Excorcist Priest Warns Stay Away from Occult and Ouija Boards

Imagine living on the cost and being affraid of water, fishing rods, and fish...

a reply to: Degradation33

While all of what you say is most likely true: what if it goes further?

Are you familiar with the concept of the noosphere?

what if you don't so much create one every time but they are non-corporeal entities and you just add or restrict them?
And what if the connection is 'that which transcends life and death', basically (analogy) acting collections of stories/experience in interaction between there and here?


unrelated: I wrote you a PM

Well that's weird, because I use a Ouija Board to communicate with an old entity that's been following me around for the past decade every now and then.

We have good conversation, although he can be a bit...... much.

Always a pleasant experience. Not for others involved with him, but for me and the family.

originally posted by: twistedpuppy
a reply to: FlyersFan

I would take everything the exorcists say with the grain of salt. For the Catholic ones even reading "Harry Potter" is dangerous. It's the method to keep the faithful in line so that they don't entertain controversial ideas which might lead them astray or worse, make them question what their spiritual leaders preach. God forbid! Appeal to fear usually works.

Any religion really, not just Catholic. The more you learn, the more you know, the more you move away from a belief in gods.



Reason is the enemy of faith.

a reply to: Mahogani

Denial is often confused with reason.

Because: consciousness. As long as you can't make a good theory of consciousness and life, faith is the elephant in the room; reminding us that this particular miracle is still unresolved.

Everything in our realm has a polar opposite and is meant for our use, governed by natural law. Ignore that law and you create 'demons', like eight-legged frogs from environmental pollution, or extinction of species by taking more than 1/4 per season.

We were told we have unbelievable powers by the Man who walked on water. He said we could do those things and more through faith the size of a grain of mustard seed. By convincing ourselves the things He did are somehow evil black magic, our faith (knowledge/belief) must be a whole lot smaller than that grain of mustard seed.
For Christians not to believe Jesus' own words seems like a great hypocrisy.

At least some people been able to get past the point of burning 'witches' at the stake and killing every black cat they could because: demons.

a reply to: FurPerson

Faith by definition is a belief in something that can never be proven, therefore it requires faith.

Reason is logic, the opposite of faith.

a reply to: Mahogani

who says it can 'never' be proven?

What if we arrive at a point where we can't denial anylonger that we live in a universe of information and that every sufficiently complex system/network of information has consciousness emerging ie we discover the universe is intelligent.

That would be different than the classical God, but not not God.

At some point Einstein's theory of special relativity was also 'faith'

But we progress. Nothing is safe from human curiosity. Just a matter of time

originally posted by: FurPerson
a reply to: Mahogani

who says it can 'never' be proven?

What if we arrive at a point where we can't denial anylonger that we live in a universe of information and that every sufficiently complex system/network of information has consciousness emerging ie we discover the universe is intelligent.

That would be different than the classical God, but not not God.

At some point Einstein's theory of special relativity was also 'faith'

But we progress. Nothing is safe from human curiosity. Just a matter of time

Too many topics. Einstein's theory was never faith, he went where the math led him. Faith would be the opposite of that he was doing. It would be believing he was right even with no proof.

Literally what he did is called a Mathematical Proof.. It uses logic to find a solution. No faith required.

If we arrive some day at proof that the universe is a conscious entity, that will then become fact and won't require faith. If we can prove that, it is no longer a belief, it is a fact. Until then, any such belief is the same as a belief in gods, it requires faith.

And by the way, I think it is possible the universe gave birth to a consciousness. I think about it often. I just don't have any proof of that. And I have no faith. If there are gods and they were at some point handing out faith, they skipped me.

a reply to: Mahogani

Math is language of logic. But it doesn't contain knowledge itself.
What contains knowledge and transforms it is your consciousness.

possible the universe gave birth to a consciousness

possible? You and I talking is proof. Without maths. The experience of the interaction/exchange of information is the proof

a reply to: FurPerson

Not sure what you're trying to say here... experience is the proof?

What experience? And it is a proof of what? Of a god?

What experience are you referring to? Can you clarify please.

a reply to: Mahogani

You said: I think it is possible the universe gave birth to a consciousness.
I answered: You and I talking is proof. Without maths. The experience of the interaction/exchange of information is the proof

meaning: this conversation between you and me is proof the universe gave birth to not just 'a' but many consciousnesses.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Disclaimer: This is just my personal opinion.

The only real demons are those dwelling in the depths of our unconscious mind; the suppressed primal instincts, fears and desires. Tapping into the occult can help us to face and get to know them. Often, during the times of emotional crisis, they flood the psyche and the descent into the depths of primal madness begins. It's a great opportunity for personal development.

Unfortunately, as it often happens in nature, not everything goes according to the plan and some people, while falling down, break their damned necks and can't make it back up. This is exactly what happened to famous Anneliese Michel. The demons that posessed her made her regress to the state of an animal. Literally. She walked on all fours, bit the birds' heads off and ate them raw. She forgot the human speech. It's a prime example of Jung's individuation process gone horribly wrong and the ultimate proof that the exorcisms don't work.

And yes, it's scary but I don't think there's some set of precautions you can take. If the demons existed outside, one could run away from them and hide in church, for example. But if you carry your demons inside your head, where will you go and hide?

a reply to: FurPerson

I am. The noosphere might even go further than speculated back when. He just envisioned the biological consciousness that creates, don't think he envisioned AI.

I can speculate all I want, but I wonder what the "more" we haven't figured out yet is. Even a totally electromagnetic, but not yet quantifiable reason. As of now, you need to either insert a capitalized god channel or argue a totally random phenomenon that can carry intent. I mean even a 'LaVeyan Satanist' has a "dark force of entropy" as their godhead.

I do wonder if people can go further. Like the Stargate premise where the further evolved ascended ancients learned to first be telekinetic and telepathic and then turn consciousness into energy and become super-ethical non-interfering god beings that live forever.

That pushes it too much for me though. I think our effects are fragmented. Jumpy and random. Not so much direct connection but a glitch jump through a some acausal vector to a remote location. It's conscious/causal entanglement. Just wondering if I need the god channel or not.

PM responded to.

originally posted by: FurPerson
a reply to: Mahogani

You said: I think it is possible the universe gave birth to a consciousness.
I answered: You and I talking is proof. Without maths. The experience of the interaction/exchange of information is the proof

meaning: this conversation between you and me is proof the universe gave birth to not just 'a' but many consciousnesses.

Agreed. It is proof of us.

I was talking about gods though, our topic. The consciousness I was referring to, that I think about often, is a universe spanning one. Where galactic clusters act as neurons and dark matter filaments as synapses.

Me being conscious does in no way prove any of that. It just proves to me that I exist.

a reply to: Mahogani

I'd say it is proof of concept.

Basically, props are for show.

If someone has clairvoyant ability -- they don't need any kind of prop (tea leaves, tarot cards, etc)

It is advised to do an energy protective shield around you first before "opening up" to outside energies.

Everything is energy.

We've completely derailed this topic and I apologize but this is an interesting conversation.

Let's say the universe did give birth to a consciousness -- would that universal consciousness be god?

What came first, did god create the universe or did the universe create god? If universe gave birth to a consciousness then the consciousness, however large it is, is subject to the rules of the universe. It can still be all knowing, but it can not be omnipotent.

Once again, I am talking about a wide spanning, universal scale consciousness. Us being conscious is proof of nothing larger than ourselves. Heck, philosophically speaking, I don't even know that anyone else is real. I just know that I am real, because I am thinking right now. To me, I am real.

originally posted by: FurPerson
a reply to: Mahogani

You said: I think it is possible the universe gave birth to a consciousness.
I answered: You and I talking is proof. Without maths. The experience of the interaction/exchange of information is the proof

meaning: this conversation between you and me is proof the universe gave birth to not just 'a' but many consciousnesses.

YES

All is energy. All is connected.

Energy evolved to have consciousness.

We are energy consciousness in a manifested physical body.

a reply to: Mahogani



Kind of like
The Impotent God

Looking around there are some interesting studies done, on the famous Blob, on plants and animals that a sort of agency that could be called intelligence doesn't require a centralised place of neurons running together, it can be spread out.
My thinking would suggest that we as humans are a pile of cells that carry themselves basic 'agency' and our consciousness is 'superior' not because of our brain but the composition and the complexity of the network those cells form.
From there via swarm intelligence you can blow it up as far as you want.

I'd like to note that in my view it is not the inanimate matter that gives consciousness but always life. It is not the earth rock that has consciousness, but the life permeating it.
Once I got there it was difficult for me because it sounds so... obvious.

So the universe needed a certain level of entropy to make consciousness possible.