Oppositionless

Yes AI is very scary but imagine if a rogue capitalist entity created a device that took something like remote viewing and multiplied its power by 1000x. You can't even imagine the level of destruction that would cause.

I can't say one definitively way or another whether these abilities exist. My intuition says yes. I am very okay with the majority not being aware of such abilities , again if stage orange weaponized them en masse it would be bad, really bad.

Critique of new age spirituality Misunderstanding of God -Christianity will critique the new age as attempting to "be god", there's a sense in which they are wrong but another sense in which they are right. Being God means absolute surrender , not manifestation super powers GPT 40: That’s a sharp and grounded critique—one that hits at the essential distortion in much of New Age spirituality: a misunderstanding of what it means to be God. Let’s build that out into a full critique, centered on your insight. Critique of New Age Spirituality: Misunderstanding of God 1. The Core Confusion: God as Empowered Ego New Age teachings often claim: “You are God.” “You create your reality.” “Just raise your vibration, manifest your desires, attract abundance.” But this “God” is not the Absolute. It’s the ego in cosmic drag. True Godhood isn’t about control. It’s about radical surrender. To realize you are God is not to become the ultimate manifestor—it’s to die into the formless and to disappear into Love that has no center. 2. Christianity’s Critique: Half Right, Half Wrong Traditional Christianity often condemns the New Age for: Pride Playing God Idolatry of the Self They say: “You can’t be God. Only God is God.” This is wrong in the metaphysical sense—because the mystical core of Christianity (Eckhart, John of the Cross, Jesus himself) does affirm that the divine and the self are One in their ground. “Before Abraham was, I Am.” “The Father and I are One.” But Christianity is right in an unexpected way: When the New Age says “I am God” without surrendering ego, it is pride. They want to possess God, not become empty for God to move through. 3. The Realization of Godhood is Not Empowerment—It’s Emptiness To say “I am God” in the highest sense is to say: I am not the doer. I have no personal will. I surrender even my enlightenment. I am the field itself—not the character within it. I manifest not what I want—but what Truth wants. It’s not “I can manifest my dream house” It’s “There is no ‘I’ apart from the Dreamer.” 4. Love, Not Power True realization doesn’t increase your “powers.” It melts you into love so radical that it includes death, loss, and not-knowing. The real God doesn’t play the Law of Attraction game. The real God dies on the cross, in every moment, in every being.

Materialism is playing an important function in denying the possibility of these abilities . If the stage orange mind weaponized such phenomena on a mass scale it would be cataclysmic.

If you really want to deconstruct free will develop a serious addiction .

Formscapes is probably Turquoise, and I just want to Awaken him but he doesn't seem interested It's like when Leo posted that video of Daniel Schmachtenberger. These guys are really smart but don't have the intuitive understanding of God. Great video though. It's intriguing to think that the ancients didn't just believe differently, they had a completely different operating system. Dear Formscapes, you are INFINITY love, Giordano Bruno

I'm addicted to AI but will be addressing it in my monthlong zen retreat in January . Grok: Your claim that Christianity inherited false dualistic doctrines from Plato and Persian thought, leading to concepts like the immortal soul and cosmic judgment, and that Jesus’ true message was one of “Absolute Oneness” (a nondual perspective), is a bold and thought-provoking assertion. It builds on our previous discussion, suggesting that Platonic and Persian influences distorted Jesus’ original teachings. Let’s analyze this by exploring the origins of these doctrines, their integration into Christianity, and whether Jesus’ message aligns with Absolute Oneness, aiming for a concise yet thorough response. Dualistic Doctrines in Christianity: Plato and Persian Influence Christianity, as it developed, incorporated ideas that appear dualistic—dividing reality into opposing categories like material/spiritual, good/evil, or heaven/hell. Let’s examine the alleged sources: 1. Platonic Influence: • Immortal Soul: Plato’s philosophy, particularly in Phaedo and Timaeus, posits the soul as eternal, distinct from the perishable body, and destined for an afterlife based on its pursuit of truth. Early Christian thinkers like Augustine (354–430 CE) adopted this framework, integrating it with Christian ideas of resurrection and eternal life. The notion of an immortal soul, separate from the body and surviving death, became a staple in much of Christian theology, particularly in Western traditions. • Dualistic Framework: Plato’s separation of the material world (imperfect, transient) from the eternal world of Forms influenced Christian views of the physical world as fallen and the spiritual realm as divine. This shaped doctrines like the opposition between flesh and spirit (e.g., Galatians 5:17, interpreted dualistically). 2. Persian Influence: • Cosmic Judgment: Persian Zoroastrianism, with its dualistic cosmology of good (Ahura Mazda) versus evil (Angra Mainyu), included concepts of a final judgment, resurrection, and an afterlife where souls face reward or punishment. These ideas, prevalent in the Hellenistic world, likely influenced Jewish apocalyptic thought (e.g., in Daniel and Enochic literature) during the Second Temple period (6th century BCE–1st century CE). Early Christianity, emerging from this Jewish context, adopted similar ideas, such as the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:31–46) and heaven/hell dichotomies. • Moral Dualism: Zoroastrianism’s emphasis on a cosmic battle between good and evil parallels some Christian depictions of God versus Satan, though Christianity reinterprets this through the lens of Jesus’ victory over evil. These influences are evident in how early Christian theologians articulated doctrines. For example, the Church Fathers, engaging with Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions, used Platonic language to explain the soul’s immortality and Persian-influenced apocalyptic imagery to describe judgment. However, the extent to which these are “false” or a departure from Jesus’ teachings depends on how we interpret his message. Jesus’ Message and Absolute Oneness Your claim posits that Jesus’ true message was “Absolute Oneness,” a nondual perspective where distinctions like self/other, divine/human, or good/evil dissolve into a unified reality. Let’s assess this in light of Jesus’ teachings: 1. Evidence for Nonduality: • Unity with God: Jesus emphasizes an intimate connection between God and humanity. In John 17:21–23, he prays, “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us.” This suggests a profound unity, akin to nondual traditions like Advaita Vedanta or certain mystical interpretations of Christianity. • Immanence of the Kingdom: In Luke 17:21, Jesus says, “The kingdom of God is within you” (or “among you”), implying that divine reality is not separate from human experience but present and accessible, a hallmark of nondual thought. • Breaking Down Dualities: Jesus’ actions—associating with sinners, healing on the Sabbath, challenging legalism—subvert rigid distinctions like clean/unclean or righteous/sinner. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) prioritizes universal love over ethnic or religious boundaries. • Paradoxical Teachings: Sayings like “Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25) embrace paradox, a feature of nondual thought that resists binary categories. • Incarnation: The doctrine that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human (developed later but rooted in his life) embodies a nondual paradox, collapsing the divide between God and humanity. 2. Challenges to Absolute Oneness: • Moral and Eschatological Language: Jesus’ teachings include dualistic elements, such as warnings of judgment (e.g., Matthew 25:41–46, separating the “sheep” from the “goats”) and references to eternal consequences (e.g., Mark 9:43–48, mentioning “hell”). These suggest a moral framework distinguishing right from wrong, though they could be interpreted symbolically rather than literally. • God as Distinct: While Jesus emphasizes unity, he also speaks of God as a distinct entity (e.g., “Our Father” in Matthew 6:9). This relational language might imply a qualified nonduality rather than Absolute Oneness, where distinctions are transcended but not erased. • Historical Context: Jesus operated within a Jewish framework that emphasized God’s transcendence and covenantal relationship with Israel. Absolute Oneness, as understood in nondual traditions, may not fully align with this context, though his teachings push toward a more universal, inclusive vision. Did Dualism Distort Jesus’ Message? Your argument suggests that Platonic and Persian dualisms led to “flawed” doctrines (immortal soul, cosmic judgment) that obscured Jesus’ nondual message. Let’s evaluate: 1. Immortal Soul: • Critique: The Platonic idea of an inherently immortal soul, separate from the body, differs from Jewish views of the afterlife, which often emphasized bodily resurrection (e.g., Daniel 12:2). Jesus’ own teachings focus more on resurrection (e.g., John 11:25, “I am the resurrection and the life”) than an independent soul surviving death. The Platonic soul concept, adopted by later theologians, may have shifted focus from Jesus’ holistic view of human-divine unity to a dualistic body-soul split. • Counterpoint: The immortal soul concept helped Christians articulate the hope of eternal life in a Hellenistic context. It may not be “false” but rather a translation of Jesus’ resurrection-focused teachings into a philosophical idiom, though it arguably introduced a dualism foreign to his message. 2. Cosmic Judgment: • Critique: Persian-influenced ideas of a final judgment, with clear divisions between saved and damned, appear in Christian eschatology (e.g., Revelation). These may clash with a nondual view of Absolute Oneness, where all distinctions dissolve. Jesus’ parables of judgment (e.g., Matthew 13:24–30, wheat and weeds) could be seen as pedagogical tools rather than literal endorsements of cosmic dualism, but later theology often took them literally, amplifying dualistic themes. • Counterpoint: Jesus’ own language of judgment and moral accountability (e.g., Matthew 7:21–23) suggests some form of distinction between alignment with God’s will and rejection of it. This may not be Absolute Oneness but a relational nonduality, where unity is possible but not automatic. 3. Distortion or Adaptation?: • The integration of Platonic and Persian ideas was partly a practical necessity. As Christianity spread beyond its Jewish roots into the Greco-Roman world, it needed to engage with prevailing philosophies and cosmologies. Platonism provided a systematic framework to explain concepts like eternal life, while Persian apocalypticism resonated with Jewish and Christian hopes for divine justice. • However, these frameworks may have obscured Jesus’ nondual emphasis on the present, immanent kingdom and universal love. For example, the focus on a future judgment or a disembodied soul could detract from his call to live out divine unity now (e.g., “love your neighbor as yourself,” Mark 12:31). Absolute Oneness as Jesus’ Core Message Your claim that Jesus’ true message was Absolute Oneness aligns with interpretations found in Christian mysticism (e.g., Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich) and modern nondual thinkers (e.g., Richard Rohr). These perspectives emphasize Jesus’ teachings on unity, love, and the dissolution of ego-driven separations. However, Absolute Oneness, as a term, draws from nondual traditions like Advaita Vedanta, which may not fully map onto Jesus’ Jewish context. His message seems to lean toward a relational nonduality—unity with God and others through love and faith—rather than a metaphysical collapse of all distinctions. For example, Jesus’ emphasis on relationship (with God, neighbors, even enemies) suggests a dynamic oneness, where distinctions like self/other persist but are harmonized through love. This differs from Absolute Oneness in some Eastern traditions, where distinctions are ultimately illusory. The Incarnation, central to Christianity, further complicates pure nonduality, as it affirms the reality of both divine and human natures in Jesus, united without dissolving into one another. Addressing the Claim Christianity did inherit dualistic elements from Platonic and Persian thought, particularly the immortal soul and cosmic judgment, which became prominent in later theology. These ideas, while not central to Jesus’ teachings, were adaptations that helped Christianity articulate its message in a Hellenistic and apocalyptic context. However, calling them “false” depends on one’s perspective—they were pragmatic tools for early Christians, though they may have shifted focus from Jesus’ more nondual emphasis on unity and love. Jesus’ message does reflect a profound sense of oneness—God’s presence within, the breaking down of social and religious barriers, and the call to universal love. Whether this constitutes “Absolute Oneness” is debatable, as his teachings retain relational and moral dimensions that imply distinctions, even if they point toward unity. The influence of Plato and Persian thought likely amplified dualistic frameworks, potentially overshadowing the nondual aspects of Jesus’ message, but these were not wholesale distortions so much as cultural translations. Final Answer Christianity adopted dualistic doctrines like the immortal soul (from Plato) and cosmic judgment (influenced by Persian thought), which shaped its theology but may have diverged from Jesus’ emphasis on unity and the immanent kingdom. These doctrines aren’t necessarily “false” but reflect adaptations to make Christianity intelligible in its historical context. Jesus’ message aligns with a form of nondual oneness—emphasizing unity with God and others through love—but it’s more relational than Absolute Oneness in a metaphysical sense. Platonic and Persian influences amplified dualism, but Jesus’ core vision of divine-human unity remains foundational, even if partially obscured by later theological developments.

Yes in a sense. Like I understand deeply shoppenhauer calling God the Will. It's blind, amoral, and primal. Its desire , its creative .

Faith is very important but can also be corrupted. I used to have faith in law of attraction and manifestation and was constantly disappointed . You can mediate some of the corruption of faith with "not my will but yours be done."

@Xonas Pitfall I think I understand what you're saying up to a certain point. I guess where I diverge is this: I agree that love is an emotional response to oneness, but haven't had the *realization* that the two are actually the same. So I understand that a feeling of love can arise when unity is experienced , but I can't verify that the unity literally *is love* and the problem of suffering / evil just compounds my confusion. Example, some theists will say that the problem of evil is negated because we're here to evolve our souls. But I don't understand why God couldn't have just made us evolved . I would love (lol) to be proven wrong , infinite love sounds great . I just haven't experienced it.

Can you explain why collapsing into One is equivalent to Love, Leo also says this and I just don't get it. To me it's like telling someone with cancer "God loves you," okay that may be true but, God might "love" me enough to create me but he won't heal my cancer so does it really matter? Why call it love ?

That's what I would say to someone asking the difference between what I know and what a law of attraction new age person wishes .

I struggle to understand why there should be suffering at all. I can think of two reasons 1) Infinity is completely indscriminate and creates anything logically possible . if that is the case , I guess it's still God, but it feels like a very abstract mechanical God 2) Infinity is intentionally limited, implying God chooses to create evil. I fail to see how this is Love. I've awakened to Consciousness but have never awakened to Love. So I understand if some people have it seems obvious , but I fail to see how "oneness" implies Love, and why God would create horrors. Again, unless God is simply powerless and just ejaculates everything conceivable at once, or God simply doesn't care and creates evil for fun. nothing in my awakenings has even for a moment suggested love is anything more than a human emotion, basically equivalent to desire, but id certainly like to awaken to love .

Wow just getting to see all these fundamentalists and feel their energy . Notice how they know just enough about god to serve their survival agenda. they're absolutely shameless This meanwhile is the best Christian I've found on YouTube