Love - A Possession Deterrent

Written by Mathew Naismith

A true sense of love is a deterrent against any kind of possession, even demonic possession, in actuality, a true sense of love distracts from any conditioning that is brought about by predominantly living by the five senses. It's true that a true sense of love detracts any kind of influence a controlling ego has upon us, love is indeed a very handy shield to acquire in such a chaotic world.

Possession: Predominantly living by the five senses, leaves us open to all sorts of external forces, even demonic. Now demonic isn't just in reference to demon looking creatures either, demonic actually means, 'Extremely evil or cruel; expressive of cruelty or befitting hell". We didn't have a true sense of love for a God or deity for no reason, also, God's and deities gave us an awareness and a connectedness to a more aware and wise consciousness than man's consciousness. We actually protect ourselves against these destructive influences less than we ever have throughout human history. The more predominantly we live by the five sense alone, the more destruction and depravity we will witness.

When the churches become more about opulence and the power of the church than the love of a God or deity, what occurred? The religious Dark Ages come to mind for starters. Today we have CEO's like Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe literally taking water from African mouths and all they can say is, Water required for drinking and basic hygiene is a human right; that's 1.5% of global water withdrawal. I am not of the opinion that the other 98.5% is a human right." Where the water is taken from in Africa by Nestles, the people of that region no longer have a clean source of water!!

T. Boone Pickens, a water speculator and billionaire, stated, "There are people who will buy the water when they need it. And the people who have the water want to sell it. That's the blood and guts of the thing." It would seem it doesn't matter where the water is taken from and who dies from the lack of water so that certain people can become and stay billionaires. If you haven't got a clean reliable water source, you are living in a hellish environment. We are only talking about water here, this is but the tip of the iceberg from these obvious cold-hearted cruel people. This isn't judgment, this is clear cut observation, an awareness.

Now the question is, why are these people bringing hell upon the Earth and all it's inhabitants? For pure profit and control no matter what the cost. What actually entices them to do such a demonic thing? Possession, the offshoot of being possessed by profit and control is but the effect of the cause of the effect, they are, to me, possessed by external forces (cause) because they predominantly live by the five senses. There seems to be no love but the love of money and control (power), this of course isn't a true sense of love but a desire (lust) which brings us to the next topic of this post.

Lust (Desire): I certainly believe that by living predominantly by the five senses, in other word a controlling ego, that this can indeed leave us open to be possessed by external sources. Now what I mean by external sources is just that, we have the inner self  and the outer, the outer self is external to our true being. The outer self is also the only part of ourselves that is able to be possessed as inner self always stays pure from external influences, this is because it's shielded by a true sense of love where the outer self can be left un-shielded against external influences. The inner self being the spirit within all things.

External self = external source + finite + controlling ego + is able to be influenced

Internal self =  internal source + infinite + an ego not in control + is unable to be influenced

Once a consciousness becomes predominantly of the five senses, it automatically becomes of lust and desire thus negating any influence this inner love will have upon a consciousness.   

A consciousness has to create lust and desire for lust and desire to exist, it's not of our truer self (inner self), it has to be created where's our inner self has always existed without being created, even by some God or deity. A true sense of love is of the infinite where's the lust and desire are of the finite, this is why lust and desire are unable to exist within the inner self, ever, only the infinite can exist within the inner self. Yes, it's true, there is good within all things, put in a more precise way, there is the infinite within all things, the spirit.......!!

In all, it would seem a lot of us have stopped shielding ourselves against external influences that will quite automatically influence us to become demonic/cruel and very uncaring about anything but the lust of things. Once our external selves let down the shield protecting us against these external sources of influence, we become the influence itself thus forgetting who we really are. We have forgotten we are of the infinite and have forgotten that the finite is but an external creation as all creations are. The finite is known by many to be just an illusion, I don't myself totally concur with this!!       

To Evolve Beyond Human Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith

Like any other species, human consciousness itself can only comprehend to a certain point, any comprehension beyond this point isn't of human origin. As of any  consciousness of any species, human consciousness has it's limitations, it's certainly not infinite within it's comprehension. It's these limitations that keep human consciousness locked up in certain scenarios (box's) thus creating a never ending recurring existence of war and desolation, in actuality, human consciousness is infinite within it's behaviour. It's a behaviour that just keeps on reoccurring, it's never ending, even after a consciousness has physically obliterated itself, it's still able to once again physically recreate the same scenario over and over again. In my mind, human consciousness is having a real hard time evolving into another species that is able to comprehend beyond what human consciousness is able to.

I should point out that human consciousness isn't physical, it's very much of a non-physical entity, in other words it doesn't die when the physical self dies.  

Evolving Consciousness: Did the human collective consciousness truly comprehend what people like Jesus and Buddha tried to portray? Obviously not, if it did, we wouldn't be where we are today, playing out the same old scenarios over and over again.

Humans evolved from micro-organisms, it is quite comprehensible, to me, that humans are not the end of the chain of evolution, evolution doesn't stop at being human, it will go on but only if we are willing to evolve. Of course it's possible that not all human will evolve, there  still micro-organisms and apes around, not all of a species will evolve, however, it's unlikely that humans, while cohabiting with a more consciously aware being, won't evolve. Basically, human consciousness will die out either by it's own hands or evolve while cohabiting with more aware conscious entities. However, any human consciousness that doesn't naturally evolve or cohabitate with more aware entities, will consciously stay human. This is neither right nor wrong, it just is, is it wrong for a micro-organism to stay as a micro-organism?

Malignant Consciousness: Human consciousness has experienced various influences from other forms of consciousness's, Jesus and Buddha are but a few of these more aware consciousness's, however, human consciousness has also been influenced by what I call malignant consciousness's as well. It's a cancer causing consciousness in a sense it influences a consciousness to become highly destructive, even to itself. Cancer isn't just a physical entity, it's also non-physical, in actuality, everything that is of the physical, has been created from the non-physical. You could look at people like Jesus and Buddha as being  doctors/healers of malignant cancers, of consciousness's that are highly destructive, it's just we didn't take our medicine to avoid getting really ill, we just didn't listen and now human consciousness is riddled with malignant cancers.

Human consciousness is unable to, quite understandably, comprehend that everything that is physical, was created from non-physical consciousness. Human consciousness is so conditioned to physicality, even after the physical self dies, it still hangs onto it's physical self, ghosts are a good example of this. This makes the human physical self accessible to malignant non-physical consciousness's, being that anything primarily of the five senses, is a prime candidate for these malignant consciousness's to influence. The only thing that is able to stop this influence is the realisation that we are not just of these five senses. In actuality, if we could perceive our own existence void of the five senses, no amount of  malignant consciousness would be able to influence us, it's this simple. To evolve, we need to realise we are not just these five senses.  

Note: If you are not into souls, the following isn't going to be for you.

Souls: Some souls, at the soul level, are of physicality, the five senses, some aren't. The five sense are by far not just of physicality as of physicality isn't just of the physical, in actuality, human consciousness isn't very physical at all in the whole scheme of things. There are consciousness's that are far more of the five senses than we are but to us they seem to be non-physical. This kind of existence is too difficult to comprehend or put into words.

We have a huge mix of souls, within this reality, that are primarily of the five senses and souls that are primarily of the comprehension and conditioning beyond these five senses. Just like we have our own paths to follow in this life, we also have our own path to follow at the soul level, this means souls that are primarily of the five senses, are more likely to be influenced by malignant consciousness's. A consciousness that is influenced by malignant consciousness's, is naturally controlling, this being that the five senses are all about control. Any consciousness void of the control of the five senses, is unable to be controlling in any sense. It's the five senses that give consciousness the ability to control or the illusion  of control!!

Why are so many people who are aware, are disheartened and uneasy about what is occurring in the world and other people are not? I find it quite interesting that we have a huge variety of souls within this one reality, it's not a real coexistence however, there is no real cohabiting between these quite different souls, this is primarily due to outside influence from other conscious entities. The more of the five sense we are of, the more susceptible we will be to malignant consciousness's, it's quite inevitable. It was inevitable that this kind of reality was going to be controlled by malignant consciousness's if we didn't listen to far more aware consciousness's, the game isn't over though for any consciousness not fooled into being just of the five senses.

Basically, the five senses are of the finite where's a comprehension beyond these five sense is of the infinite. Anything of the awareness of the infinite self, will prevail, anything not, will stay as a malignant consciousness's, a consciousness that is forever fixed to a never ending cycle of doom and gloom over and over again. Not all of us are meant to evolve from being of human consciousness, this is their path as we have ours.

In all, have faith within your infinite self......        

What Is This Oneness

Written by Mathew Naismith

I will start this post of with the definition of oneness, the reason for this will present itself through the post. We seem to have a different definition and perception of oneness giving us, at times, a hugely different perspective to other perceptions, of course a true sense of oneness means all perspectives and perceptions are one of the same thing even though expressed in diffident ways. Stating one perspective is of oneness and others is not, is like stating yin represents oneness but yang doesn't, of course without yang, yin is not of oneness as yin is not whole without yang.

Just because one is dissimilar to another, they are not of the same thing like bad and good, negative and positive yin and yang, we are actually stating one represents oneness and the other doesn't. Of course the more pleasant one has to be of oneness and the other one not of oneness, what else would the ego perceive!!           

Definition of Oneness

- the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.

"the oneness of all suffering people"

- the fact or state of being one in number.

"holding to the oneness of God the Father as the only God"

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­____________________

”Oneness isn't something we came from, it's something we are.

Everything is a depiction of oneness as a whole, not a oneness

separate from the whole.

Oneness means what is means, the whole of all of what we are,

not the whole of what we desire of what we are!!"....Mathew G

____________________

http://www.chopra.com/ccl/what-is-oneness

Extract: Imagine that you’re the whole universe; you live in total joy and bliss. Imagine there is no past or future, only now. Imagine there is no space or time, just an unbounded eternity. Imagine endless peace, harmony, and unconditional love. Imagine no fear and equality in all things. This is Oneness. 

So joy and bliss represent oneness, all else that is not of joy and bliss isn't oneness. This non-joyousness is often judged as an illusion, it's not apart of this oneness because it's an illusion!! Of course to have an illusion in the first place, lets say a yin, there has to be a reality (yang) to start with and believe it or not, visa-versa. Do not be tricked by the ego, it wants one or the other to be the truth or of oneness, not both as a whole!!

Oneness isn't defined by one part of something as the definition of oneness states, it would be like saying, "A true sense of oneness  is that everything has to be of joy and bliss to be of oneness". Joy and bliss is but one part of the whole, the other, if our egos like it or not, is sadness and disharmony. The definition of oneness states whole to begin with and most importantly, unified.

Yes unified, the unification of joy and sadness, bliss and disharmony, yin and yang, this is the true sense of oneness, not of one part or the other as the ego chooses. This is Eastern philosophy......

Now the second definition is of Western philosophy, it clearly states that God represents oneness. Being that everything has been created from this one energy source and that we are of this one energy source but also considering the holey trinity, we are of one source but are at the same time expressive of a separate part of this one source. So once a part of this one source is expressive of one part of this source, it's still considered to be apart of this oneness we often call God!!

I think both Western and Eastern philosophies state the same thing no matter how separate one part seems to be from the whole, it's all representative of oneness no matter how it's expressed.

We have created a problem were a problem needn't exist, the problem is expressing ourselves to extreme extents. Oneness has to be of joy and bliss as opposed to the extreme expressions of sadness and disharmony. Has anyone experienced a conscious state that there was no differentiation between joy and sadness, bliss and disharmony, in other words a true sense of balance? Joy and bliss separated from sadness and disharmony isn't a true sense of peace and tranquillity, it's transitory therefore of the finite, not the infinite. However, when joy and bliss are united  with sadness and disharmony, you then create peace and tranquillity that is based on the infinite, this is a depiction of a  truer sense of peace and tranquillity that is perpetual, long lasting.

The only reason we experience extremes is through motion, the more excessive the motion, the more extremes we will experience. Balance expresses very little motion therefore is less of motion therefore extremes and yes it is this simple......  

Atheism (Buddhism) is Correct

Written by Mathew Naismith

Both the Western atheist view and Buddhist atheism is correct in that there is no divine energy source or God/God's, the reason for this isn't that simple to explain mainly because of the different perspectives we have of our environment/reality. Each view represents a filter (perception) that gives us a different perspective of what is and isn't, what these filters (perceptions) do, is give us a certain perspectives. However as of always, perspectives are a measurement or judgment of what is and isn't that are built upon specific perceptions (filters). However in saying this, atheism as a whole is also incorrect at the same time as I will also try to explain but first I will share an interaction I had with some interesting people. 

Reply

Any meaningful change is possible only through understanding or through insight. Any thing that involves practice will only lead to propaganda or conditioning.

My Reply

Well stated +Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation, practice is motion, the more motion we create, the more we are conditioned. 

Insight on the other hand doesn't create motion, it creates awareness void of conditioning, this is wisdom. 

A lot of people think we have to gain knowledge to become wise, however, knowledge is motion which will only create conditioning void of wisdom. 

Wisdom actually comes from understanding and insights so you couldn't be more correct here. Wisdom is truth, knowledge is lies.....awareness actually replaces knowledge, that is why wisdom is of truth. 

This is my insight which may or may not be correct.

Reply

Mathew Naismith You are absolutely right:) People see security in practices and then become conditioned. Once they are conditioned, they will not be able to see things beyond conditioning.

Reply to:

Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation We all have our filters that filter reality. Enlightenment is when we start to see the world clearly. 1st the darkness, then the beauty behind all of creation.

Following Reply

Michael Hopkins Absolutely true. The ability to see things with out filters is possible, when our thoughts are free from the self and all identifications:)

My Reply

Filters I think explains it quite well Michael, when you look through different sunglasses with different sun filter, we get a different perspectives of our environment, of course it's all a lie (illusion).We find this out when we take the sunglasses off, take the darkness from our vision. 

You cloud vision, you cloud insight and a true sense of awareness, all you are left with is knowledge that is filtered. We need knowledge but it's filtered at present which detracts from actual insights. 

I've actually got to explain why atheism (Buddhism) is correct in certain aspects, however, as isms are, they are all wearing sunglasses with different filters. 

Instead of sun filters, for us, it's ism filters that all give a different perspective. No ism is totally incorrect but no ism is totally correct either. Take the filters away and we would observe something quite amazing to say the least. 

So lads, in my mind, you are perfectly correct. -:)

Now why is atheism correct that there are no divine energy sources and God's/God?

A lot of spiritual views state quite clearly, there is only one, one consciousness, one source of creation, oneness as a whole, this is the teachings of oneness, not dividedness, non-duality, not duality. Now we might perceive here we are talking about a God of creation but where not, not in this perspective.

There is only oneness, like a oneness with God if you like. If consciousness is one with God, what would then define a God when all consciousness is of God? Consciousness then becomes this God which negates a perception of God. This is the same with any kind of divine energy, once consciousness becomes one with this energy, what then defines divine when all energies are of the same? To define any divine energy, you have to have an energy source that is not of this energy, basically, if there is nothing to compare this divine energy to, this energy can't be perceived as a divine energy without a comparison.

Often, anything not of this oneness, is defined as being an illusion which means the belief in any kind of divine energy is an illusion.         

HOWEVER

What have we actually done here to define that there is no divine energy, it's all an illusion? We have once again used a specific perspective, the perspective being that only oneness exists, everything else is an illusion. I know we have to use perspectives but as I stated before, perspectives define measurements/judgment, so often can a consciousness be deceived by a perspective, especially a specific perspective that is defined through a specific perception that there is only oneness, everything else is an illusion.

The question is now, is there only oneness?

As of all isms, there is some truth, the Holey Trinity is no different. Please bare with me if you have a problem with religion, it's not all a fallacy. I'm not religious myself but I'm not going to allow this one perspective perception to act as but another filter. The link below is certainly worth investigating in my mind. It's wise not to denounce all other perspectives over one!!

______________________

http://www.everystudent.com/forum/trinity.html

Extract: You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width, and depth. One person can look like someone else, or behave like someone else, or even sound like someone else. But a person cannot actually be the same as another person. They are distinct individuals.

God, however, lives without the limitations of a three-dimensional universe. He is spirit. And he is infinitely more complex than we are.

That is why Jesus the Son can be different from the Father. And, yet the same.

______________________

God is this oneness, however, God is also trinity within us at the same time, this of course is going to seem like a paradox to us, how can we be of one and at the same time be of the other? The 3D reality has given us the perception that it has to be one or the other, point blank. This is the real illusion, especially when we consider that consciousness is infinite and is limitless within it's expressions. Why limit consciousness to being of oneness only, isn't this trying to limit an obvious limitless consciousness which infers a specific perspective being used to judged what is what? 

In relation to oneness, we have perceived it's got to be just oneness, nothing else. How do you limit a limitless consciousness but man in his wisdom, or lack of, has perceived their is only oneness thus limiting oneness to man's limited perspectives. Once we bring in perspectives, we bring in ideas that are limited.

Perspectives = limitations + judgment + finite + man's consciousness and perceptions

The realization of a God or God's consciousness, gave us the awareness that this oneness does indeed exist even though it's usually beyond most people's comprehension. What we seem to have done now is perceived that this oneness is limited when we are talking about a limitless infinite consciousness. Our own finite reality seems to have given us the perceptions that this infinite oneness is also limited, this has come from our own perspectives that this infinite consciousness has to also be limited to one or the other. Basically, be careful with perspectives, they often don't tell the whole truth, also, oneness also includes being, not of oneness, but of oneself as well, this is the true sense of oneness or the true sense of God if you like.

Atheism is correct in that their is no God but only if of God consciousness itself, which we are not and truly, never have been. Infinite = timelessness, this means this separation from this consciousness has always existed, however, at the same time we were never separated within this infinite consciousness, only in finite consciousness are we separated being that the finite is of time. Finite = time.

This is hard to get an idea of, we have never been separated but at the same time we have, why limit consciousness as having to have to be one or the other, only man's finite consciousness would do this. Of course being finite is limiting.

The holey trinity makes sense, we are of one but at the same time separate from one, this is the way it has always been but of course the tricky deceptive ego wants to believe otherwise. We didn't come from oneness for we are of oneness, this includes being separate from this oneness. We didn't come from anywhere, we have always been what we are, one with oneness but also separate from this oneness.

It's tricky to comprehend because we are conditioned to think in black and white, good and bad, negative and positive, measurements therefore perspectives brought on by a perception of one or the other, not either or both. A true sense of oneness includes all of the above, oneness and separation from oneness, not just oneness.

No ism tells the utter truth so no ism can be the be and end all, meaning, of utter truth. When isms proclaims this, I then know they are not of this truth but deceptions, for how could a consciousness influenced by the finite truly know of utter truth, it's impossible. Atheism is correct in one perspective but not in another, it will always be so. We were never separated from this oneness (God), which indicates their is no God, for we are then of this God. For a God to exist, their has to be a lesser consciousness compared to God, if we are one with God, where is this comparison to define what is or isn't a God?

However in a different perspective, this separation from oneness has also always been, we have always been separated. This separation gives a perception that oneness (God) exists. Both perspectives are correct but remembering, perspectives deceives one from the other but only if we chose one over the other. Oneness over separation, separation over oneness.

______________________

Malign Energy

I'm going to add a very simple meditative technique to this post for some reason, I call it vibrational meditation. You can do this anywhere, even in the most nosiest places, you can even do this standing up.

Don't try to do anything, don't even try to stop thinking in any sense, instead just be within the present and only the present and most importantly, don't meditate for a reason, just do it. Within this, we take ourselves away from the five sense and this is the key.

This technique will give you a sense of harmony and bliss, you will end up in a tranquil peaceful environment, this is what you focus on, harmony, bliss and tranquil peacefulness. These words within themselves, are conducive to moving away from the influences of our five senses.

One other thing to be aware of is that malign energy has no energy within itself, we ourselves give them this energy, this is likened to multinationals drawing energy out of the populous. The only reason these people have power, is wholly due to the populous giving them this energy to start with, without this energy, they are powerless. This meditative technique will assist in your own energies from being sucked from you. The reason for this is that malign energy can only use the five sense to draw it's energy from, once you put yourself into another environment other than of the five sense, this hinders malign energy being able to draw energy from you.

However, as people like me do, we humble ourselves to man, this means we don't always  protect ourselves from malign energy sources, this is our way.   

PURE SIMPLE FAITH

Written by Mathew Naismith

Sorry about this, there is a lot occurring at present, a lot of interaction so the posts just keep coming. 

We tend to so often relate faith to religion or to any ideology that seems to have blind faith, nothing more. Yes, faith means to have strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny, but also, complete confidence in a person or plan or your own known abilities, also, loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person. I am myself loyal to my wife, I have faith that my wife holds the same values towards me. In a truly loving relationship, faith is the building block towards respect and loyalty, I certainly have faith in my wife to support me no matter what occurs. 

Honestly, humanity itself couldn't function without faith, it's the building block towards a better understanding and respect for each other thus creating a more peaceful society on Earth. You could now ask is it the lack of faith towards each other that is causing so much trouble in  the world or is it blind faith? When I vote for a politician who does and says all the right things, I begin to have faith, but when they get into office, they do the complete opposite. When this occurs, as it often does these days, it was obvious my faith was blind which was created from just having faith. This can indeed cause dissensions and an inability to have faith again in politicians sadly enough. The loss of faith is indeed adding to the world troubles, blind or not, in my mind.

Our own blind faith in our belief systems, philosophies and concepts can also add to the trouble in the world, my belief systems, philosophies or concepts are the be and end all, point blank. How many people have utter blind faith in science/atheism or a religion? We often think science will do the right thing by us but it often doesn't as of religion, however, we really shouldn't allow the failures of blind faith to deter us from having faith as this is only going to add to the worlds troubles. The lack of faith as well a blind faith are both adding to the troubles in the work it would seem, not one or the other but both.

Any belief systems, philosophies and concepts that deny any evidence that proves their own belief systems, philosophies and concepts are incorrect in some way, is a sign of utter blind faith, religion is a prime example but so is atheism believe it or not. If science categorically proved that God existed, atheists would have to deny this and disbelieve scientific findings to stay an atheist, the same is with religion, if science categorically proved that God doesn't exist, religious people would have to deny this and disbelieve scientific findings to stay religious, well not really.

Atheism is based on one concept/belief, the disbelief in God, so if God was scientifically proven to exist, which is doubtful that science is able to do in my mind, atheism would become null and void but religion wouldn't as religion is based on more than one belief/concept, however, the die hard religious people would obviously deny any scientific evidence as would die hard atheists. This of course denotes blind faith in both cases here. Really, does it really matter what we have faith in, as long as this faith has some kind of truth to it in some way for us in the present!!  

The question is, should we truly lose faith if our own faith is proven incorrect?

We will lose faith in our faith but this doesn't mean we shouldn't have faith in other faiths, all this means is we are evolving instead of stagnating on a faith that is now known to be of blind faith. It's like having faith in a politician and then finding out that you had blind faith, we often move on to having faith in yet another politician which may or may not turn out to be blind. I think atheism and religion are both secure in there own faiths, if it turns out to be different in the future, we will move on to another faith, or should move on. It's not good holding onto a faith that is categorically known to be of blind faith, all this will do is add to the troubles in the world, both atheism and religion are not categorically proven to be incorrect, one of course states the other is for one reason or another, this is inevitable.

The funny thing is, both religion an science/atheism evolved primarily from mysticism and philosophy, will both religion and science/atheism stay as they are today in the future? Most unlikely, so what is all the fuss about, really!! Science even today is evolving from basic science to physics now quantum physics, vacuum physics and quantum mechanics. I can also see, to some extent, that religion is also changing, some religions are even based on science in some way these days. Basically, I don't think it's wise hanging onto what we will evolve from, could you imagine if we hung onto mysticism and philosophy thus negating everything else that evolves from this. Newtonian's thought that Isaac Newtons concepts where the be an end all, the same with Albert Einstein which a lot of he's concepts are now being questioned today, we are simply meant to evolve from faith to faith, concept to concept and so on.           

I was an atheist, then I turned agnostic because I personally found faults within the concepts of atheism and the same with agnosticism latter on but now, I have no labels to express what I am, really, do I have to have a label to describe myself and what I have faith in? Basically, I have faith in faith to evolve to yet have faith once again.......

In my next post I will  explain why atheism (Buddhism) is correct in certain respects, in actuality, in some major respects in regards to certain aspects.                   

Wisdom v Extremism, Religion and Atheism

Written by Mathew Naismith

First of all, I'm not equating religion to wisdom and atheism to extremism, this would be a pretty dopey thing to do for obvious reasons, what I am going to write about is the seriousness of extremism and how extremisms are anti-wisdom even though they might be pro-knowledge. With all the knowledge we have today, why are we still warring more than ever and destroying ourselves and the environment we rely on for our existence to the degree we are? This to me is a sign that we have lost or exterminated wisdom within human consciousness, basically, through our extremist perceptions or more precisely, preconceptions.

I was going to write this post up differently to what I have but the replies I received in regards to my last post, determined the way I was actually going to write this post. I will start this post of  with some wise words from another person who replied to my last post, I am also going to insert other peoples replies and my own replies back to them.

Reply

Hi Mathew. Hope you are well. When I was more religious I had problems with atheists myself.

If you post this blog to an atheist/agnostic site you will get a lot of push back from them.

I had a deep religious experience years ago, so l know I can tap into the power of reality itself and have always just given it an intimate name calling it God. This is probably a personification of all of reality. I like giving it the proper name of God so I can have more of a deeper relationship with this infinite source of consciousness (as you say). 

When I was having problems with the atheists I noticed there was some power they were taping into as well. I couldn't understand for the life of me why anyone would even consider being an atheist. So I did some research on atheism and different atheists and had what I call a freethinker experience. I started thinking strictly from my own brain and mind and now understand what they are talking about. They just want reason and evidence to back up every assertion made.

At heart I am more of a theist, not an atheist because I experience "God" in everything and have a real connection with all of life. But to be honest I'm not sure atheist or theist are great words to use in the first place. They are divisive words.

We are all human beings just looking for love and truth from the reality we live in.

I think God and Reality are synonyms. God is a spiritual word for a personification of reality which in my opiniin is so important. And reality is just a secular word. Both are pointing to whatever that objective/consciousness/infinite/eternal/cause is.

A good site which helped me wasthankgodforevolution.com

My Reply

Wise words indeed as usual Sal.

I'm the same Sal, I call this wise energy source God as well as most people relate to this better if I call this kind of creative energy source God. I certainly don't have a fear of using the word God anymore like I did.

My upbringing was atheistic, however, not extreme like the atheism that we are all experiencing today, a little more balanced and open minded but still anti-God. What changed this was the actual experiences I went through, I however thoroughly understand why anyone who hasn't had these same or simular experiences, would be anti-God or fearful of God existing. The point is, why turn atheism into but another extremist ideology? I know why but isn't it a bit stupid to do so, haven't we got enough extremism in the world today? Wisdom tells us so I believe.

I however disagree that most atheists  just want reason and evidence to back up every assertion made, they disregarded every bit of information based on scientific evidence I give them, I proved this so many times it's not funny when interacting with atheists. The only reason to deny such evidence and collective information is the following of an extreme ideology/belief system. It doesn't matter how you present this, they will not have it. The threat being that their belief system might be proved to be a fallacy built upon utter blind faith. I know why most atheists fear this kind of knowledge, however, not all atheists are extreme within their beliefs like this, this is important to remember.

By the way, I've confronted atheists head on, on their own ground in regards to these matters, this has given me a much better insight as I'm not just talking from the research point of view but from my own actual experiences.

Much Blessings My Friend,

Mathew     

Reply

Thoughts:http://keepyourfeetontheground.weebly.com/religio-spiritual/path-to-growth

My Reply

I utterly agree with this, thank you.

Extremism isn't keeping our feet on the ground, this is evident to me, this is why I try to convey balance is the key, not extremism in any ism. I must then ask myself, am I anti-extremism? No, the reason being that if this is the path that some must tread, so be it but please beware that you don't have to tread this path, there are always other paths to tread that keep your feet on the ground without creating a continuous flow of drama in our lives.

I'm going to use our interaction here in my next post. Thank you BE......

____________________

Now the following reply was from an atheist it would seem, its actually quite surprisingly sedate, I didn't however insert our whole conversion in this post, I couldn't see the need, as I didn't insert other atheists responses as they were, to me,  too preconceived. I should point out that I use the word preconceived because once we perceive from a particular box (ism), we often have preconceived ideas about everybody else's perceptions, this has been evident in the eight years I have been on the net.   

____________________

Reply

I won't waste too much time on your blogpost, as I already have done that by reading it. And boy do you spam Google+ by advertising your blog post in multiple communities, (probably in facebook too)

You claim about atheism that:

1: The dictionaries state clearly it's of doctrines and a belief  

What dictionary do you use? One written by Ken Ham or Pat Robertson? Mine says: lacking religious belief or a particular religious faithNotice the word "lacking".

2: These atheists defended their atheism to the same degree a religious person with extreme ideologies would, stooping to unbelievable depths to do so.

How can one not defend what one thinks. I do not think that your god doesn't exist. I think that there are no gods whatsoever, no gnomes too, no mermaids, no spirits. So I also think there is no Zeus, no Allah, no Toothfairy. Does that make me a a-toothfairy-ist? BTW, what are your thoughts about Lono?

That's enough, I'm going to do more important things.

My Reply

My friend, you have proven my point once again, you will to the utter end defend your belief system which clearly indicates an extreme ideological belief system. Why be so defensive of atheism being related to a belief in the first place when the concept/belief of atheism is not based on utter facts but assumptions? The thorough denial of this just shows how preconceived atheism is, it's my way or nothing. Sound awfully religious to me.

This is exactly what I mean about preconceived perceptions, you preconceived this is my God, show me where is my God, prove that I have a God....Science has shown me there is more to us than what we perceive and that it's quite possible the universe was created from a much more advanced consciousness, end of story. I do call this God's consciousnesses as more people without your preconceptions relate to this better. Your fear of this God existing is so evident it's not funny Wilko.

Now do you see how atheism has given you bias preconceived perceptions, big mistake my friend and atheists are supposed to be more intelligent. I cannot think of any other belief system that is any more ignorant than atheism except religious extremist ideologies. If the truth hurts Wilko, ask yourself why is the truth so hurtful. Just a bit of wisdom that your extremist atheism is trying to destroy and that too is true.

Why choose to believe in an obvious extreme ism, why not agnosticism? Because atheism is acting against religion which again proves my point within my posts. Wilko, you have given me more material to work on, thank you and I am sincere in this, not that you would want to believe that.

____________________

"It would seem to me that extremism is anti-wisdom, no extremism is conducive to wisdom, human history quite clearly shows us this"........Mathew G 

Why indeed choose a more radical extremist view in opposition to but another radical extremist view, not that religion itself is extremist as atheism isn't extremist but most often, especially these days, it's the people of these isms that are extreme within their views.

Now it's interesting to why and how these radical extremist views are killing off the wisdom in the world, what is occurring in regards to religious extremists is but one example, my way or nothing, meaning, it's my perceptions and beliefs or nothing. I have actually received the same exact response from atheists, no matter how much evidence I supplied from people far more intelligent then they are to support my claims, it was there way or nothing. They said they wanted to discus these claims but it was in their way. It was evident it had to be in line with their own preconceived perceptions of what my claims were, why would anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence enter into a discussion totally built upon preconceived perceptions? They needed to control what I was stating because it was a threat to their belief system atheism, I wasn't going there, what would be the point!!

I bet a lot of atheists are not aware of a ruler, around 1000 AD, in the Middle-East who sought out wisdom and knowledge from around the world, there not all barbarian, in actuality, atheism today is.

It is noticeably barbaric to make people ill so you can live off of them, we are not talking about believers here but people who have no ethics or moral to guide them like so many other isms do. Warring is also necessary to keep the economy going only so that the elite can live off of warring, if this isn't barbaric, what is? This is only the tip of the iceberg.

We might then look upon the believers and in how barbaric they are even with the guidance of ethics and morals within their isms? As any true believer knows, anyone who expresses barbarism, isn't a true believer, this includes all the high church officials. It is obvious they are not true believers but non-believers. Would any true believer who is full of fear of going to hell, for example, commit any kind of barbarism that would lead to hell? It is obvious they had no belief at all, in actuality, it is clear these people weren't true believers, they were non-believers, atheists. Indeed, this goes way back to the religious Dark-Ages and even further.

Atheism is often cloaked in many different colours, look at the deception in society and the media today, it's rampant because there are no ethic or moral standards, anything goes. Religion hasn't proved it's worthiness either, the deception of non-believing is staggering. Science is the same, look at the horror and terror science has created, weapons of mutilation on a huge scale, pollution on a massive scale and the creation of medicines and other toxic substance to keep us ill so that the elite can live off of us.

You should now start to get an idea off why there is so little wisdom left in the world, knowledge yes, wisdom no.

Just say a religious group or atheism took control of the entire world, we would first thing that we would have peace an harmony, no, for the simple reason that both religion and atheism will be engulfed by different factions and without a doubt, radical extremist factions. Is there any balance in a world of one kind of preconceptions, it's this or nothing? We are suppose to have different perceptions, different isms and ideologies. Void of extremism, these different isms and ideologies give us balance and wisdom. If these isms and ideologies become controlled by extremisms, all we have is an unbalanced existence with no sight of peace and harmony in sight, certainly no morals or ethics or wisdom but plenty of knowledge to destroy ourselves and each other.

This next part will most likely not go down too well with some Westerners.

The first country in the world to embrace wisdom, will influence the rest of the world for eternity, I'm afraid it won't be a Western country but an Eastern country. If you look at the amount of wisdom of the Middle-East, China and India, it is most likely that the country that will embrace wisdom, will come from one or maybe two of these countries or areas of the world. Don't make the mistake of judging these countries or areas of the world by the present, this again would be a preconception perception brought about by our own bias created by being only able to perceive in certain ways. Fixating ourselves to certain perceptions only isn't wisdom, it's anarchy and will only create anarchy.

Note: I think it's also a mistake to equate Western style atheism to Buddhism, Buddhism can never be extreme within it's philosophies, if it does, it's no longer Buddhism!!  

The Truth of Isms and Ideologies

Written by Mathew Naismith

Bare with me on this, it gets quite interesting and informative, This is probably one of my most impartial posts I've ever written, at first this isn't apparent though.

Atheism: While on a particular site, it was obvious I was being bullied by an atheist who didn't want to know if any of my perceptions were valid or not, basically, from the start this person had a preconceived perception, nothing I was going to say was going to change this fixated perception based on atheistic ideologies. There was no point from the start in a continuous discussion on anything remotely intellectual that was of my perception but I persevered. 

Even when evidence was obtained from various sources backing my perceptions, I was still called a liar, in actuality, once I provided such evidence, this person became even more noticeably aggressive to the eventual point of using harassment and bullying tactics. The sources I supplied included, quantum physics, psychiatry and philosophy perspectives endorsing my perceptions. The main problem was, if I was remotely correct in my perceptions that a consciousness can indeed exist outside of the brain, it immediately  questions the beliefs of atheism. Now this brings us to atheism being a belief and even a belief system that is purely based on fear alone.

I then posted a post inferring that atheism is a belief system by using the definition from a dictionary as follow, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God". What followed was astonishing to say the least, they were defending their atheism in the same exact way that a religious person with extreme ideologies would. I am talking from actual experiences here. Lets collate some evidence together to get a better picture of this.

1: The dictionaries state clearly it's of doctrines and a belief     

2: These atheists defended their atheism to the same degree a religious person with extreme ideologies would, stooping to unbelievable depths to do so

3: If their science is unable to prove the existence of God either way, this clearly means atheism isn't based on facts but assumptions and speculations

4: Seen as atheism is not based on facts, it must be based on assumptions and speculations  

5: To have such a blind faith in assumptions and speculations, means atheism is also of  faith. This of course depends on the faith an atheist has in regards to pure assumptions and speculations. In this case and other cases where I approached atheists on the same matter, they reacted as if they had utter blind faith of atheism which is purely based on, not facts, but assumptions and speculations.

6: Faith clearly infers a belief. Definition of faith: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Is not science controlling our destiny?

7: Fear: A belief in an ism (atheism) opposing another ism, such as religion, denotes a reaction that infers fear. Why follow an opposing ism if one is not fearful of another ism?

8: With the reactions I had received from atheists on this site and other sites, they fear there atheism being questioned in anyway what so ever

9: If atheism is the be and end all, why express so much fear resulting in uncivil behaviour? If atheism were of facts, what would they have to fear when atheistic beliefs are questioned? Atheists obviously know that atheism can be questioned but they still stick to atheism as if it's the be and end all, a clear depiction of utter blind faith and dogmatism.

I think all the evidence that has been collated here, infers that atheism is indeed a belief system and based purely on fear, a fear that purposely stays ignorant to any other perceptions not of atheistic beliefs because of fear. Consider this, don't atheists often criticise religion for expressing these same traits that atheists obviously express as well? You can then add hypocritical to their biases. I should point out in all fairness, not all atheists are like this, some atheists, very few it would seem, are quite open minded, they just don't believe in a God or divine entities but I have found out some of them do believe in a consciousness existing beyond the brain.      

Science; like atheism, is purely based on assumptions and speculations, there are no facts in science, if there were, science would be dogmatic within their concepts, science can't be this dogmatic because science knows that the whole of existence evolves and changes, there can be no fixated concepts which means no utter facts. This of course doesn't stop people into science stating that science is about facts which of course infers dogmas, a fixated preconception of concepts and perceptions that can no longer be further proved. This analogy of course is again only an assumption.

General science might be fixated to these facts (dogmas) but quantum physics and metaphysics isn't, when two protons can communicate, not just interact, between each other, physicists know that consciousness isn't just of the brain. Consider this also, what caused the human brain to grow bigger over time, was it the brain miraculously growing bigger through evolution for some reason or was it consciousness causing the brain to grow bigger over time? Our brain grew because of our expanding consciousness, not our consciousness grew because of our expanding brain, conscious awareness causes the brain to grow, this is well known in science to occur. Consciousness before the brain...

Let's take this further, science can now computer emulate creating a mini-universe, did this not take a creative consciousness to do this? This infers that the universe we exist in, could have been created by a consciousness way beyond human comprehension, in actuality, some scientists believe that is exactly what occurred. It's a good idea to do your own research on this, you just might come across something I didn't. I don't want to detract from what you discover through my own perceptions, this is well known to occur.

New Age spirituality; is also based on fear, the fear of fearing and the fear of being in judgement and the fear of expressing the ego altogether. To know that fear is of being of fear, one has to judge what is and isn't fear. What makes us feel fear? A judgment of fear when fear can be highly beneficial to making us more aware. It's a bit silly denouncing fear when it can be so beneficial to us if used correctly.

How often do new age spiritually aware people denounce religion as being based on fear? Is this also not of judgment and slightly hypocritical? How often do these same people judge science as being some how of a lower vibration or less worthy in some way to their own beliefs? Consider this, is not all of what was created, from the same source of energy? Isn't everything of this source therefore worthy within it's own right? Everything has equal value, this also includes atheism and agnosticism.

Religion: The way religion is expressed by church leaders, especially in the west, can be totally based of fear at times, the bible can also be interpreted as being based on fear and on fables. The bible however can be interpreted in many different ways. I found if you read the bible as a non-fiction book, the bible makes no sense until you read it as a fiction book. When you read the bible as a friction book, you begin to become aware of the hidden meaning of the bible which then refer to a book based on non-fiction. The bible is encoded and if you are unable to read in symbols, the bible will stay a fiction book based on fear and fables. It's very difficult to read something that is of the infinite with finite perceptions. 

All these isms and ideologies are based on assumptions and speculations, a person into science or atheism  might say that science is  more of factual assumptions and speculations than religion or any other ideology, of course a religious person would state otherwise. People into science/atheism and religion might also state that their ism and ideology are more than assumptions and speculations but this is purely based on their own perceptions, not on other perceptions. In actuality,  no ism or ideology is more worthy than another when they were all created from the same source.

How many isms actually concur impartially to all this? Very few because each ism has it's own fixated preconceived perceptions based on their own perceptions. It's preconceived because usually each ism has it's own perceptions, anything out side these perceptions are usually denounced as being somehow less worthy of consideration.

The point is, everything was created from an infinite source of energy, facts however are of a finite perception because they have limitations where assumptions and speculations are infinite. For any ism or ideology to proclaim their of facts, their actually stating their perceptions are only of the finite, religious people and atheists mistakenly, in my mind, do this on a regular basis, especially when they are in opposing opposition with one another. It's this act of opposing that causes a consciousness to perceive primarily in the finite, which to me is always going to lead to conflict, this I believe will only stop when we start to perceive in the infinite. In a religious/spiritual sense, this infinite represents the connection to the source of all creation known to many as God or the source of all creation, I'm not sure if atheism and science have a name for this infinite source of energy but matter itself, matter and anti-matter.