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.
I get what you're saying, but what about the point I made about God's law and eating from the Tree of Knowledge, which is essentially what occult study is all about? Where does the line become drawn?
edit: I was not the one who downvoted you, just fyi.
I sometimes feel the need to let people know that it's not me either, especially when I disagree. In my thousands of comments on this board, I can probably count the number of downvotes I've given out on one hand. It's a terrible system designed to shut down conversation. It is a system of control of the narrative, and it's intrinsically evil. It creates and sustains echo chambers, and I hate it.
Where does the line become drawn?
The line is drawn either where you want it to be, or where you believe God want's it to be. I can't solve that conundrum for you.
You believe in the truth of your box. You also believe it isn't "your" box, but is "God's" box. That is the fundamental issue. I suggest God AKA Source doesn't have a box, or if Source has a box, it boundaries are unknowable by us.
I suggest that Source has no desire to limit knowledge. I also suggest that the book that told you to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge said that specifically to keep people in the wrong box (AKA not God's actual box).
I think that because I have spent a lot of time investigating YHWH, and the Jews who worshiped him (and the Jews who didn't). Where he came from, what he really said and did, what kind of a god he was. Did you know he calls himself the "Jealous One"?
Exodus 34:14
Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
What kind of Source could possibly be jealous? It is SOURCE. It is the SOURCE of ALL things. How could Source be Jealous of Itself? This isn't just saying "I am jealous when you worship other gods," this is saying "My Name is Jealous."
What the actual fuck?
This Jealous God is, by the decree in question (Tree of Knowledge) jealous of information as well.
This "guarding of information" is exactly like all the systems that control us today, in a book written by the exact same people that control us today, AKA the Priest Class of Jews. (The OT was not written by "The Jews,", it was written by the Priest/Moneychanger class, AKA the Elite). They are the people that wrote the book you call "Complete Truth." When you dig in, you find that they have held the reigns of power for the entire time in between then and now.
In order to rectify learning knowledge with "thou shalt not learn knowledge because my name is Jealous," you must first rectify whether or not any evidence could possibly be forbidden by the Source of All Things.
If so, then do not look outside of the box of truth you have been handed. It depends on what you choose.
I prefer to not use the word "God." IMO it is confusing, because there have been quite a few different "god's" that people called "God," all believing they alone "knew the truth." However, there is only one Source, and that is not confusing.
if you can think in terms of "Source," I suggest this question takes care of itself.
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.
If you can't be bothered to read what I said, then you can't understand the answer.
This suggests to me you haven't actually read anything that I've said. If you haven't read what I've said, why are you bothering to respond at all?
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.
I get what you're saying, but what about the point I made about God's law and eating from the Tree of Knowledge, which is essentially what occult study is all about? Where does the line become drawn?
edit: I was not the one who downvoted you, just fyi.
I didn't think it was you that downvoted me. :)
I sometimes feel the need to let people know that it's not me either, especially when I disagree. In my thousands of comments on this board, I can probably count the number of downvotes I've given out on one hand. It's a terrible system designed to shut down conversation. It is a system of control of the narrative, and it's intrinsically evil. It creates and sustains echo chambers, and I hate it.
The line is drawn either where you want it to be, or where you believe God want's it to be. I can't solve that conundrum for you.
You believe in the truth of your box. You also believe it isn't "your" box, but is "God's" box. That is the fundamental issue. I suggest God AKA Source doesn't have a box, or if Source has a box, it boundaries are unknowable by us.
I suggest that Source has no desire to limit knowledge. I also suggest that the book that told you to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge said that specifically to keep people in the wrong box (AKA not God's actual box).
I think that because I have spent a lot of time investigating YHWH, and the Jews who worshiped him (and the Jews who didn't). Where he came from, what he really said and did, what kind of a god he was. Did you know he calls himself the "Jealous One"?
Exodus 34:14
What kind of Source could possibly be jealous? It is SOURCE. It is the SOURCE of ALL things. How could Source be Jealous of Itself? This isn't just saying "I am jealous when you worship other gods," this is saying "My Name is Jealous."
What the actual fuck?
This Jealous God is, by the decree in question (Tree of Knowledge) jealous of information as well.
This "guarding of information" is exactly like all the systems that control us today, in a book written by the exact same people that control us today, AKA the Priest Class of Jews. (The OT was not written by "The Jews,", it was written by the Priest/Moneychanger class, AKA the Elite). They are the people that wrote the book you call "Complete Truth." When you dig in, you find that they have held the reigns of power for the entire time in between then and now.
In order to rectify learning knowledge with "thou shalt not learn knowledge because my name is Jealous," you must first rectify whether or not any evidence could possibly be forbidden by the Source of All Things.
If so, then do not look outside of the box of truth you have been handed. It depends on what you choose.
I prefer to not use the word "God." IMO it is confusing, because there have been quite a few different "god's" that people called "God," all believing they alone "knew the truth." However, there is only one Source, and that is not confusing.
if you can think in terms of "Source," I suggest this question takes care of itself.