them it experiences its own reality as through your own speech you hear your voice."
—NotP Chapter 8: Session 784, July 19, 1976

"I will purposely avoid using the word "God" because of the connotations placed upon it by conventional religion. I will make an attempt to explain the characteristics of this divine process throughout this book. I call the process "All That Is." All That Is is so much a part of its creations that it is almost impossible to separate the "creator from the creations," for each creation also carries indelibly within it the characteristics of its source."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 882, September 26, 1979

"Using the inner senses, we become conscious creators, cocreators. But you are unconscious cocreators whether you know it or not."
—SS Chapter 2: Session 515, February 11, 1970

Hi Sena

Well, I feel this is a rather intricate topic to talk about. While I will try and clarify my position, at any rate, please do not infer from my previous statement that I am suggesting that God would be some kind of readily definable, external entity who conjured up his creation on a boring afternoon. 

Let's start by looking at a few more Seth quotes that do speak to a singular God, albeit in metaphysically sophisticated terms, and that may help to cast some light on my own way of thinking regarding this matter:

"There  is  one  God,  but  within  that  God  are  many.  There  is  one  self,  but  within  that  self  are  many.  There  is one  body,  in  one  time,  but  the  self  has  other  bodies  in  other  times."
--The Seth Material, chapter 20

"All  individuals  remember  their  source,  and  now  dream  of  All  That  Is  as  It  once  dreamed  of  them.  And they  yearn  toward  that  immense  source...and  yearn  to  give  it  actuality  through  their  own  creations."
--The Seth Material, chapter 12

"The  connections  between  you  and  All  That  Is  can  never  be  severed,  and  Its  awareness  is  so  delicate  and focused  that  its  attention  is  indeed  directed  with  a  prime  creator's  love  to  each  consciousness."
--The Seth Material, chapter 12   

"God  is  always  more  than  All  That  Is,  is  the  sum  that  you  cannot  find--and  for  my  definition  of  God,  I therefore  leave  you  with  that  one:  For  God  is  the  sum  that  you  cannot  find,  that  resides  within  you,  that  is more  than  anything  you  can  discover,  that  is  His  creations  and  yet  more  than  that  which  is  created,  within Whom infinities  rest."
--The Seth Material, chapter 12

Quite in accordance with the foregoing, I would maintain that there is indeed a God that is the source of "His" creations, and that in fact resides at the very centre of each them: of every being, of every atom... For a sphere that expands into infinity has its centre everywhere!

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
There  is  one  God,  but  within  that  God  are  many. 

Michael, how do you understand this statement? It is a bit like the Holy Trinity, but many suggests many more than 3. There is a suggestion here of polytheism.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Hi jbseth

Your post made me wonder, what does anybody know for sure anyway? We can't help seeing the world through the perceptional filter of the belief system we started adopting at an early age. I am convinced that we start finding evidence to back up our beliefs when we are open to it or looking for it. It is generally NOT the other way around!

That is not to say that we can never change our beliefs. For example, in my earlier teenage years, I was of a scientific mind-set and - despite an undeniable interest in ESP and other hard to explain phenomena - adopted the basically materialistic world view that generally comes with that. Only later was my interest in the spiritual awakened, not least by certain famous books written by people like Zukav and Capra who talked about modern physics in the context of Eastern religions.

Hi Michael,

Is it OK if I call you "Michael"?

It sounds to me, a little like we both grow up along somewhat similar paths. As a teenager and young adult, I had more of a scientific mind-set about things, and while I didn't "accept" many of the beliefs that were expressed by the Christian Church, I did find many of the mysteries of life (ESP, Ghosts, UFO, NDE's OBE's) to be intriguing.

Then when I was in my mid-20's I discovered Seth, and many of my ideas changed as a result of Seth's teachings.


To your question, "what does anybody know for sure anyway"? I'd say, that in many cases, perhaps not as much as we think we do.  Many people might say, for example, I know that gravity exists and I know that time is a sequence of events, but the reality of this may actually be that these are just root-assumptions of the 3D physical reality. Is life real or is it perhaps just a dream? Is a dream, just a dream, or is it perhaps real? I won't "pretend" to know that answer to these questions, but they are both interesting.


In regards to your comment. "I am convinced that we start finding evidence to back up our beliefs when we are open to it or looking for it. It is generally NOT the other way around!" This was one of Seth's first teaching that really got my attention. I had a hard time believing this one. Many times in my life, it seemed to me that it was experience that resulted in my beliefs.

Actually, as a Seth reader for many years now, I would have to say that I'm not convinced that life doesn't actually work both ways. I'm thinking that a belief that beliefs "always" create our experience may be just as limiting and close-mined as the earlier belief I held, that life experience always creates our "beliefs". Maybe Seth chose to really emphasized this idea (that "beliefs "always" create reality") because so many of us do not / did not recognize or believe this. In other words, he had to really stress this point, in order to get us to take a look at this.  Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying here that I don't believe that beliefs create reality. I do believe this. I'm just saying that I also believe that there is more to this. I think that there are also times when the  experience we have, changes our beliefs.




From my own life, here's an example of what I'm talking about:

When I was a young adult, I had the belief that only some people, psychics, had intuition thoughts. I didn't believe that I had any intuitional thoughts.  Since I had this belief, and tended to be scientifically minded, my experience followed this belief and I never seemed to have any intuitional thoughts.

Later on I discovered "Seth Speaks". I start reading this book and I was blown away with many of Seth's ideas.

After reading this book I begin to question my earlier belief. Maybe, other people along with psychics, do have intuitional thoughts. Then later, I begin to experience intuitional thoughts.  While its true that my belief did change and my new belief opened me up to having these new intuitional experiences, it was my actual "experience" of having intuitional thoughts themselves, that ultimately "convinced" me that my previous belief was wrong.


Thus, once again, we come back to the question of what is it that we really "know". 


-jbseth

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
There  is  one  God,  but  within  that  God  are  many.

Michael, how do you understand this statement? It is a bit like the Holy Trinity, but many suggests many more than 3. There is a suggestion here of polytheism.

Sena,

First off, it may be interesting to note that Yahwe, the God of the Bible, started his career as part of a pantheon. He even had a female counterpart originally! Only later did He come to represent the One God at the root of all Creation.

After He had been established as such, there was later indeed a necessity seen especially in the Christian system to distinguish the three aspects of the Divine that you mentioned. Now many metaphysical systems suppose some kind of Trinity; for example, in Hinduism you have Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. And I feel that the Christian Trinity specifically ties in with the Platonic model of the cosmos that differentiates between the Mind, the Soul, and the Body of the World - and above all that, there was the One (especially in Plotin). - As an aside, so much of Christian theology is actually based on Platonism.

It is true that the three Abrahamic re!igions did away with all those deities that inhabited the spheres of the cosmos, only to populate them with so many archangels, angels, saints, what have you... Simply because there was a perception that dealing with a multitude of metaphysical and physical forces (often enough at odds with each other) required attributing them to a variety of spiritual entities, whatever you wish to call them.

What this boils down to is a matter of perspective, really. From unity comes diversity, and within the One God, there are many Gods - just as Seth has shared.

Sena,

As an addendum to my earlier response to your statement regarding creators as opposed to the One Creator, I would like to share the following thought:

It is exactly because there abides the One at the centre of any individual being that each of them is endowed with the power to create their own reality!

Most certainly, the old metaphysical concept of the monad comes to mind...

Quote from: jbseth

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Hi jbseth

Your post made me wonder, what does anybody know for sure anyway? We can't help seeing the world through the perceptional filter of the belief system we started adopting at an early age. I am convinced that we start finding evidence to back up our beliefs when we are open to it or looking for it. It is generally NOT the other way around!

That is not to say that we can never change our beliefs. For example, in my earlier teenage years, I was of a scientific mind-set and - despite an undeniable interest in ESP and other hard to explain phenomena - adopted the basically materialistic world view that generally comes with that. Only later was my interest in the spiritual awakened, not least by certain famous books written by people like Zukav and Capra who talked about modern physics in the context of Eastern religions.

Hi Michael,

Is it OK if I call you "Michael"?

Most certainly! 

QuoteIt sounds to me, a little like we both grow up along somewhat similar paths. As a teenager and young adult, I had more of a scientific mind-set about things, and while I didn't "accept" many of the beliefs that were expressed by the Christian Church, I did find many of the mysteries of life (ESP, Ghosts, UFO, NDE's OBE's) to be intriguing.

Then when I was in my mid-20's I discovered Seth, and many of my ideas changed as a result of Seth's teachings.

Yes, I can see the parallels. 

QuoteTo your question, "what does anybody know for sure anyway"? I'd say, that in many cases, perhaps not as much as we think we do.  Many people might say, for example, I know that gravity exists and I know that time is a sequence of events, but the reality of this may actually be that these are just root-assumptions of the 3D physical reality.

Hmm, yes. There seems to exist great consistency throughout the system of physics humankind has developed, however, what we think of as ultimate truths may in reality be mere subsets of a higher physics that we have barely started to understand.

QuoteIs life real or is it perhaps just a dream? Is a dream, just a dream, or is it perhaps real? I won't "pretend" to know that answer to these questions, but they are both interesting.

Well, I have had some dreams that felt pretty darn real to me. 

QuoteIn regards to your comment. "I am convinced that we start finding evidence to back up our beliefs when we are open to it or looking for it. It is generally NOT the other way around!" This was one of Seth's first teaching that really got my attention. I had a hard time believing this one. Many times in my life, it seemed to me that it was experience that resulted in my beliefs.

Actually, as a Seth reader for many years now, I would have to say that I'm not convinced that life doesn't actually work both ways. I'm thinking that a belief that beliefs "always" create our experience may be just as limiting and close-mined as the earlier belief I held, that life experience always creates our "beliefs".

I agree, and that's why I said things were GENERALLY this way. There are indeed those "aha moments" at which we encounter something that challenges and sometimes simply blows away our previous assumptions.

But this presupposes an inherent openness to this new information on some level of our inner self - or, if we are partcularly  stone headed, a really hard hit!  Still, we might not get the message, if we lack any readiness for receiving it.

Make no mistake, our inner self is perfectly capable of leading us into situations that are suitable to enhance our understanding of things - and isn't that just another way in which we create our own reality? - Seth spoke to this on various occasions, to be sure.

Then again, he also shared that the creation of our reality was an unconscious thing as such, brought on by the inner self in accordance with our (basically) consciously held beliefs.

Right, these things can get a little confusing at times...

QuoteMaybe Seth chose to really emphasized this idea (that "beliefs "always" create reality") because so many of us do not / did not recognize or believe this. In other words, he had to really stress this point, in order to get us to take a look at this.  Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying here that I don't believe that beliefs create reality. I do believe this. I'm just saying that I also believe that there is more to this. I think that there are also times when the  experience we have, changes our beliefs.

From my own life, here's an example of what I'm talking about:

When I was a young adult, I had the belief that only some people, psychics, had intuition thoughts. I didn't believe that I had any intuitional thoughts.  Since I had this belief, and tended to be scientifically minded, my experience followed this belief and I never seemed to have any intuitional thoughts.

Right. Your belief would have led you to quickly dismiss any intuitional thoughts as irrelevant crap.

QuoteLater on I discovered "Seth Speaks". I start reading this book and I was blown away with many of Seth's ideas.

I know exactly what you are talking about! 

QuoteAfter reading this book I begin to question my earlier belief. Maybe, other people along with psychics, do have intuitional thoughts. Then later, I begin to experience intuitional thoughts.  While its true that my belief did change and my new belief opened me up to having these new intuitional experiences, it was my actual "experience" of having intuitional thoughts themselves, that ultimately "convinced" me that my previous belief was wrong.

Ah, you see? So you had already adopted a new belief and subsequently started making experiences that increasingly backed it up. One of the most intriguing statements I found in The Nature of Personal Reality was that our experiences would always seem to confirm our beliefs, regardless of their actual correctness! I do think that explains alot...

QuoteThus, once again, we come back to the question of what is it that we really "know". 


-jbseth

Well, some like to bleep that out... 

Personally, I would say, sometimes we just don't know enough to avoid taking a bleep of faith!

Quote from: Michael Sternbach

Quote from: jbseth
Is life real or is it perhaps just a dream? Is a dream, just a dream, or is it perhaps real? I won't "pretend" to know that answer to these questions, but they are both interesting.

Well, I have had some dreams that felt pretty darn real to me. 

Me too, but they're usually the ones where when I wake up, I breathe a sigh of relief. Sometimes I actually stop and (internally) ask myself, when awake, if this is "real" or am I dreaming? It's helped me with lucid dreams. Seth did say our dreams are as real as our waking world. I just wish I'd remember to do that when I'm dreaming about cleaning house or trying to pack hundreds of objects into a suitcase for a flight, lol.

I had a doozy dream this morning, very real, but a good one. I was in another state to attend a workshop, and it was time for me to get back to my hotel room and pack up to head home. I was in some sort of building, maybe where the workshop had been, and before I left I walked into a room. There was a person in it that I greeted, and he looked totally surprised and overjoyed at the same time. For some reason I realized he was a ghost and he was thrilled that someone could finally see him. Then there was another ghost. And a third! They looked strange, sort of bore the signs of how they had died. I, having been a paranormal investigator for a few years (in real life), was also thrilled that I could see them, which told me (1) that there IS such a thing as ghosts and (2) I'd suddenly gained a new skill! I said I "nice to see, you but I really needed to get to my hotel to pack up," and left the room. As soon as I got a few steps away from the door I returned to ask why I could suddenly see ghosts? What had changed? Ghost #3 (with a two-tone grey face) said something like "there are some things you cannot see with your eyes, you need to use your inner eye, and the only thing that had changed was that you finally understood." I had such a feeling of accomplishment, it lasted for hours after I'd woken up. And no, I haven't seen any "other" ghosts today. At least, as far as I know.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
I am convinced that we start finding evidence to back up our beliefs when we are open to it or looking for it. It is generally NOT the other way around!

Quote from: jbseth
Actually, as a Seth reader for many years now, I would have to say that I'm not convinced that life doesn't actually work both ways.

I was first introduced to this by Joe Dispenza, and it made complete sense to me—confirmation bias. I think it just depends on how much someone wants to believe something is true. It's no secret that scientists setting out to prove hypotheses will discard information that doesn't fit in with their objective (research bias or file-drawer effect). But with something like which is the best deodorant or cake recipe, I think most people would be OK with listening to others. Like reading the reviews on Amazon. But someone who "knows" god exists or something equally weighty would not be so open minded. I have a relative who is a Born Again, and she attributes everything in her life to God's hand, good or bad. She knows him and who he is, because he talks to her and it seems she's his favorite. It goes beyond faith. And she's done an amazing job making a good life for herself and takes no credit for it. I watch her in silent amazement. Except once, about 25 years ago, I saw Deepak Chopra for the first time, and wanted to share the video with her. A few minutes into it, she stormed out of the room, hands over her ears, saying she couldn't listen to that stuff. 

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
In retrospect, I find the purely materialistic view implausible and deeply unsatisfying.

I've found a lot of comfort in the Seth materials because of that same feeling. Even as a kid I was disappointed when religion and science often said "that's it, we know it all, we're done, this is all there is." I hoped they were wrong, and Seth has given me much more to consider.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
One of the most intriguing statements I found in The Nature of Personal Reality was that our experiences would always seem to confirm our beliefs, regardless of their actual correctness! I do think that explains alot...

That has always stuck with me, because that made so much sense, if what you're referring to here fits in with the quote I'll add. Seth actually rephrased it a couple of times in NoPR. Basically, change the belief, and the supportive evidence changes with it, since we were creating it all along. It would be a Catch 22 until someone understands what's going on.

"You must realize that you are the one who produced that "physical evidence" that still faces you, and you did so through your beliefs.

So as you alter the belief, the physical evidence will gradually begin to "prove" your new belief as faithfully as it did your old one. You must work with your own ideas."

—NoPR Chapter 4: Session 622, October 18, 1972

Quote from: Michael Sternbach

Personally, I would say, sometimes we just don't know enough to avoid taking a bleep of faith!

God that was perfect! What the bleep do we know?

I'm comfortable saying that knowing vs believing is not that simple, when it comes to the deeper meaning of "knowing." I could say I know the earth is spherical (there are those that would dispute me), I know how to use Illustrator and Photoshop and other software, I know how to speak English and drive a car, but those are pretty superficial compared to whether I know or don't know there is a god or Mothman or angels. For the former, I rely on evidence, observation or information provided by others. For the latter—I'd have to rely on faith.

Quote from: Deb

Quote from: Michael Sternbach

Quote from: jbseth
Is life real or is it perhaps just a dream? Is a dream, just a dream, or is it perhaps real? I won't "pretend" to know that answer to these questions, but they are both interesting.

Well, I have had some dreams that felt pretty darn real to me. 

Me too, but they're usually the ones where when I wake up, I breathe a sigh of relief. Sometimes I actually stop and (internally) ask myself, when awake, if this is "real" or am I dreaming? It's helped me with lucid dreams. Seth did say our dreams are as real as our waking world. I just wish I'd remember to do that when I'm dreaming about cleaning house or trying to pack hundreds of objects into a suitcase for a flight, lol.

I am sure that most of us experienced waking up from a dream and feeling relieved that it was "just a dream". As a matter of fact, I remember waking up  deliberately from an unpleasant dream on some occasions!

QuoteI had a doozy dream this morning, very real, but a good one. I was in another state to attend a workshop, and it was time for me to get back to my hotel room and pack up to head home. I was in some sort of building, maybe where the workshop had been, and before I left I walked into a room. There was a person in it that I greeted, and he looked totally surprised and overjoyed at the same time. For some reason I realized he was a ghost and he was thrilled that someone could finally see him. Then there was another ghost. And a third! They looked strange, sort of bore the signs of how they had died. I, having been a paranormal investigator for a few years (in real life), was also thrilled that I could see them, which told me (1) that there IS such a thing as ghosts and (2) I'd suddenly gained a new skill! I said I "nice to see, you but I really needed to get to my hotel to pack up," and left the room. As soon as I got a few steps away from the door I returned to ask why I could suddenly see ghosts? What had changed? Ghost #3 (with a two-tone grey face) said something like "there are some things you cannot see with your eyes, you need to use your inner eye, and the only thing that had changed was that you finally understood." I had such a feeling of accomplishment, it lasted for hours after I'd woken up. And no, I haven't seen any "other" ghosts today. At least, as far as I know.

I am glad that this came to you as such a positive experience. I saw ghost in dreams before and had, let's say, mixed feelings about it. I must admit that I found part of your description a bit creepy, especially your observation that those ghosts "looked strange, sort of bore the signs of how they had died". I wonder if some discarnate entities actually walk (float, fly, whatever) around still bearing the marks left by their passing (rumours about a headless woman come to mind) or if that was an interpretation your mind made on some level to convey data received by your inner senses to you in a visual form.

But then, I am not sure how literally we should take those "realistic" dreams anyway, including so-called lucid ones. I surely had some quite exhilarating dreams in which I felt rather awake and definitely out of my physical body - and yet there were clearly imaginary elements (such as characters from tv series) in them.

It seems like our notions of what is "real" and what is "imaginary" are just not as applicable to experiences in the "psychoid space" (to use another Jungian term) as they usually are while we are focussed in physical reality. - I say usually because some of us have experienced weird phenomena where the usual reality of waking life blended with things that does not seem to belong there.

Quote

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
I am convinced that we start finding evidence to back up our beliefs when we are open to it or looking for it. It is generally NOT the other way around!

Quote from: jbseth
Actually, as a Seth reader for many years now, I would have to say that I'm not convinced that life doesn't actually work both ways.

I was first introduced to this by Joe Dispenza, and it made complete sense to me—confirmation bias. I think it just depends on how much someone wants to believe something is true. It's no secret that scientists setting out to prove hypotheses will discard information that doesn't fit in with their objective (research bias or file-drawer effect).

Right on. I am frequently puzzled by this for example when studying archaeology (a field of great interest to me especially in recent years), where orthodox researchers keep insisting on such abstruse things like early civilizations being able to move rocks of hundreds of tons weight over hundreds of miles (including over mountain ranges) and then grinding them with micrometer precision - using nothing but primitive tools! When even we moderns with all our modern technology would be hardpressed to replicate such feats.

Or let's look at medicine as another example, where orthodox researchers still insist that something like homeopathy must be ineffective, since it cannot be explained within the framework of current (academic) knowledge. Despite there being so much evidence to the contrary, and_despite its immense acceptance by the populace!

QuoteBut with something like which is the best deodorant or cake recipe, I think most people would be OK with listening to others. Like reading the reviews on Amazon. But someone who "knows" god exists or something equally weighty would not be so open minded. I have a relative who is a Born Again, and she attributes everything in her life to God's hand, good or bad. She knows him and who he is, because he talks to her and it seems she's his favorite. It goes beyond faith. And she's done an amazing job making a good life for herself and takes no credit for it. I watch her in silent amazement.

Well, faith moves mountains!   

Any kind of faith, really...

QuoteExcept once, about 25 years ago, I saw Deepak Chopra for the first time, and wanted to share the video with her. A few minutes into it, she stormed out of the room, hands over her ears, saying she couldn't listen to that stuff. 

What could be more threatening for a frantic believer in something than having their cherished beliefs challenged by other views? Any doubts arising would deprive such an individual of some of the power they draw from their unquestioned conviction.

Does anybody remember the story of Augustus in NoPR? 

Quote

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
In retrospect, I find the purely materialistic view imp∆lausible and deeply unsatisfying.

I've found a lot of comfort in the Seth materials because of that same feeling. Even as a kid I was disappointed when religion and science often said "that's it, we know it all, we're done, this is all there is." I hoped they were wrong, and Seth has given me much more to consider.

Indeed. Seth satisfies both our scientific and our spiritual inclinations, reconciles them with one another, and opens up the perspective that there is so much more to discover!

Quote

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
One of the most intriguing statements I found in The Nature of Personal Reality was that our experiences would always seem to confirm our beliefs, regardless of their actual correctness! I do think that explains alot...

That has always stuck with me, because that made so much sense, if what you're referring to here fits in with the quote I'll add.

It surely does; I was thinking of that very passage when I wrote this.

QuoteSeth actually rephrased it a couple of times in NoPR. Basically, change the belief, and the supportive evidence changes with it, since we were creating it all along. It would be a Catch 22 until someone understands what's going on.

"You must realize that you are the one who produced that "physical evidence" that still faces you, and you did so through your beliefs.

So as you alter the belief, the physical evidence will gradually begin to "prove" your new belief as faithfully as it did your old one. You must work with your own ideas."

—NoPR Chapter 4: Session 622, October 18, 1972

Quote from: Michael Sternbach

Personally, I would say, sometimes we just don't know enough to avoid taking a bleep of faith!

God that was perfect! What the bleep do we know?

I'm comfortable saying that knowing vs believing is not that simple, when it comes to the deeper meaning of "knowing." I could say I know the earth is spherical (there are those that would dispute me), I know how to use Illustrator and Photoshop and other software, I know how to speak English and drive a car, but those are pretty superficial compared to whether I know or don't know there is a god or Mothman or angels. For the former, I rely on evidence, observation or information provided by others. For the latter—I'd have to rely on faith.

I like to think of the expansion of my knowledge as something akin to completing a jigsaw. Different fields of information are interwoven and supplementing each other in my mind. Sometimes I become aware of a gap - I may be able to recognize the blurred contours of the missing piece of knowledge, but not what it is actually going to look like! However, if then what I find fits in with what I have built previously and put to the test of experience, chances are that it is "correct" and deserves to play a role in my world - well, within the present framework of my growing comprehension, at any rate! 

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
It is exactly because there abides the One at the centre of any individual being that each of them is endowed with the power to create their own reality!

Michael, I think you are stating here the principle of monotheism. Who is the One you are referring to? Is it the Christian God, Allah, the Tao, or Brahman? It can't be all four because it is only One. I don't think Seth taught monotheism. He spoke of All That Is, which is all-inclusive.

""Thank God that some god managed to disentangle itself from such psychic oneness, if that's what it's supposed to be. Thank God that some god loved itself enough to diversify, to create itself in a million different forms; to multiply, to explode its being inward and outward. Thank God that some god loved its own individuality enough to endow the least and the most, the greatest and the smallest, with its own unique being." UR2 Appendix 15: (For Session 710)

"When you realize that this is a symbol only then you begin to see more and come closer to an understanding, not further away from an understanding. There is no personal god-individual in Christian terms and yet you do have access to a portion of All That Is, that is highly attuned to you only above all others.

In this respect, you see, there is a personal god, if those are the words you use. There is a portion of All That Is, that is directed and focused upon every individual consciousness. A portion of All That Is resides within and is a part of every consciousness. Every consciousness is therefore cherished and protected individually. There are automatic electromagnetic connections that exist here."

—TES7 Session 311 January 11,1967
—►

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
It is exactly because there abides the One at the centre of any individual being that each of them is endowed with the power to create their own reality!

Michael, I think you are stating here the principle of monotheism. Who is the One you are referring to? Is it the Christian God, Allah, the Tao, or Brahman? It can't be all four because it is only One. I don't think Seth taught monotheism. He spoke of All That Is, which is all-inclusive.

""Thank God that some god managed to disentangle itself from such psychic oneness, if that's what it's supposed to be. Thank God that some god loved itself enough to diversify, to create itself in a million different forms; to multiply, to explode its being inward and outward. Thank God that some god loved its own individuality enough to endow the least and the most, the greatest and the smallest, with its own unique being." UR2 Appendix 15: (For Session 710)

"When you realize that this is a symbol only then you begin to see more and come closer to an understanding, not further away from an understanding. There is no personal god-individual in Christian terms and yet you do have access to a portion of All That Is, that is highly attuned to you only above all others.

In this respect, you see, there is a personal god, if those are the words you use. There is a portion of All That Is, that is directed and focused upon every individual consciousness. A portion of All That Is resides within and is a part of every consciousness. Every consciousness is therefore cherished and protected individually. There are automatic electromagnetic connections that exist here."

—TES7 Session 311 January 11,1967
—►

Sena,

From my view, God in the Abrahamic religions, Brahman, Dao, Odin, Manitou, and several others are just different outlooks on what I call the One - each perceived through the lens of a particular culture and time, with emphasis laid on this or that aspect of the One, but each equally valid and metaphysically true.

From unity comes diversity. There are vast entities originating from and existing within the One whose equals can again be found throughout a number of metaphysical systems.

In fact, the One is diversified into myriads of individual beings, each of them carrying the One in their centre. Note the proximity of my view to what Seth shared.

Is this Monotheism? Polytheism? Pantheism? - It's all of these!

Once this kind of view was accepted by the majority of people in every culture, the folly of religious wars would be universally recognized.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
It is exactly because there abides the One at the centre of any individual being that each of them is endowed with the power to create their own reality!

Michael, I think you are stating here the principle of monotheism. Who is the One you are referring to? Is it the Christian God, Allah, the Tao, or Brahman? It can't be all four because it is only One. I don't think Seth taught monotheism. He spoke of All That Is, which is all-inclusive.

""Thank God that some god managed to disentangle itself from such psychic oneness, if that's what it's supposed to be. Thank God that some god loved itself enough to diversify, to create itself in a million different forms; to multiply, to explode its being inward and outward. Thank God that some god loved its own individuality enough to endow the least and the most, the greatest and the smallest, with its own unique being." UR2 Appendix 15: (For Session 710)

"When you realize that this is a symbol only then you begin to see more and come closer to an understanding, not further away from an understanding. There is no personal god-individual in Christian terms and yet you do have access to a portion of All That Is, that is highly attuned to you only above all others.

In this respect, you see, there is a personal god, if those are the words you use. There is a portion of All That Is, that is directed and focused upon every individual consciousness. A portion of All That Is resides within and is a part of every consciousness. Every consciousness is therefore cherished and protected individually. There are automatic electromagnetic connections that exist here."

—TES7 Session 311 January 11,1967
—►

Sena,

From my view, God in the Abrahamic religions, Brahman, Dao, Odin, Manitou, and several others are just different outlooks on what I call the One - each perceived through the lens of a particular culture and time, with emphasis laid on this or that aspect of the One, but each equally valid and metaphysically true.

From unity comes diversity. There are vast entities originating from and existing within the One whose equals can again be found throughout a number of metaphysical systems.

In fact, the One is diversified into myriads of individual beings, each of them carrying the One in their centre. Note the proximity of my view to what Seth shared.

Is this Monotheism? Polytheism? Pantheism? - It's all of these!

Once this kind of view was accepted by the majority of people in every culture, the folly of religious wars would be universally recognized.

Sena,

This is an addendum to my previous post (quoted above with some added emphasis).

Skimming through some of the pages of this forum, I just happened to find the hitherto unpublished session 744,

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1272.msg16794#new

in which Seth has to say the following about his view on the God question:

QuoteIn the old frame of reference there HAD to be ONE God or NONE. There could not be many, for the idea of many Gods smacked not only of Paganism, but of primitive superstition. If the ideas of one God was correct, then the concept of many Gods had to be wrong. The person who said, "There is no God," was an atheist from BOTH standpoints. The greater reality comfortably holds all three beliefs, WITHOUT contradiction, for there is no God if you are thinking of simply a crowned king of your own species. There are many Gods if you realize that each of you is a portion of ALL THAT IS.

There is one God above all, if you think of ALL THAT IS as it exists, being more than its infinite manifestations. Its manifestations however include rocks and trees, animals, atoms and molecules - and they are not inferior versions of what you are. They are simply other versions of ALL THAT IS.

Wouldn't you agree that this is really similar to what I shared in my previous post?

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Its manifestations however include rocks and trees, animals, atoms and molecules

Michael, it is this statement that the manifestations of God include rocks, trees etc, which is significant. This inclines towards pantheism, not monotheism. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for saying things like that.

"The soul that Bruno identified as one of the four principles of corporeality was the World or Universal Soul. The universe was an organism in which each principal body and the life sustained on it participated in a common animating principle, in the same way as the many parts of the human body were vivified by one and the same soul. Even supposedly inanimate things had a vestigial presence of life. Rocks, for example, were alive to the same degree as the bones or teeth of animals were."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/

"Pantheism is a kind of nature-worship, but in a very special sense. To pantheists, Nature doesn't just mean wild mountains, lakes, and trees. Nature includes everything that exists— human beings, cities, computers, asteroids, songs, nuclear waste, and supernovas. In pantheism, God is the sum total of all these things, not just the pretty or unpolluted parts."

https://philosophyterms.com/pantheism/

It would NOT be correct to say that Seth worshipped nature, so the term pantheism may not exactly apply to him. It is a grey area.

"Animism is the belief that every living thing in nature - including trees, plants and even rocks or streams - has its own spirit or divinity. In primitive societies animism often requires that before anyone can kill an animal or fell a tree, its natural spirit must be placated.

Pantheism is in a sense a natural development of animism. Pantheism celebrates the "numinosity" or awesomeness of the whole of the universe and nature. This whole possesses the power, the creativity, the awe and mystery that we need for a focus of our spiritual feelings."

https://www.pantheism.net/paul/faqs.htm

Quote from: Sena
Michael, it is this statement that the manifestations of God include rocks, trees etc, which is significant. This inclines towards pantheism, not monotheism. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for saying things like that.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I got the following definitions for pantheism and panentheism off the internet from Wikipedia. 



Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity,[1] or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god.[2] Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal god,[3] anthropomorphic or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism



Panentheism is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism



As far as the difference between these two concepts, in the Wikipedia definition of Panentheism, it says the following:

"While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe."



I think that panentheism, comes closer to describing what Seth says about All That Is. In several places as I recall, Seth says the All That Is is greater than the sum of all.  Seth also says the following in TES3, S133.  I'm not sure that this fits pantheism or panentheism.  Maybe its something else. 


TES3, S133:
A small frog for example may be more likely seen not as a frog isolated, but as one part of the pond in which he lives; and the pond part of the forest in which it lies; and the forest part of the earth; and the earth itself part of the universe, which is part of another universe.

It makes no difference to the frog, to the nature of the frog, and it changes no smallest cell within him, if you choose to enclose what you call him, as an idea unit called frog, or whether you consider instead the complete picture. The identities still remain the same.



-jbseth

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Its manifestations however include rocks and trees, animals, atoms and molecules

Michael, it is this statement that the manifestations of God include rocks, trees etc, which is significant. This inclines towards pantheism, not monotheism. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for saying things like that.

Sena,

With all respect... I am not sure why you think of monotheism and pantheism as irreconcilable opposites. I don't think Giordano Bruno did. For instance, when he said:

"We can assert with certainty that the universe is all centre, or that the centre of the universe is everywhere and its circumference is nowhere."

this was a variation on a famous postulate that dates back to a Hermetic text and reads as follows:

"God is an sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere."

While Bruno did not think of God as being divorced from the universe, he believed the latter existed in and was pervaded by the undivided infinite mind. As exemplified by his book Cause, Principle and Unity.

Quote"The soul that Bruno identified as one of the four principles of corporeality was the World or Universal Soul. The universe was an organism in which each principal body and the life sustained on it participated in a common animating principle, in the same way as the many parts of the human body were vivified by one and the same soul. Even supposedly inanimate things had a vestigial presence of life. Rocks, for example, were alive to the same degree as the bones or teeth of animals were."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/

Exactly! How is this not a form of monotheism?

Quote"Pantheism is a kind of nature-worship, but in a very special sense. To pantheists, Nature doesn't just mean wild mountains, lakes, and trees. Nature includes everything that exists— human beings, cities, computers, asteroids, songs, nuclear waste, and supernovas. In pantheism, God is the sum total of all these things, not just the pretty or unpolluted parts."

https://philosophyterms.com/pantheism/

It would NOT be correct to say that Seth worshipped nature, so the term pantheism may not exactly apply to him. It is a grey area.

If you feel that way, I suggest you review chapter 6 of NotP, where Seth talks at length about Man's original identification with nature.

Quote"Animism is the belief that every living thing in nature - including trees, plants and even rocks or streams - has its own spirit or divinity[/b]. In primitive societies animism often requires that before anyone can kill an animal or fell a tree, its natural spirit must be placated.

Pantheism is in a sense a natural development of animism. Pantheism celebrates the "numinosity" or awesomeness of the whole of the universe and nature. This whole possesses the power, the creativity, the awe and mystery that we need for a focus of our spiritual feelings."

https://www.pantheism.net/paul/faqs.htm

Quote from: jbseth

Quote from: Sena
Michael, it is this statement that the manifestations of God include rocks, trees etc, which is significant. This inclines towards pantheism, not monotheism. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for saying things like that.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I got the following definitions for pantheism and panentheism off the internet from Wikipedia. 



Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity,[1] or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god.[2] Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal god,[3] anthropomorphic or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism



Panentheism is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism



As far as the difference between these two concepts, in the Wikipedia definition of Panentheism, it says the following:

"While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe."



I think that panentheism, comes closer to describing what Seth says about All That Is. In several places as I recall, Seth says the All That Is is greater than the sum of all.  Seth also says the following in TES3, S133.  I'm not sure that this fits pantheism or panentheism.  Maybe its something else. 


TES3, S133:
A small frog for example may be more likely seen not as a frog isolated, but as one part of the pond in which he lives; and the pond part of the forest in which it lies; and the forest part of the earth; and the earth itself part of the universe, which is part of another universe.

It makes no difference to the frog, to the nature of the frog, and it changes no smallest cell within him, if you choose to enclose what you call him, as an idea unit called frog, or whether you consider instead the complete picture. The identities still remain the same.



-jbseth

Interesting! Yes, Seth's position seems to be a form of panentheism, according to this.

And it's both monotheistic and polytheistic as well - but in a sophisticated form!

Despite occasional references to "the gods", concrete deities as such are not mentioned in the Seth material to my knowledge. Even though Seth II is introduced as one of the creators of our physical system.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Interesting! Yes, Seth's position seems to be a form of panentheism, according to this.

And it's both monotheistic and polytheistic as well - but in a sophisticated form!

Despite occasional references to "the gods", concrete deities as such are not mentioned in the Seth material to my knowledge. Even though Seth II is introduced as one of the creators of our physical system.

Michael, Seth is definitely not monotheistic because he often spoke of "gods" in the plural:

"Because you are people, you personify what you perceive — "peopleize" it. You imagine such "spirits" to be small people, endowed with your own kind of characteristics. Instead there are simply species of consciousness, entirely different from your own, not usually perceived physically under most conditions. They are indeed connected with flora and fauna, but also with the animals and yourselves, and they are the "earth gods" that Ruburt imagined as a young person. You each have your own earth god. The term may not be the best, but it is meant to express that portion of you that is as yet unexpressed in your terms — the idealized earth version of yourself, which you are becoming. The idealized earth version is not meant to mean a perfect self in flesh at all; instead, it represents a psychic reality in which your own abilities fulfill themselves in relationship with your earthly environment to the fullest extent possible, within the time and place you have already chosen. That earth-god portion of yourself attempts to direct you through probabilities. Again, on deep biological levels beneath normal consciousness, and on psychic levels above normal consciousness, you are aware of the integrity of your being — but also of your great connection, while living in flesh, with the natural environment of time and space. The earth-god concept can be consciously used, but only to your greatest advantage if you understand the purposes of your conscious mind and its relationship with your biological nature." (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/hi5NBpc

"I am saying that the individual self must become consciously aware of far more reality; that it must allow its recognition of identity to expand so that it includes previously unconscious knowledge. To do this you must understand, again, that man must move beyond the concepts of one god, one self, one body, one world, as these ideas are currently understood." (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

"As there are portions of reality that you do not consciously perceive, and other systems of probability of which you are not consciously aware, so also are there aspects of primary godhood that you cannot at this moment comprehend. There are, therefore, probable gods, each one reflecting in its way the multidimensional aspects of a prime identity so great and dazzling that no one reality form or particular kind of existence could contain it." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

Quote from: Sena
Michael, Seth is definitely not monotheistic because he often spoke of "gods" in the plural:

Hi Sena, Hi Michael, Hi All


Well, I think that all depends upon where we get our definitions.

According to Wikipedia, panentheism is a pluriform monotheism.

"A distinction may be made between exclusive monotheism, and both inclusive monotheism and pluriform (panentheistic) monotheism which, while recognising various distinct gods, postulate some underlying unity.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism


-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
According to Wikipedia, panentheism is a pluriform monotheism.

jbseth, it is not clear that Seth teaches panentheism or pantheism. His ideas on All That Is are too complex to be described by a single word.

Quote from: jbseth

Quote from: Sena
Michael, Seth is definitely not monotheistic because he often spoke of "gods" in the plural:

Hi Sena, Hi Michael, Hi All


Well, I think that all depends upon where we get our definitions.

According to Wikipedia, panentheism is a pluriform monotheism.

"A distinction may be made between exclusive monotheism, and both inclusive monotheism and pluriform (panentheistic) monotheism which, while recognising various distinct gods, postulate some underlying unity.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism


-jbseth

Yes! According to this, "panentheism" summarizes both Seth's and Bruno's view really well.

Its definition seems very much in line with what both metaphysicists expressed, each in his own words.

This is awesome... Thanks for sharing, jbseth.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Exactly! How is this not a form of monotheism?

Michael, if Bruno had been preaching monotheism, he would not have been burnt at the stake. Believing in a World Soul, even if it is just one soul, is not monotheism. The concept of "transcendence" is essential to monotheism, transcendence meaning that God is above and separate from the world.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100206456

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Again, my point was that it all depends upon who's definition we choose to believe.



"I" would say that:  mono (one), theism (a belief in god), is "a belief in one god".  This is exactly what Wikipedia says.


Monotheism is the belief in one god.[1][2][3][4]


If you notice, at the end of this first sentence in the Wikipedia site, they have 4 references [1], [2], [3], and [4]. These four references are: [1] Encyclopedia Britannica, [2] Oxford Dictionaries, [3] Merriam-Webster and [4]  Cambridge Dictionary.  Not only did they consider "Oxford Dictionaries" but they also included 3 other sources. This is one of the reasons why "I" like this definition.


That I can see, there is nothing inherently specified in the word "mono – theism" that would imply or require the concept of transcendence, in that definition. However, I do recognize that this is the way that some people do define this word.


Along with this, the Wikipedia definition then also talks about a distinction of exclusive and inclusive monotheism (see the following):

Monotheism is the belief in one god.[1][2][3][4] A narrower definition of monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one god that created the world, is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, and intervenes in the world.[5][6][7]

A distinction may be made between exclusive monotheism, and both inclusive monotheism and pluriform (panentheistic) monotheism which, while recognising various distinct gods, postulate some underlying unity.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism



"You" prefer the Oxford definition which says the following and that is OK too.  We prefer different definitions.

Belief in one personal and transcendent God. According to traditional Christian teaching it was the original religion of man, but lost by most men as a consequence of the Fall. In the 19th cent. it was often maintained that the religious beliefs of man had progressed from animism by way of polytheism to monotheism, but this theory is now less widely held.


But I don't know that we're both going to come to an agreement on this; I don't think we necessarily have to; and that's OK to.

I do enjoy our discussions here. You often help to stimulate my thinking about various concepts.  


- jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
But I don't know that we're both going to come to an agreement on this; I don't think we necessarily have to; and that's OK to.

jbseth, the reason that the discussion about monotheism is important is because a belief in monotheism has led to war and terrorism. The problem is that if I am a monotheist, "my" God is not the same as "your" God. The 9/11 attack was because Bin Laden believed that it was only his God who was the One True God.