Rapture... What about the babies?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Rapture only includes Jewish male virgins (12,000 from each of the 12 tribes), although Christian heretics will come up with all kinds of reasons why that isn't the case, because they feel they somehow qualify because they are so righteous. But that ain't how it works.

There are three gatherings [raptures] of justified souls. It sounds as though you mean the gathering after the great tribulation [Jacobs trouble]. If that is what you mean then you are mistaken. The tribulation gathering does include the 144,000 Hebrews from the 12 tribes but is only one of many nations involved in this gathering. There will be many nations of which will retain their seed [races] in the new heaven and new earth. Isaiah 66;20-22 will plainly show you this. The JW's also think the way you have said but not true in the NT MSS.

a reply to: NoConspiracy

When did i say making babies is division?

Im saying the light within them is divide not babies.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: schuyler

Satan will take over things here on Earth.

What do you mean "Will"?

originally posted by: visitedbythem
The babies go too. They have not reached accountability, same as those born with severe mental issues.

The scripture says no man knows the day or the time, but also gives hints to the approximate time in the future when this takes place.

There are fools who will tell you none of this is scientific. Don't believe them. Their mind is blind

My dad is a scientist that attended 4-5 colleges, including Stanford. He is a Chemist, Microbiologist, Bacteriologist, Engineer, parasiteologist, was Director of Research of a fortune 500 company, and was once summoned to the White House by a US Vice President for a private meeting. He also obtained one of the first tiny chips Intel made, back when no one had a PC, and he made the headlines when he built his own PC around that chip. He is a genius

And he believes in scripture. He has calculated that a good window for the Rapture would be in this September

So, because your dad has had a successful career, that means he knows God is real? That is a very weak argument don't you think?

So, Vid us real because a person who has attended 4-5 colleges, including Stanford. He is a Chemist, Microbiologist, Bacteriologist, Engineer, parasiteologist, was Director of Research of a fortune 500 company, and was once summoned to the White House by a US Vice President for a private meeting.

This means he knows lololol

So all babies, and people born with problems like down syndrome, will still go to heaven?

So, babies will stay babies forever, and people born with problems like down syndrome will always have these problems in heaven? If not, then they would not be the same person. It's all quite ridiculous!

a reply to: luciferslight

I did miss read your statement then.

I think divisions are learned concepts indoctrinated through society, and yet on a fundamental level necessary to generate enough friction, to harness energy to keep growing.

I think babies are the closest to this necessary division.

When we die, we often deconstruct many learned divisions and get very close to the first fundamental division.
but some are very hard to transcend, once they become a fundamental part of the self.

Division is the only thing that makes it possible to experience any experience.

Sincerely NC

I dunno...

a reply to: NoConspiracy



“I think divisions are learned concepts indoctrinated through society“

But babies havent learned a thing until taught.

I only mean the god source is what is stopped within them if babies were to stop being born.

If men and women stopped having sex and waited til all humanity dies, itd mean the god or light source would stop being divided.

Not the concept of division but division of source energy itself would stop being divided.

a reply to: luciferslight

If the source energy is divided by all living things in the universe, I dont think our extinction would make much of a difference

originally posted by: NoConspiracy
a reply to: luciferslight

If the source energy is divided by all living things in the universe, I dont think our extinction would make much of a difference

Maybe , but I propose a different theory .

We are all made up of the same energy yes, but the differece is human energy is and can be focused to manipulate and change our environment . I suggest the Universe is a Psychosomatic creation of the human consciousness , though we are housed in these hard bodies this was not always the case . At one time I believe we were a consciousness of energy free of our human form but still individualized none the less.

In short the Universe is primed for sentient beings and this is not by random chance.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

What about all the other lifeforms, they do manifest in their field of influence too. Don't they?
To think only humans do, I find a bit pretentious.
Iccould agree with the term "shared psychosomatic universe"


NC

originally posted by: NoConspiracy
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

What about all the other lifeforms, they do manifest in their field of influence too. Don't they?
To think only humans do, I find a bit pretentious.
Iccould agree with the term "shared psychosomatic universe"


NC

Yea I could get on board with that logic.

originally posted by: NoConspiracy
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Iccould agree with the term "shared psychosomatic universe"

Does it make you feel smart using (or agreeing with) such a term? (rhetorical question for both, something to think about for yourself, rather than answer to me, also not meant to point fingers; note what's mentioned about “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in the article quoted below)

Anything wrong with putting that philosophy/idea in simpler terms, such as: 'the universe and all realities in it are a product of our collective minds, our collective imagination'? I.e. realities, and especially physical realities, are not really real, they are 'persistent illusions' (another term that is popular amongst those beguiled with this philosophy that is actually the product of the human mind and human imagination*, unlike physical realities in this physical universe; remember that the word "physical" includes both matter and energy, which are both physical realities in this physical universe).

Not beguiling or impressive enough if you put it like that? Even though that's what it boils down to without the fancy sophisticated beguiling terminology and talk.

Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

...
How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.
...
Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?

Put information to the test: ...

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) ...

*: Bishop George Berkeley was instrumental in popularizing the philosophy he referred to as "immaterialism", which is defined by Merriam-Webster as: "a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions." Then again, he also encouraged his flock to drink tar-water for its supposed medicinal benefits, distributing it from his Church, advising:

"...it should be drunk warm and in bed, as much and as often as the patient can bear.
I am persuaded tar-water may be drunk with great safety and success for the curing of most diseases, particularly all foul cases, ulcers and eruptions, scurvies of all kinds, nervous disorders, inflammatory distempers, decays, etc." (Siris: A Chain of Philosophical Reflections and Inquiries, Concerning the Virtues of Tar Water.)

I read in al old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that drinking tar water (or tar-water) causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning (it might be the 1911 edition but I'm not sure, might also be before that).

Not exactly a reliable man to take your information from. Especially when you don't realize you have jumped aboard the philosophical bandwagon of immaterialism he was so instrumental in popularizing further ('kicked into overgear' so to speak).

Don't let your minds be so easily programmed by the popular smooth talkers of Hollywood, influencing what philosophies you are intrigued by and you end up filling your minds with,...

...rather than showing you how to think and in what direction true knowledge, insight, understanding and wisdom can be found or how it can be acquired; and how "to evaluate any message or information that comes your way." (as mentioned earlier in the article)

a reply to: whereislogic

Hahaha
The watch tower, Jw.org. Seriously is that even still a thing in 2020.

you have some guts to talk about propaganda
Yet you clearly show all the signs of propaganda... using failed arguments, like someone in the 17th century sold bad waters to the people therfore his ideas are all wrong.

Should we try the same train of arguing with jehovas witness, pretty sure i can dig up something to then paint it all wrong?

Where does God exist in your real material reality?

I think the notion of immaterialism has made some great leaps since Bishop George Berkeley and especially with the field of quantum mechanics. It seems the more I peak the clearer it gets that religions don't like that at all!
It threatens to scientifically explain god, an they have sworn to never let that happen, hence the immediate attacks when you mention

"shared psychosomatic universe."

The only one programmed, to react in a absurd manner to ideas proposed, is you my friend.
I'm so sorry

Proverbs 15:12

The scoffer does not love the one correcting* him. [*: Or “reproving.”]

He will not consult the wise.

You may feel the need to defend the ideas of some Bishop because they are supposedly 'under attack' (actually they are quite popular in religion as well, Bishop Berkeley is very much admired both in philosophical as well as religious circles, especially amongst teachers of philosophy, theology and theosophy), but there's definitely no need to bother scoffing at straw man arguments, calling them failed arguments; just because your ego is easily bruised and you cannot help but react to situations on the basis of pride. A typical manifestation of what the Bible refers to as "the spirit of the world". Although people act on individual preferences, those who manifest the spirit of the world give evidence of certain basic attitudes, ways of doing things, and aims in life that are common to the present system of things of which Satan is ruler and god.

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't consider this bishop to be anywhere near to what reality is.

Oh wise one why do you not answer simple questions, when consulted?

In case you missed it.

Where does God exist in your real material reality?

I have a couple more questions for the wise.

Didn't the bible says that God spoke everything into existence?
If so isn't that a form of manifesting the material reality from a immaterial plane?
Why do you think the immaterial worldview is so far fetched?

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: NoConspiracy
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Iccould agree with the term "shared psychosomatic universe"

Does it make you feel smart using (or agreeing with) such a term? (rhetorical question for both, something to think about for yourself, rather than answer to me, also not meant to point fingers; note what's mentioned about “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in the article quoted below)

Anything wrong with putting that philosophy/idea in simpler terms, such as: 'the universe and all realities in it are a product of our collective minds, our collective imagination'? I.e. realities, and especially physical realities, are not really real, they are 'persistent illusions' (another term that is popular amongst those beguiled with this philosophy that is actually the product of the human mind and human imagination*, unlike physical realities in this physical universe; remember that the word "physical" includes both matter and energy, which are both physical realities in this physical universe).

Not beguiling or impressive enough if you put it like that? Even though that's what it boils down to without the fancy sophisticated beguiling terminology and talk.

Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

...
How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.
...
Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?

Put information to the test: ...

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) ...

*: Bishop George Berkeley was instrumental in popularizing the philosophy he referred to as "immaterialism", which is defined by Merriam-Webster as: "a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions." Then again, he also encouraged his flock to drink tar-water for its supposed medicinal benefits, distributing it from his Church, advising:

"...it should be drunk warm and in bed, as much and as often as the patient can bear.
I am persuaded tar-water may be drunk with great safety and success for the curing of most diseases, particularly all foul cases, ulcers and eruptions, scurvies of all kinds, nervous disorders, inflammatory distempers, decays, etc." (Siris: A Chain of Philosophical Reflections and Inquiries, Concerning the Virtues of Tar Water.)

I read in al old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that drinking tar water (or tar-water) causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning (it might be the 1911 edition but I'm not sure, might also be before that).

Not exactly a reliable man to take your information from. Especially when you don't realize you have jumped aboard the philosophical bandwagon of immaterialism he was so instrumental in popularizing further ('kicked into overgear' so to speak).

Don't let your minds be so easily programmed by the popular smooth talkers of Hollywood, influencing what philosophies you are intrigued by and you end up filling your minds with,...

...rather than showing you how to think and in what direction true knowledge, insight, understanding and wisdom can be found or how it can be acquired; and how "to evaluate any message or information that comes your way." (as mentioned earlier in the article)

You know what your problem is ? It's quite simple really .

Your drawing knowledge from many sources, but in the end your trying to still cling to the Bible and the traditional notion of God. That is not to say the Bible does not hold wisdom because it most certainly does, but the Bible is also full of hypocrisy and ridiculous notions that people feel they must hold on to. What I mean is you feel the need to filter everything you read through the Bible , meaning every book you read besides the Bible comes second to the Bible.

The Bible is just another book , and you should take what you need from it and move on . There are nuggets of wisdom and esoteric knowledge hidden in written works all over the world, and none are necessarily more right than the others .

You concentrate on Bishop Berkeley as though he is the only one who supported Immaterialism , there are so many esoteric masters through out history who teach immaterilism. He is just one among many just as the Bible is one book among many .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

You wrote what i had known to be true.

originally posted by: NoConspiracy
a reply to: whereislogic
...
Oh wise one why do you not answer simple questions, when consulted?

In case you missed it.

Where does God exist in your real material reality?

I have a couple more questions for the wise.

Than maybe you should consult the wise, since I never claimed to be such. Just like I never said or implied that physical realities (including both matter and energy) are the only type of realities that exist, which your question seems to be based on reading into my commentary, after already changing the terminology to "real material reality". I guess it facilitates the mockery better if one reads such things into my commentary and changes the subject or point I was talking about.

Your question is not about my point of view, only someone with the point of view you seem to be reading into my commentary could answer such a question. Besides, I find the terminology "material reality" ambiguous since some people may interpret that as referring to only realities made up of matter, which is even more unrelated to the points I was making about physical realities and the notion that physical realities are products of our minds or as the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism: "a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions." Which is why I spoke about physical realities rather than using the term "material reality" (even though the word "material" is so often used as a synonym to actually refer to "physical"; as seems to be the case in that dictionary, since that's what Berkeley actually promoted, or at least, that's how those who rolled with it afterwards interpreted it, or turned it into).

Didn't the bible says that God spoke everything into existence?

Nope, just a lame interpretation to further promote lame human philosophies and theosophies. Noticed the philosopher John Lennox rolling with that one as well.

If so isn't that a form of manifesting the material reality from a immaterial plane?

Is this in any way related to anything I said about physical realities and the notion/idea/philosophy I described in various ways now, none of which use terms such as "material reality" or "immaterial plane"? Are you sure what concept you are referring to when you talk about "a form of manifesting the material reality from a immaterial plane"? Cause if you're talking about such a concept as the creation of physical realities such as matter by a nonphysical immaterial being, then you are talking about what is described in the Bible (Genesis), which is what your question was supposed to be about, cause it was building on that lame interpretation concerning the Creation account in the Bible that I just responded to. And in that case, your question would be about a concept I have expressed no disagreement with, or to use the terminology in your next question, I have not expressed as being "so far fetched". Not that I actually did the latter concerning anything else in my commentary so far.

Why do you think the immaterial worldview is so far fetched?

That's not an accurate representation of my views, you changed the subject again by describing it more vaguely, more open to different interpretations as to what you could possibly mean with "the immaterial worldview". If however, with that term you are referring to Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism as defined by Merriam-Webster, then along with the clues already given, I would say: 'common sense'. Mostly because I don't see much benefit in explaining the obvious in detail as I've been doing this whole comment already, as you read other things into what I'm saying, respond to straw man arguments, scoff, mock, attempt to discredit my points by posing unrelated questions that end up functioning as red herrings and demonstrate to not be nearly as openminded nor reasonable about these subjects as you might think you are. And the main reason seems to be is because I'm pointing out things that you don't want to hear, or perhaps even discuss, so much so, that's it's almost as if you're actually hearing something else, or trying to hear something else (at least in the end, you end up painting it as something else, there could be other motives for that as well related to the mockery and scoffing at so-called "failed arguments"). It seems to be clouding your readings of my commentary.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
...
You concentrate on Bishop Berkeley as though he is the only one who supported Immaterialism , there are so many esoteric masters through out history who teach immaterilism.

Quite the opposite, I made sure that the way I phrased things made it obvious that I was well aware that Berkeley didn't come up with the set of similar notions/philosophies you are referring to above, expecting such remarks might be made as if I wasn't aware or was unjustified in limiting my footnote to some additional information about the term "immaterialism" as first used by Bishop Berkeley, latching on and adding his own modifications to an already popular set of philosophies:

Bishop George Berkeley was instrumental in popularizing the philosophy he referred to as "immaterialism", which is defined by Merriam-Webster as: "a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions."
...the philosophical bandwagon of immaterialism he was so instrumental in popularizing further...

Note that that doesn't start with "... Berkeley came up with the philosophy...". That's me anticipating your remark. I actually started that sentence with "came up with" (followed by "the term immaterialism", which would be accurate, he was the first to use that term for it), but I changed it exactly because I wanted to leave a reminder that I was aware there was an earlier set of similar philosophies, phrased differently using different terms. But boiling down to the same or almost the same things: 'reality is just an illusion, a product of our minds. It's not really real.' (Or as it's phrased in the Matrix: "the mind makes it real", or in QM: 'the observer makes it real/collapses the wave function')

Yes, it's a very old set of similar ideas about physical realities either being directly affected by our minds (without physical interaction, the 'mind over matter' set of pagan-originated human philosophies), or their very existence being dependent on our minds, our thoughts. Berkeley wasn't the focus of my commentary. It was a footnote, a justification for saying (see bolded part):

Anything wrong with putting that philosophy/idea in simpler terms, such as: 'the universe and all realities in it are a product of our collective minds, our collective imagination'? I.e. realities, and especially physical realities, are not really real, they are 'persistent illusions' (another term that is popular amongst those beguiled with this philosophy that is actually the product of the human mind and human imagination*, unlike physical realities in this physical universe; remember that the word "physical" includes both matter and energy, which are both physical realities in this physical universe).

Maybe you're seeing things in my commentary that you want to see, like NC? Cause it fits in better with the point or remark you want to make or focus on? NC focused on Berkeley as well. No responses to my proposed rephrasing of your philosophy concerning the term "shared psychosomatic universe" that he used and the related terminology as used by you earlier which seemed to justify that description by NC that you didn't object to in your response.

Can you at least spell out, that if you remove the ambiguity and fancy terminology from your commentary, the concept of a "shared psychosomatic universe", indeed boils down to the notion that 'the universe and all realities in it are a product of our collective minds, our collective imagination'? I.e. realities, and especially physical realities, are not really real, they are 'persistent illusions'? Since if it didn't, or if that wasn't meant with it, than the terminologies "shared" or "psychosomatic" do not apply (depending on which part of that alternate description in less ambiguous and less beguiling terms isn't right). I know, my proposed description isn't that pretty and sophisticated as the way you talk about it, it may even expose some obvious flaws with the idea when described in that manner. But hey, I'm not the one trying to sell it. That would be others making quite a bit of money writing and selling books about it, as you pointed out as well now by referring to these people as "esoteric masters", being just as vague about it for marketing purposes. Vagueness and sophisticated terminology and word usage being efficient tools for marketing. Especially when the product you're selling doesn't actually work as advertized.

“To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.”​—Eccl. 12:12.

One “wearisome” factor is that publications dealing with the various fields of knowledge may present conflicting views. So, the person who centers his whole life around books can tire himself out reading, comparing and trying to resolve contradictions. Particularly when it comes to philosophical studies, often it is just a matter of one opinion versus another opinion.

Since a person obviously cannot survey the whole field of human knowledge and theory, he must be selective. In penning those words some 3,000 years ago, wise King Solomon of Israel was not discouraging reading. Rather, he was commenting on the need to be selective. See my signature as well. It is evident that the “many books” to which Solomon referred were not upbuilding or refreshing. Therefore, he argued that devotion to them, instead of providing positive and lasting rewards, is “wearisome to the flesh.”

However, was Solomon saying that there are no books that offer sound, reliable guidance that can benefit the reader? No, for he also wrote: “The words of the wise ones are like oxgoads, and just like nails driven in are those indulging in collections of sentences; they have been given from one shepherd.” (Ecclesiastes 12:11) Indeed, there are written words that “like oxgoads” can provide positive motivation. They can spur a person on in the right way. Furthermore, “like nails driven in,” they can serve to strengthen one’s resolve and have a stabilizing effect.

Where can we find such wise words? Preeminent among such, according to Solomon, are those that originate with the one Shepherd, Jehovah. (Psalm 23:1) Therefore, one can do no better than turn to the book that is inspired by God​—the Bible. And not only cherry-pick that which you like to call "wisdom" because you have no issues with it, while trying to find something you can describe as "hypocrisy and ridiculous notions that people feel they must hold on to" because you do have issues with it (often primarily that it is incompatible with what you want to believe or hear, it's not tickling your ears, you do not want to put up with it; sometimes developing into a bitter aversion* to it; or you are ascribing human hypocritical behaviour and ridiculous philosophies and doctrines/teachings, to the Bible in order to find an excuse to dismiss the Bible, devaluing the parts you don't like).

*: to use the terminology this guy uses after 5:00 (he actually says "natural aversion", but there's nothing natural about something that has been conditioned and indoctrinated amongst a human society that is predominantly anti-bible and antichrist, even those professing to be pro-bible or pro-Christ, like the guy in the video himself, who also takes most of his information from Christendom, which is antichrist, don't let the name fool ye):