You've hit the nail on the head, at least with regards to my research, though I'm not certain you meant to.
Again, I don't know the Truth, but my research suggests that the key point that is left out of all the standard Religions is a separation from God. I mean that precisely. All of our present day religions (except Buddhism) teach that God is fundamentally a separate entity from everyone else. God is "over there", ruling from "on high." We are "over here," subject to "God's Rule." By this hierarchical method we are controlled. By this hierarchical method we can never realize our self-determination and self-assertion, our Sovereignty.
The fundamental argument for what we call "science" is that the universe can be fully explained by what we call "physical" phenomena. This belief stems from what amounts to a philosophical war that occurred in the 19th century between "Dualism" and "Physicalism" (the formal philosophies). The outcome of that war was determined not by argument, but by fiat, more importantly, by funding. The entity we call "school" was forced to not allow any teachings on the concept of "spirit" through conditional funding a la John D. Rockefeller. Thus, the debate of that which can't be explained by purely physical processes was forced out of the conversation.
The biggest problem I have with that is that we can't even define what we mean by "physical." It's a word that we think we understand, but the deeper our observations go into the very small and very large, the less our concepts of "physical" apply. Thus, what "won," may not have any meaning at all, at least not as we understand it. Science, ultimately, stopped looking into anything outside of that dogma. Science, through Rockefeller funding, separated us, through belief, from God, yet answered the question definitively, "there is no God," despite not looking into it at all.
Yet it did look. It looked a lot. What we call "physics" are experiments into the nature of reality, and physics says "there's nothing physical there." According to all of the evidence of physics, it is more appropriate to say "It is all 'spirit'" (at least our concept of "spirit" as the other from "physical").
Science found other things, such as "there is no separation from Source." In other words, that fundamental "spirit" that is the essence of all things intimately ties everything together. You are Source. The "Boundaries" that define "You" are a lie. They are only true from a certain perspective. When you dig deeper, those boundaries disappear. You are Source, Source is You. All is Spirit, and perhaps All is Mind, AKA Source is Intelligent. The evidence doesn't necessarily support the last one, but science doesn't look into it at all. It refuses, and there is no funding.
The older religions say the same thing. "God is Source," and "There is no separation from Source." Jesus said, "I am the Son of God." He also said, "You are all the Children of God." Maybe he was trying to tell us something. The formal religions put the inspirations on a pedestal (Christianity is the worst in this regard). The inspirations say "we are ALL Source." The religions say, "Source is over there, and it rules you."
The formal religions that are ostensibly built upon the teachings of Jesus (Christianity and Muslim) have, like Science, separated us from Source. This is the fraud, according to my research.
Until people get that, they will be stuck in The Matrix.
For as long as people stick to their "worship groups," which is just another word for "echo chamber," they won't get that God is not a separate thing from Themselves. This goes beyond just the individual not experiencing the "Awakening." It is through this separation from Source that is the commonality of the Religions that came before (Christianity, Muslim, Hindi, Judaism, etc.), and the Religion that exists now (Science), that we are ruled.
Everyone follows that same tenet. "You are separate from Source," and it controls the actions of everyone.
It is always where all sides agree that the greatest fuckery happens. It is what people aren't arguing about that ultimately controls us.
Good philosophizing comments, u/Slyver. Yes, but how do you finally come to a place where you know what to believe with certainty? Where does your foundation begin to form?
Why do I need to believe anything "with certainty?" Why is that important at all?
I work strictly (or at least try to) on whether or not the evidence suggests something is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well, perhaps not strictly. Sometimes I make decisions even when I have "reasonable doubts" AKA doubts based on the process of reason, but we do the best we can with the information we have available at the time. By this method of "the measure of reasonable doubt" in the decision making process, I can make sound decisions while leaving myself open to seeing evidence to the contrary at all times.
I experience Reality only when I don't try to tell It what It is. The rest of the time I'm just trying to fit it into a box.
My foundation is "experience That Which Is by listening" (AKA not speaking, not telling it what it is). From there I investigate and appreciate.
Only by letting go of the need to "know" the Truth can you appreciate it for What It Is.
"Knowledge" is, if believed in, nothing but a box that prevents us from hearing the Truth, whatever that may be.
If I were to make a statement, "There is no God." I would be called an "Atheist." I would be called that because language has been subverted on this topic to cause confusion.
Atheist means, a- (no) theology (belief about God). In other words, it means "No Belief about God."
If you say "There is no God," that is a belief about God. It is a Religion, with a fundamental tenet that There is no God.
The word Atheist is a complete misnomer.
If you don't have a belief about God it means you don't know. Not knowing doesn't mean there is no God, nor does it mean that a person is making a statement one way or the other. It just means you don't know, which is the definition of the word agnostic: a-(no) gnostic (knowledge). Agnostic means "I don't know." Atheist means "I don't know about God." They are the same word, though one is more specific, a subset of the other.
This is a confusion of language, and a "talking point" that is abused by a complete misunderstanding of the words being used. The same thing happens with "Absolute Truth." There is a huge difference between making a claim that there "Is no absolute truth," and "I don't know what the Truth is."
On the contrary, whatever the Truth is, it is absolute. The word "Truth" means "Absolute Truth" or "Whole Truth." They are all the same word.
Even if Reality is such that we all create our own universe (which I have many arguments against, but won't go into here) the "Absolute Reality" would be the entire system that allows us to create our own universes. In other words, the Absolute Truth is the Whole Truth, whatever that Whole Truth is.
If there is a meaningful difference between the state "existence" and "non-existence" then there must be a "Reality" (AKA Truth) in there. And that Truth can't be anything but Absolute, by definition.
True, and sometimes you can just "feel" something to be true based off so many invisible, intangible factors. Like how I quickly started to break out of the early 2020 fear and realize that we were being scammed via COVID, and that it was just another wealth and power transfer scheme like all others through history, and that the vaccines were a big scam.
I guess my question is, say, I believe in God, and Jesus, and my faith is Christianity, and my faith has a book -- a doctrine -- which is the word of God, which gives order to the lives of His followers.
Supposedly, studying and researching the "Occult", which is the study of things hidden from view, would necessarily fall into the concept of "eating from the tree of knowledge". Even though there is technically the ability to use occult knowledge for the pursuit of truth, light and goodness, to me it would seem that this would go directly against God (at least God as I understand)? Does God wish to keep us ignorant, or is there an incorrect correlation I am making here?
I guess my question is, say, I believe in God, and Jesus, and my faith is Christianity, and my faith has a book -- a doctrine -- which is the word of God, which gives order to the lives of His followers.
Faith is the keyword in this entire argument/discussion.
Does God wish to keep us ignorant, is there an incorrect correlation I am making here?
I think it's more of a "trying to fit something into my 'truth' box that doesn't fit."
If evidence doesn't fit into your Truth Box, then maybe your truth box is too small. Maybe that truth box was made too small so that you wouldn't look at the evidence that doesn't fit.
You've hit the nail on the head, at least with regards to my research, though I'm not certain you meant to.
Again, I don't know the Truth, but my research suggests that the key point that is left out of all the standard Religions is a separation from God. I mean that precisely. All of our present day religions (except Buddhism) teach that God is fundamentally a separate entity from everyone else. God is "over there", ruling from "on high." We are "over here," subject to "God's Rule." By this hierarchical method we are controlled. By this hierarchical method we can never realize our self-determination and self-assertion, our Sovereignty.
The fundamental argument for what we call "science" is that the universe can be fully explained by what we call "physical" phenomena. This belief stems from what amounts to a philosophical war that occurred in the 19th century between "Dualism" and "Physicalism" (the formal philosophies). The outcome of that war was determined not by argument, but by fiat, more importantly, by funding. The entity we call "school" was forced to not allow any teachings on the concept of "spirit" through conditional funding a la John D. Rockefeller. Thus, the debate of that which can't be explained by purely physical processes was forced out of the conversation.
The biggest problem I have with that is that we can't even define what we mean by "physical." It's a word that we think we understand, but the deeper our observations go into the very small and very large, the less our concepts of "physical" apply. Thus, what "won," may not have any meaning at all, at least not as we understand it. Science, ultimately, stopped looking into anything outside of that dogma. Science, through Rockefeller funding, separated us, through belief, from God, yet answered the question definitively, "there is no God," despite not looking into it at all.
Yet it did look. It looked a lot. What we call "physics" are experiments into the nature of reality, and physics says "there's nothing physical there." According to all of the evidence of physics, it is more appropriate to say "It is all 'spirit'" (at least our concept of "spirit" as the other from "physical").
Science found other things, such as "there is no separation from Source." In other words, that fundamental "spirit" that is the essence of all things intimately ties everything together. You are Source. The "Boundaries" that define "You" are a lie. They are only true from a certain perspective. When you dig deeper, those boundaries disappear. You are Source, Source is You. All is Spirit, and perhaps All is Mind, AKA Source is Intelligent. The evidence doesn't necessarily support the last one, but science doesn't look into it at all. It refuses, and there is no funding.
The older religions say the same thing. "God is Source," and "There is no separation from Source." Jesus said, "I am the Son of God." He also said, "You are all the Children of God." Maybe he was trying to tell us something. The formal religions put the inspirations on a pedestal (Christianity is the worst in this regard). The inspirations say "we are ALL Source." The religions say, "Source is over there, and it rules you."
The formal religions that are ostensibly built upon the teachings of Jesus (Christianity and Muslim) have, like Science, separated us from Source. This is the fraud, according to my research.
Until people get that, they will be stuck in The Matrix.
For as long as people stick to their "worship groups," which is just another word for "echo chamber," they won't get that God is not a separate thing from Themselves. This goes beyond just the individual not experiencing the "Awakening." It is through this separation from Source that is the commonality of the Religions that came before (Christianity, Muslim, Hindi, Judaism, etc.), and the Religion that exists now (Science), that we are ruled.
Everyone follows that same tenet. "You are separate from Source," and it controls the actions of everyone.
It is always where all sides agree that the greatest fuckery happens. It is what people aren't arguing about that ultimately controls us.
Good philosophizing comments, u/Slyver. Yes, but how do you finally come to a place where you know what to believe with certainty? Where does your foundation begin to form?
Why do I need to believe anything "with certainty?" Why is that important at all?
I work strictly (or at least try to) on whether or not the evidence suggests something is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well, perhaps not strictly. Sometimes I make decisions even when I have "reasonable doubts" AKA doubts based on the process of reason, but we do the best we can with the information we have available at the time. By this method of "the measure of reasonable doubt" in the decision making process, I can make sound decisions while leaving myself open to seeing evidence to the contrary at all times.
I experience Reality only when I don't try to tell It what It is. The rest of the time I'm just trying to fit it into a box.
My foundation is "experience That Which Is by listening" (AKA not speaking, not telling it what it is). From there I investigate and appreciate.
Only by letting go of the need to "know" the Truth can you appreciate it for What It Is.
"Knowledge" is, if believed in, nothing but a box that prevents us from hearing the Truth, whatever that may be.
If I were to make a statement, "There is no God." I would be called an "Atheist." I would be called that because language has been subverted on this topic to cause confusion.
Atheist means, a- (no) theology (belief about God). In other words, it means "No Belief about God."
If you say "There is no God," that is a belief about God. It is a Religion, with a fundamental tenet that There is no God.
The word Atheist is a complete misnomer.
If you don't have a belief about God it means you don't know. Not knowing doesn't mean there is no God, nor does it mean that a person is making a statement one way or the other. It just means you don't know, which is the definition of the word agnostic: a-(no) gnostic (knowledge). Agnostic means "I don't know." Atheist means "I don't know about God." They are the same word, though one is more specific, a subset of the other.
This is a confusion of language, and a "talking point" that is abused by a complete misunderstanding of the words being used. The same thing happens with "Absolute Truth." There is a huge difference between making a claim that there "Is no absolute truth," and "I don't know what the Truth is."
On the contrary, whatever the Truth is, it is absolute. The word "Truth" means "Absolute Truth" or "Whole Truth." They are all the same word.
Even if Reality is such that we all create our own universe (which I have many arguments against, but won't go into here) the "Absolute Reality" would be the entire system that allows us to create our own universes. In other words, the Absolute Truth is the Whole Truth, whatever that Whole Truth is.
If there is a meaningful difference between the state "existence" and "non-existence" then there must be a "Reality" (AKA Truth) in there. And that Truth can't be anything but Absolute, by definition.
True, and sometimes you can just "feel" something to be true based off so many invisible, intangible factors. Like how I quickly started to break out of the early 2020 fear and realize that we were being scammed via COVID, and that it was just another wealth and power transfer scheme like all others through history, and that the vaccines were a big scam.
I guess my question is, say, I believe in God, and Jesus, and my faith is Christianity, and my faith has a book -- a doctrine -- which is the word of God, which gives order to the lives of His followers.
Supposedly, studying and researching the "Occult", which is the study of things hidden from view, would necessarily fall into the concept of "eating from the tree of knowledge". Even though there is technically the ability to use occult knowledge for the pursuit of truth, light and goodness, to me it would seem that this would go directly against God (at least God as I understand)? Does God wish to keep us ignorant, or is there an incorrect correlation I am making here?
Faith is the keyword in this entire argument/discussion.
I think it's more of a "trying to fit something into my 'truth' box that doesn't fit."
If evidence doesn't fit into your Truth Box, then maybe your truth box is too small. Maybe that truth box was made too small so that you wouldn't look at the evidence that doesn't fit.
That's pretty much my entire point.