This has probably been asked before ...but

Does it ever occur to you that in repeating this kind of arrogant criticism you are actually opening yourself up to the same charge and that you should take your own advice? I guess not because you keep doing it.

From Closed-Minded, by Michael Schreiner, at https://evolutioncounseling.com/close-minded/.   



As I explained in a post on a previous thread (here), I have studied and thought through these issues fairly thoroughly and come to certain tentative conclusions. Not 100% but maybe 99%. From the position of those conclusions I can enjoy a certain amount of free speculation. Not being a closed minded "true believer" I still have my doubts, which means maintaining a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. I guess you're not comfortable with such a condition.

You really should read that, Steve. It is short but right on message. The reason the link was posted is because that's how others here see you. Perhaps you should ask yourself why, and then read the article again?

I read it. What's odd is none of "you" recognize this is applicable to yourselves. Everytime someone argues "you" are mistaken it's rare to hear agreement. Instead I hear a chorus of we aren't wrong because of these reasons... . So when pointing the finger of closed mindeness ask "yourselves" am I just as culpable of that charge as my opponent? Honestly I think "you" are more closed minded than you'll ever admit. And if I am wrong I extend an open invitation for anyone to categorically say why not.

I read it. What's odd is none of "you" recognize this is applicable to yourselves. Everytime someone argues "you" are mistaken it's rare to hear aggreement. Instead I hear a chorus of we aren't wrong because of these reasons... . So when pointing the finger of closed mindeness ask "yourselves" am I just as culpable of that charge as my opponent? Honestly I think "you" are more closed minded than you'll ever admit. And if I am wrong I extend an open invitation for anyone to categorically say why not.

I think you generalize too much when you refer to the forum members in that way. There are some of us who recognize that it is nearly impossible to overcome bias--psychological, cultural, conditional, etc. (Well at least one of us.) 

Plus a lot of us have already come from backgrounds of atheistic materialism. I'm not sure how much more I need to entertain the idea of atheistic materialism since I maintained that approach for decades.

Personally, I'm not set on any one answer. I'm entertaining narratives. I take in an idea and see how it plays with the narratives. Does it jive with this or that? Some narratives become more interesting than others and fit more neatly the overall big picture. Doesn't meant they are the answer, it just means they are a narrative of interest.

You've joined a community of people who have largely moved beyond materialism. Most of us probably "believe" that consciousness is an ontological primitive. We aren't alone in that. Lot's of smart folks are also pointing in that direction. Your belief in matter is the same, it's just a belief. The big bang. Something from nothing.

You are right that there are some very closed minded folks on this forum on both sides. Most of us would probably say that you are one of the most closed minded. You've never given us any reason to think otherwise.

But there are open-minded folks here. The problem is everyone thinks they are open-minded.

I think you generalize too much when you refer to the forum members in that way. There are some of us who recognize that it is nearly impossible to overcome bias--psychological, cultural, conditional, etc. (Well at least one of us.) 

 The problem is everyone thinks they are open-minded.

They exhibit a righteous like open mindedness. Or in the words of Alex: "stuck on stupid".

They exhibit a righteous like open mindedness. Or in the words of Alex: "stuck on stupid".

Yes. There are people from both "sides" who exhibit that mentality.

Are saying that even in the case of a suicide bomber, his fate is of his own choosing? 

Not only is the bomber choosing (pre-planning) his fate, he co-creates it as physical reality demands. Same with those who are affected by his actions. Co-planners and co-creators all.

Are saying that even in the case of a suicide bomber, his fate is of his own choosing? 

There appears to be at least two quite different ideas about this. Am I correct in saying that yours seems to be the 'love & light' path, where it is all OK, nothing is 'bad' - surely nothing can be, if we plan it in advance? At least from the 'big picture' point of view, as opposed to the limited view we have living the incarnation.

The other viewpoint seems to be the one of Jurgen Ziewe and others. Where there are indeed consequences to evil deeds. Ziewe has written about suicide bombers stuck in a hellish scene that I don't think anyone in their right minds would volunteer for. At the same time, I remember him saying that his own mother found herself in a cocoon of misery after she passed. This, he wrote, was because of the dark depressed state she was in at the time of her passing. However, the good news, is that these unfortunate states are of a temporary nature. Even the suicide bomber 'does his time' (whatever that may be in that reality?) and the light 'eventually' comes to them. ( Or do they move to the light?)

Nothing in Life has meaning until we decide what meaning to assign to it regardless of the pre-plan. It's always a choice and that choice is between having a positive experience or a negative one entirely based on your state of being. It is your state off being that determines your experience not what you are creating about you (physical reality).

Love n Lighters want to shove aside the negative instead of embracing and integrating it into the process of decision-making. They have, generally, selected that journey for themselves, so be it. They choose that limitation. They don't have a "neutral", Stan.

If you find yourself in a hellish state ala Nosso Lar, then you are there because that is the vibration you carried to spirit at death. Since this is a thought-induced environment, the very moment you no longer desire that experience it must, by definition, cease to exist. Where you "go" is a function of where your vibration finds a resonant state. Wherever that might be.

Not only is the bomber choosing (pre-planning) his fate, he co-creates it as physical reality demands. Same with those who are affected by his actions. Co-planners and co-creators all.

So I'm guessing Jurgen's experience is not as real as he thinks. Why should that be?

So I'm guessing Jurgen's experience is not as real as he thinks. Why should that be?

I would say that it perfectly fits a thought-driven environment, maybe I missed something.

Probably addressed by now, but something as simple as the body of evidence about dreams under a anesthesia imply that this is more of a matter concerning memory rather than a the on/off button.

But there are open-minded folks here. The problem is everyone thinks they are open-minded.

If I were 100% convinced - i.e. enough to say "case closed", i.e. enough to make me closed-minded - I would not even bother with this forum. The fact is that I have many questions and also the need to test my own conclusions, all of which makes discussion in such a forum helpful. There are plenty of echo-chambers out there. Look at the multitude of evangelical or atheist boards for examples.

Skeptics are welcome here but that doesn't mean that there is going to be no push-back when some skeptics arrogantly attempt to "educate" us.