For former Mormons who became atheists

[Guest]

Well..... After the drubbing I gave you on the WOW being a commandment..... I can see why you are tired.

[_Themis]

Sub, I don't think you grok the word concession correctly.

It's just part of subby's dishonest game he likes to play.

[_Lightworker]

Is Derrick back?

Your assertion that atheists do not know love is absurd. The onus is yours to show that there is anything more to love than the mind and normal electro chemical reactions common to humanity.

i thought he was asking for the atheist's definition of love, not necessarily proposing his own.
and to that end, it would seem that you are proposing that Love is "the mind and normal electro chemical reactions common to humanity"...at which case you have made the claim and thus must support that claim by proving that definition of Love.
I fear it may be just speculation on your part, for most atheists, being amoral out of necessity, are better served by avoiding such topics as love...because once they open the door to allowing for any sort of "supernatural" they can not exclude the possibility of God.
They seem to hold fast to the "by evidence only" mantra....and where is the proof for love?

I think it is necessary to define love on my own at the start to show my bias or paradigm but I realize everyone has a different definition as to what it means. I tend to embody it as the universal primal cause of creation. Pure bliss. It is experienced in the balance of all things in harmony with nature. Your natural self is this love bliss experience. It is a mystical union with all of existence. It is also abstractly defined in philosophies such as what is wisdom or what is virtuous. It will be found that all things that are the wisest are embodied in love. The best decisions are made with the body mind and spirit all natural instincts and intuition. It is both abstract and undefinable as well as practical and wise.

[_Lightworker]

I see all religions as One and they are all true and not true at the same time.

That is a false statement because it it self-contradictory.

Enlightenment seems self contradictory and illogical, somewhat like the concept of Love itself. It is a paradox. I am not fully enlightened but I am somewhat and I believe everybody is to an extent. We get glimpses of enlightenment when we realize spiritual truths or realities. The trouble I see is spiritual pride, once enlightened with some knowledge, the mind is left to interpret it and ego steps in. This is the case with many founders of religions. They had enlightening experiences that were in fact real, but they think that they are chosen and better than the rest of the world, ie, Joseph Smith as well as many other spiritual leaders.

The same goes for followers of religion. The Spirit will give enlightening experiences, burning in the bosom, light in filling the being, understanding in the mind, etc, just like the holy books say. However, again, the mind is left to interpret what was meant. Most of the time the ego, which wants to be right, superior, etc, will attach a specific meaning to the mystical experience, such as "I know the church is true and I know Joseph Smith was a prophet". I think the Spirit can and does point the way, but usually it is simply that, the way that will spiritually benefit an individual. Not so much the specifics of dogma, but more like, yes, this is a very spiritually beneficial thing. Such as, yes Smith really did perform miracles and had spiritual gifts and brought a lot of light into the world. Yes the Mormon way can provide a structure for a person to understand God better and make changes for the better in their lives. Yes it is true. As for all of the particulars of dogma and theoretical theology, no that is not really true or may be somewhat true. I like the teaching of mythological Kolob personally, to me this is perhaps a vague definition of the Unity. The real truth transcends Mormon and all dogma, but is also contained within the dogma, although not as pure. Therefore, true and not true at the same time. Both answers are valid, the church is true, and the church is not true.

My opinion is that creation started with the big bang and will end in a big crunch. It is simply the exhale and inhale of God. Like our own lungs and our own heart beat. Expansion and contraction, duality, is what creates time and space.

That, too, is false. For a little over 10 years now we've known that the universe is actually accelerating its rate of expansion. Therefore, there will be no big crunch; matter will continue outward forever.

I wonder what the next 10 years will bring. Back to big crunch again? I wish I knew more about physics, it is fascinating. Either way 3d reality consists of the interplay of dualities. I would like to believe that the universe doesn't end. The beginning and the end of time are more than my mortal mind can grasp but the way I have seen it they are the same thing. Logically I assume this means big crunch. I'll let the physicists figure that one out.

[_LittleNipper]

So, what caused the matter to come together in the first place? And where did that matter come from?

[_Themis]

So, what caused the matter to come together in the first place? And where did that matter come from?

So, what caused the God/s to come together in the first place? And where did that God/s come from?

[_LittleNipper]

So, what caused the matter to come together in the first place? And where did that matter come from?

So, what caused the God/s to come together in the first place? And where did that God/s come from?

Let me say that God revealed that in the beginning GOD ... So before the beginning there was only GOD and nothing else ----------- not even time. Without time one could exist for a moment or forever and both would be the very same.

[_Themis]

Let me say that God revealed that in the beginning GOD ... So before the beginning there was only GOD and nothing else ----------- not even time. Without time one could exist for a moment or forever and both would be the very same.

This is just a belief. No evidence for it, but physicists are working on the questions about matter, etc.

[_LittleNipper]

Let me say that God revealed that in the beginning GOD ... So before the beginning there was only GOD and nothing else ----------- not even time. Without time one could exist for a moment or forever and both would be the very same.

This is just a belief. No evidence for it, but physicists are working on the questions about matter, etc.

Yes, and it is called SCIENTOLOGY.

[_Themis]

Yes, and it is called SCIENTOLOGY.

No real difference between your beliefs and Scientology.