Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Is Consciousness Inevitable?

Consciousness, is it inevitable?

When we look at energy we see it runs toward entropy and likes to take the fastest path there. So, from that we have determined that energy goes into order and higher organization in fact to reach the fastest path to entropy. More energy will be used up. 

However- this seems to mean that high organization of particles is inevitable then. Though you can say this accident happen or that random seems eventually the higher organization will occur. Then, Consciousness occurs in this higher organization of things...consciousness is like a by product of this higher order of particles....and it seems inevitable to me because nature goes from random to non-random and chaos to order and because nature keeps moving forward building upon itself and is persisting toward the fastest path to entropy. But then it is also inevitable. So, my question now is on one hand consciousness seems inevitable and on the other hand there are many 'accidents or random things that occur' before it happens. So it is like an inevitable accident?

Or perhaps the game is set up to allow for random and accidents, but in the end consciousness will eventually prevail.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Are morals independent or absolute or what?

Morality is an independent reality?

Morals don't exist for an individual. They are a Collective. Just like particles interacting with the environment do so as a collective. Then they conform.

 Morality and ethics are a collective. If you take any group you look at you cannot then look at it with you on it from an external force onto an inward one. You have to see how the people in the group feel and think . From the inside to the inside. If those people are feeling oppressed or hurt or they feel pain about this sacrificing of children then for that group it is not good. If no one in the group had any feelings or care about a sacrifice of a child, even the child itself then is it morally wrong for the group? If they were say robots with no care of their death? For them then that would not be immoral. But that is because morality is contingent upon the collective. Nature works as a collective.

I then came across this article which seems to think somewhat like  I mentioned:

"Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law." -

I would add this law comes from the collective, how the parts work together and this is really how morals and ethics evolve as well.

Of course this is Laughlin who Kruass criticized, but I agree with Laughlin here. 

I completely disagree that without science you can't have morals or ethics. Compassion and how you feel, empathy and being selfless has nothing to do with science. You might be able to understand better what it is or where it came from...but yes you have to understand consequences to have some judgment of it, but you don't need science for that either. You simply need reason/logic/understanding a sequence of events. This is not science. Again science may help us understand what logic and reason is or where it came from, but it is not science itself. Reason and emotion determine your ethics and morals. Science simply helps us understand how and why of all of it.

As a mother Bonobo looks at her baby, she follows her instincts and her compassion and the level of teaching of care giving from her small community. She knows nothing of science. She is merely following her emotions and level of reason.

As an outside judgment of humans we can look at them and judge, but they are judgers of their own culture and own behavior. What they have deemed acceptable will pass and what is not will not in their group. That is their moral and ethic code.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Water, Tree of Life, Bible, Science, Darwin, Indians

Let us imagine for a brief minute that everything is water. The tree outside is water. The person beside you is water. The food you are eating is water. The sky above is water. The universe is water. You are water. Yes, imagine everything to be water. 

Now imagine, everything is linked because it is in fact all the same water...Rushing in and out of itself. 

Now, your mind and all consciousness imagine to be a net. 

This net moves through this water, catching things that are physical. The (water or the consciousness) manifested a table which got caught in your net, manifested a crab which got caught in your net, manifested a person which got caught in your net, manifested a star which got caught in your net. 

But all these physical things you caught are not real. They are not the water, but a manifestation- an illusion. The real is this water, this substance that is all things, this substance that we can't catch in our net to perceive it, see it or measure it. 

The water, the real, passes through our net all the time with little perception from most of us. 

It is interesting to me that the book of Genesis and even scriptures from other cultures use water to describe the early beginnings. Water is a very interesting phenomenon. In Genesis, the spirit hovered and moved over the surface of the abyss. The Earth was described first as a ball of water. 

Another picture from an image is that of a tree. In Genesis we find the Tree of Life. It is a very interesting image conjured in our minds. A TREE. And what is this tree of? LIFE.
Now, has anyone read Darwin's great book, Origin of the Species? Umm...I think there is something in there about a tree. Oh, yeah, the tree of biological evolution. 

Is it just me, or do those two trees seems very similar? 

On a different subject:

I think that if in biology we can see all our physical make-up described, retained and encoded into a single genome code, a code which could be considered in a way less then makes sense that all the non-biology physical make-up would be found to be described, retained and encoded in a 2D format as well. 

This is what the current physicists are finding. This is called the Holographic Universe principle and while it was once not considered very viable, it is now being considered by most to be one of the more accurate descriptions of our universe. 

All the information that makes up our everything is really a code which we can't see directly. This makes everything we see really an illusion. Science is now showing us what many ancient spiritualists had said for millennia.  

I think that our FIELDS act actually like FILTERS, which filter this code from the other side... to our side. The information may look very disordered to us on the other side or perhaps it looks very ordered, but once it vibrates through the FIELDS, it takes on independent characteristics, in a way- like a personality, that makes the information appear separate and as independent parts and in a form we understand -have evolved to perceive. 

But lots of information is vibrating from the 2D format and in and out of this 'sphere of water' yet we don't perceive much of it, only that which is filtered through our fields which then becomes a part of our physical reality. 

Sometimes we might indirectly see some of this information and that is what virtual particles would be I think. "Virtual particles" are coming out of the nothingness of our space. This nothingness still has fields though and so the "wave-information" however minor has an interaction, but is not completely filtered to our physical reality so we don't experience it. 

I'll finish with my latest opinion in response to another closed minded individual caught in the web of reason alone while wearing blinders:

 No, I'm not saying to give credibility to other people's experiences. If you have not experienced it or have evidence of it then it would be stupid of you to just accept it.

What I am saying is that there is a difference to being narrow in your view of things, and open in your view of things. There is a difference in being blinded by your own arrogance and open to understanding. 

Humans don't have all the answers and might not be able to find them all. Our minds can only understand and perceive so much.

For myself I don't take the view so black and white as you. In my opinion you are superficially looking at faiths of the world like most and therefore seeing contradictions and so they are all wrong. 

I have two comments on that.

If you look at the words of the spiritual leaders and not the mumo-jumbo (Buddha, Hindu Guru, Kabbalist, Christ, Rumi) you find a lot of similarity. There is a common thread of oneness of everything, selflessness, compassion, love, harmony, denial of self, and many more commonalities.    

(In fact much of what the ancient Indian Spiritualist and Kabbalist and Sufist taught are showing to be possibly accurate by modern science from big bang, to worm holes, to the holographic universe, to everything literally being one though it appears separate, to the wholeness of all, to it all coming from nothing -which should be understood as a dynamic eternal nothingness not in the sense most think of it).

The geography, language, rituals, superstitions, clothing, dogma, and supernatural explanations are all just lines to make boxes for everyone to fit into. This is the superficial mumbo jumbo and was not taught by the spiritual leaders. 

There is an old Indian story: 
     There are six people in a dark room and one moves to the center to hit an object. He says, "It is a long bumpy thing with slim at the end." Another man moves to the center and says, "No, it is large and wide and leathery." The other man comes to the center and says, "No, it is short and furry and soft." The other man says, "No, it is like five rocks sitting on the sand." The next man says, "No, it is beating thump thump." The last man says, "No, it is flappy, and rounded and soft."
Then, the lights turn on and they see they have all found different parts to the same whole ---an elephant. 
FYI: Ancient people were capable of figuring out all kinds of things. The Mayans and Egyptians both had highly sophisticated understanding of the cosmos and the human body. Further since these ancient peoples of the world lived in nature constantly, not in front of computers or TVs or phones, they were not disconnected like many of us today and so could understand nature in ways that would evade us. 

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Fairies, God, Nature, Spirit, Connection

The Argument:

There are actually thousands of scriptures from around the ancient world about unicorns and fairies.
The dominant religions in Europe before Christianity took over were full of fairies. As well as other ancient religions around the world with almost identical myths (although different NAMES for what were essentially fairies).
The same case that is made for the existence of god, could be made for the existence of fairies.

And if god is in reference only to our personal needs, and only dwells within us? Than it's not god, it's just some psychological construct.

The Response:

Frankly, I don't think much of what u r referring to is myth. I call it legend. Most stories are embedded in some form of fact, something that happened and a story emerges from there. There probably were some kind of horses with one horn on their head which is how the stories may have started. There are fossils of one horned horses actually. Even trolls and leprechauns may have an actual link to a real people which was shown on the discovery channel. A very short species. 

Not sure what u mean by only our personnel needs and something within us. I would't agree that if that is all it is then its merely psychological. But to me, "god" is something that is used to describe what is within all living things and even non-living things, that connects everything to itself and manifests in all living things. Is everything and nothing. 

I don't think the material world is real at all, but an illusion.

And I think nature is far more interesting than most of you give it credit for, and doesn't have to make sense to us, or be measured by us or dissected by us to be.

I think a connection to something allows u to understand it in a way mere measurements alone cannot. I can dissect ur brain, but that tells me nothing of how well you spoke English or your mathematical skill. When I am connected to u, get to know u then I learn these things. Scientists in the past failed to see how clever great apes were by mere measurements. It was three women who dared to named their apes and connect to them that learned and showed everyone how amazing they really were. 

 People of the past may not have the sophisticated tools we have today, the computers and fancy gizmos that allow such precise measurements. But they were connected to nature in a way many of us fail today.

Connecting allows for intuitive truth, which is why Einstein rightly understood SR even though no one understood how and why he would come up with it. 

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Why former Christians have the worst understanding of the scriptures

I love to rip on everyone, don't take it personally.

This is in response to a few misunderstood scriptures also taken out of context by a former fundamentalist.

On when Christ spoke about the fig tree: 

U don't understand that the fig tree is a symbol of bearing fruit and not bearing fruit. That what you are in your heart is what you bear. And if your heart is fruitless, it may always be fruitless. 

U really don't get anything that was said, wow. I'm all for your mentioned scientists, but you should try to understand the words in context of when and how they were written like all words.

On Europe not washing their hands and dying. Why didn't god warn them to wash hands:

Matthew 15:
  “Why don’t your disciples obey what our ancestors taught us to do? They don’t even wash their hands before they eat. These pharisees wanted to know why Jesus did not do this and therefore we can conclude they did. They were taught this in the Levitical laws, which by your fundamental upbringing you certainly have missed. Was it god? Maybe not...but the Jewish people weren't stupid. 

It was Europe, who rejected Jewish teachings who suffered from the above. God's plan? No. But rejection of what was already taught. 

On all the mixing of Leviticus prohibited:

What harm could it bring to mix grains? Grains have been known to overgrow one another and then destroy the weaker gene. This makes one grain extinct. 

The sanitation of today was different from then. Pig and shrimp did kill. They are bottom dwellers, eating anything. It is unsanitary. 

Linen and wool is not because of fashion. One is made from animal and the other of plant. Much of the mixing (of various things in the laws) could be said to symbolize mixing of faiths or relating to the story of Cain and Abel where one brought wool and the other plant...but practically Jewish people had reasons for things and many times these have a scientific correlation or moral correlation (or at least what was moral for the time). 

The passage has to do with SEWING the two together, not wearing the two together. It is like saying what nature has produced, I will make better. And what a wonderful job man has done. 

Can we say Factory Farming. 

The stories in Genesis don't belong to Christians. They are Mesopotamian stories. Egyptians, Assyrians, Sumerians and Hebrews all had them. People didn't tell truths in fact, fact, fact, fact format like you are used to today.

You have to understand HOW they wrote. 

Truths are told, though something is not factual. 

FYI: Most of the Genesis account can be found in Mesopotamia from the possible Tower of Babel, to the possible Garden of Eden. Stories began because something actually did happen and they wanted to convey the truth of what happened.

Also- images and pictures are a very important literary device. The picture you form in your head when you read Tree of Life is very interesting and can be understood even by a child. Do you see the tree? Now, go read Darwin's Origin of the Species. "

Nothing is an Accident?

This is interesting, because I agree with much of what he says, but then I'm not sure how he is concluding because of Higgs, that means everything is an accident. We don't know.

We don't really know if there is something on the other side of big bang and time pulling the strings. If how this entity works is through randomness and accidents or intentional accidents or hands-off.
But let us say for the sake of argument that it is accidental...that doesn't mean it is not purposeful.

We think of things in terms of intentions because our minds work that way, our space-time physical forms are trained that way.

But what if accidents are purposeful?

Eventually something will come from the nothing, and given enough time there will be life and eventually life that will have a higher intellect which can draw meaning.

Eventually there will be meaning from every accident and from every accident something will happen. Sometimes this something survives and sometimes not.

Whatever path we choose will also derive meaning.

So, even if everything we know is accidental (as we define intent) so what? Meaning is still inevitable. And if time is an illusion and not linear, if reality is past-present-future as one. If reality is really such that everything is one....then the ending is the beginning...the beginning the ending. The meaning was from the beginning too.

And this says nothing of how spiritual energy works. Perhaps the spirit doesn't have intentions, but simply is.

And what about Nothing? Was it accidental? Did it always exist?

We really had two options for most people: It all came from nothing or something eternal. For myself, I always saw a third option of an eternal nothingness.

This is what I think best describes from where it all came.

But then what is nothingness? Does it retain any order? Any information? Does it have mass? I think we have established yes in QP, right. Does it retain conscious energy? What kind of energy is it?

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Compassion and Evolution-What do you think?

I have seen that compassion is actually taught. For instance my cat naturally if we want to say genetics and evolved traits- was naturally more aggressive. Of course, he is wild like all cats. 

But I am very affectionate and loving and compassionate to him and so in time, he has begun to exhibit these traits in return. The more I kiss him or hug him, the more he reciprocates. But if he is startled outside he reverts back to agrees ion with me for a moment. So, he is capable of both.

But what will he be depends on his environment. 

I have seen a study on television where when you are compassionate to another human being, that part of their brain actually goes on and developes more. You even develop yours more the more you use it. 

So, compassion is defiantly something, in my opinion, something that can be taught and is carried on by living organisms exhibiting this trait to others.

Not just a born with it and so you got it kind of thing.

So, in this very symbiotic sense is where the evolution of compassion takes place, I think.

So- that is why in my opinion religion has played a big part in this evolution of compassion.

Yes, human beings have evolved the capacity to be violent and also to be kind, just like most animals.

But what traits persist and grow and evolve further?

Evolution is a participatory natural process in my opinion. We don't sit on the side lines and everything just happens to us. We are contributing to our own evolution and this is a very important part for people to understand.

What you put in the mixing pot is going to come out of it. 

This is where religion or culture plays a very instrumental part of morals or compassion in my opinion, continuing to evolve and hopefully for the better. 

Any animal can show meanness or kindness. Chicken fights is an environment that supports violence and so the chickens become more violent. Chickens in small spaces even pluck each other to death.
Kinda like children misbehave when in small spaces.

So our environment, the non-living environment as well as the living environment, which includes the consciousness there, effects the evolutional progression. 

Culture is a part of all animals consciousness in my opinion.

Religion is a part of human's consciousness, and is another aspect of culture. 

So, we have to consider both when we consider compassion and the effects both have played. 

Saturday, November 8, 2014

How is God in us?

I recently read an article asking How God can be inside of us?

My views are such as this:

God is everywhere, every when, and everything, nowhere, no when, and nothing. When we start to ask questions like "where" is God, we begin to put God into a space-time physical description which God is not. God is not in one location, the spirit is in all locations and since it is no thing, it is in no locations by all physical definitions.

God, in my view, is very much in the rock as well as in a human being. It is just that the human being can be aware of God in itself and its connectedness to the whole and the rock is not aware. This is because God is a breathing interconnected spirit much like a web. The spirit breathing within everything, sustaining everything. The same fundamental energy of nothingness is within the rock and is within us.

All this physical world is within what I would call the "water" or God. The "water" is this spirit and every Thing is floating around in this "water", seeing its separateness. It is all made up of this fundamental water which for all physical definitions is nothing. It is all sustained by this water since it exists within it.

Our brains are like nets fishermen use to catch fish. We catch fish and see this physical phenomenon and think this is the real, this physical thing we eat. But we miss all the water passing through our nets, the actual spirit sustaining us and making us and connecting us to everything else. In fact we are this water too but temporarily have taken the illusionary form of a net. The more we attach ourselves to this net, the more we think we are the net when in fact we are not.

How is God in us? The water is passing through us all the time already, as it is all things, all the time, in all places. The question is are you aware or conscious of the filling? Are you awakened?

The 5 elementals of true religion

The Self, indeed, is below.  It is above.  It is behind.  It is before.
It is to the south.  It is to the north.  The Self, indeed, is all this.
Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this, and understands this delights
in the Self, sports with the Self, rejoices in the Self, revels in the
Self.  Even while living in the body he becomes a self-ruler.  He wields
unlimited freedom in all the worlds.  But those who think differently from
this have others for their rulers; they live in perishable worlds.  They
have no freedom at all in the worlds.

                  Hinduism.  Chandogya Upanishad 7.25.2

In my travels and explorations of cultures and religious over the past ten years, I have found that there are five elements to the four major religions that would define, in my opinion, true religion. Everything else is just the extra stuff or the extra fluff. The extra stuff can be enhancing, but the extra fluff can be dividing.

The five elements that to me constitute true religion and is found in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are teachings of: Love, Compassion, Oneness, UnSelfishness, Transformation.

This means that these teachings are found by their major prophets, gurus, monks, or such and found in their major scriptures. This does mean that all who claim to be of the faith or religion practice these teachings and often people will misuse, misinterpret for their benefit, and manipulate scripture for their own purposes. 

To me, this is the core of true religion and is at the very heart of true religion. All the extra fluff like the clothing, the diet, the geography, the language,  the superstitions, the magic, the rituals, the gods can all be points of separation and add to keeping people into boxes of division, but in fact we are not divided except by illusion.

We are all one. It is when we are living in the illusion of division, separateness where we find hate, arrogance, manipulation, and selfishness. Because when we realize we are one with everything else, when we try to take something down we than realize we are only taking down ourselves, and when we try to lift something up only then are we lifting up ourselves.

(We also find quantum physics is leading us to the understanding that everything is not just as I would say spiritually one, but literally one. Physicists have a hard time understanding how everything appears separate yet acts as one. The whole is in all the parts.) 

As Christ said, "Whoever is last is first and whoever is first is last."

We also find Christ said "Be as one with the Father as I am one with the father." In Hinduism and Buddhism there are also teachings of becoming one. They teach about the experience of Brahmin and the oneness with God which would be a perfect state of being. While Hindus call it Moksha and Buddhist call it Nirvana, the idea is similar. It is a state that ends all suffering. It is a state where all is one. Hindus believe all is one and everything is spiritually connected. All reality outside of Brahmin is considered an illusion. This makes sense when you look through the eyes of spiritualism or even through the eyes of quantum physics. 

In Kabbalah we learn that God, the spirit, closed and this formed a vacuum from which everything came, starting as the size of a grain of sand. Yes, this is what they said 500 years ago. In some Eastern beliefs we learn everything is inside of God. The spirit is both inside of all things, including us and outside of everything, in my view. All pervading and everywhere -yet nowhere because a where implies a thing and God, the spirit, is not a thing. The spirit was all there was, until it closed. When everything birthed from the vacuum of nothingness, the spirit then breathed, opened and encompassed everything. 

Christ speaks of denying the self. He also says, if anyone should come after me, let him deny himself and pick up his cross daily and follow me. This means to say no to yourself. This is because of our nature. Our nature and our spirit our in conflict. Because the father is spirit, or true reality is spirit than we have to see things in spiritual form and context, not in our illusionary physical and natural world. In Judaism the Torah states, The Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing.
                   Judaism.  Talmud, Sota 21b

The link below shows more similarity in denial of self with Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. 

"All states are without self." -Buddhism Dhammapada 277-79

To me, this reminds me of looking at everything through the eyes of evolution. We 
think this is a cat or frog, but in fact we were all something else before and will  become something new in the future. Lines we draw to define this or that are fleeting and not very real, for the real is that we are all connected and not divided, 
not this or that but always in-between. To understand in the definition of a self, whatever form that takes, we are limiting our own understanding is grand. 

Our goal should not be to enhance the self, but as Christ said to deny the self and become one with the Father. Through this, we understand our oneness with everything, with God -the all pervading spirit that is everything. We then unite with this God and with our true form. Divisions then disappear. The illusion of the physical  crumples.   

Self-denial is necessary to overcome the hindrances of egoism, 
pride, and selfish desires which obscure the true nature within. The
person who is always concerned with himself or herself, is trapped in
"the ego-cage of 'I', 'me' and 'mine.'"  Consequently, he can neither
realize his own true self nor relate to Ultimate Reality.  From a Hindu
perspective, denying "I," "me," and "mine" is in fact a way to find the
true "I" that is transcendent and one with Reality.  In the Western per-
spective it is a way to recover the true self, which is loving and comp-
assionate, having been created in the image of God.  Both perspectives
affirm the paradox that "he who loves his life loses it, and he who hates
his life will keep it."  For more on this paradox, see Reversal and
Restoration, pp. 544-50.

       Buddhism also teaches that the path to the religious goal requires
one to deny the self and all egoistic grasping.  But it goes further,
grounding the practice of self-denial on the ontological statement that
any form of a self is unreal.  Buddhism is most sensitive to the insight
that self-denial, when done for the purpose of seeking unity with an Abso-
lute Self or God, can become subtly perverted into a form of pride and
self-affirmation.  Total self-denial should therefore dispense even with
the goal of a transcendent Self.  There is no self, either on earth or in
heaven; all forms are transient, subject to birth and death.  A number of
texts explaining this doctrine of No-self (anatta) are collected here:
more may be found under Formless, Emptiness, Mystery, pp. 85-92 and Orig-
inal Mind, No-mind, pp. 217-23.

He who has no thought of "I" and "mine" whatever towards his mind and
body, he who grieves not for that which he has not, he is, indeed, called
a bhikkhu.

                   Buddhism.  Dhammapada 367

They are forever free who renounce all selfish desires and break away
from the ego-cage of "I," "me," and "mine" to be united with the Lord.
Attain to this, and pass from death to immortality.

                   Hinduism.  Bhagavad Gita 2.71

Dhammapada 367: Cf. Madhyamakavatara 3, p. 412; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888. Bhagavad Gita 2.71: Cf. Bhagavad Gita 5.10-12, p 774; Maitri Upanishad 3.2, p. 412; Srimad Bhagavatam 11.4, p. 412; Katha Upanishad 3.13, p. 840.
If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. Christianity. Mark 8.34-36 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Christianity. John 12.24-25 O Son of Man! If you love Me, turn away from yourself; and if you seek My pleasure, regard not your own; that you may die in Me and I may eternally live in you. Baha'i Faith. Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Arabic 7 The Man of the Way wins no fame, The highest virtue wins no gain, The Great Man has no self. Taoism. Chuang Tzu 17 Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing. Judaism. Talmud, Sota 21b Where egoism exists, Thou art not experienced, Where Thou art, is not egoism. You who are learned, expound in your mind this inexpressible proposition. Sikhism. Adi Granth, Maru-ki-Var, M.1, p. 1092 Yen Yan asked about perfect virtue. The Master said, "To subdue one's self and return to propriety is perfect virtue. If a man can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe per- fect virtue to him." Confucianism. Analects 12.1.1
Mark 8.34-36: To bear the cross and sacrifice oneself for others, one must first deny the self and its desires. Cf. Matthew 10.24-25, p. 821; 23.12, p. 545; Luke 14.26, p. 959; Philippians 2.6-11, p. 616; Romans 8.9-17, p. 576; Acts 6.8-7.60, pp. 887f. John 12.24-25: Cf. Matthew 16.24-25, p. 875. Sota 21b: Cf. Abot 2.4, p. 771. Maru-ki-Var, M.1: Cf. Diamond Sutra 9, p. 933.
The pursuit of learning is to increase day after day. The pursuit of Tao is to decrease day after day. It is to decrease and further decrease until one reaches the point of taking no action. No action is undertaken, and yet nothing is left undone. Taoism. Tao Te Ching 48 If you do not deny yourself completely, restoration through indemnity is impossible. Indemnity conditions can be realized only by completely deny- ing yourself. The standard of absolute denial should be established tow- ard the individual, the family, the race, the world, the cosmos, and God. Unification Church. Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83 Would one die while living, thus crossing the ocean of existence. Sikhism. Adi Granth, Suhi Chhant, M.5, p. 777 In the evening do not expect [to live till] morning, and in the morning do not expect evening. Prepare as long as you are in good health for sick- ness, and so long as you are alive for death. Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 40 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Christianity. Bible, Galatians 2.20
Tao Te Ching 48: Cf. Tao Te Ching 16, p. 840; 19, p. 294; 22, p. 549; Chuang Tzu 6, p. 584. Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83: Indemnity and Self-denial are necessary because of the Fall; see Divine Principle I.3.2.1, p. 547n. Cf. Luke 14.26, p. 959. Galatians 2.20: Cf. Romans 8.9-17, p. 576; 12.1, p. 754; Ephesians 2.8-10, p. 756. Mumonkan 46: The issue is grasping and dependence upon the body and sense experience, and fear of going beyond its limits. See Seng Ts'an, p. 223.
Remember, those who fear death shall not escape it, and those who aspire to immortality shall not achieve it. Islam (Shiite). Nahjul Balagha, Khutba 43 Seek not for life on earth or in heaven. Thirst for life is delusion. Knowing life to be transitory, wake up from this dream of ignorance and strive to attain knowledge and freedom. Hinduism. Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13 You, who sit on the top of a hundred-foot pole, although you have entered the Way you are not yet genuine. Proceed on from the top of the pole, and you will show your whole body in the ten directions. Mumon's Comment: If you go on further and turn your body about, no place is left where you are not the master. But even so, tell me, how will you go on further from the top of a hundred-foot pole? Eh? Buddhism. Mumonkan 46 A monk asked Baso, "What is the Buddha?" Baso answered, "No mind, no Buddha." Buddhism. Mumonkan 33 "All states are without self." When one sees this in wisdom, then he be- comes dispassionate towards the painful. This is the path to purity. Buddhism. Dhammapada 277-79 "The body, brethren, is not the self. If body were the self, this body would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of body, 'Let my body be thus; let my body not be thus.' But inasmuch as body is not the self, that is why body is subject to sickness, and one cannot say of body, 'Let my body be thus; let my body not be thus.' "Feeling is not the self. If feeling were the self, then feeling would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of feeling, 'Let my feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.' "Likewise perception... the [volitional] activities... and consc- iousness are not the self. If consciousness were the self, then con- sciousness would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus'; but inasmuch as consciousness is not the self, that is why consciousness is subject to sickness, and that is why one cannot say of consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' "Now what do you think, brethren, is body permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, Lord." "And is the impermanent painful or pleasant?" "Painful, Lord." "Then what is impermanent, painful, and unstable by nature, is it fitting to consider as, 'this is mine, this am I, this is my self'?" "Surely not, Lord." "So also is it with feeling, perception, the activities, and consc- iousness. Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future, or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, lowly or eminent, far or near--every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight--'this is not mine; this am not I; this is not my self.' "Every feeling whatever, every perception whatever, all activities whatsoever, every consciousness whatever [must likewise be so regarded]. "Thus perceiving, brethren, the well-taught noble disciple feels disgust for body, feels disgust for feeling, for perception, for the acti- vities, for consciousness. Feeling disgust he is repelled; being repell- ed, he is freed; knowledge arises that in the freed is emancipation; so he knows, 'destroyed is rebirth; lived is the religious life; done is my task; for life in these conditions there is no hereafter.'" Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya iii.68
Mumonkan 33: Implicit in this koan is the instruction to deny not only the self but also any object of attainment--even the Buddha himself; see Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553; Sutra of Hui Neng 2, p. 90. The third of the Four Noble Truths speaks of the eradication of desire or striving, even striving after enlightenment. Compare Mumonkan 30, p. 116, which asserts the seeming opposite. Dhammapada 277-79: The self is right- ly denied because it truly does not exist; this is the Buddhist teaching on no-self (anatta). See Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553. Samyutta Nikaya iii.68: Matter (the body), sensation (feelings), cognition (perception), volition (the activities), and the consciousness which de- pends upon them are called the five aggregates (skandhas). The Buddha taught that these aggregates, which are commonly thought to constitute the self, are not the self. They are impermanent and unreal, and so is the self which is thought to consist of them. Cf. Majjhima Nikaya i.142-45, p. 929; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888; Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532.

Transformational concepts are also found in these religions. In Christianity we are told to renew our minds daily. Transform your minds from the things of this world unto the things of heaven. A transformation is very important. In my view, I would call this spiritual evolution. 

We find this concept in Hinduism and Buddhism as well as Judaism. It is a fundamental goal. To free oneself from suffering in Buddhism, one must transform. In Hinduism likewise. At this link you find Judaism and thoughts of self-transformation

I encourage all my readers to research those five areas mentioned above to learn more about how the four major religions mentioned are very similar at their core. 


Sunday, November 2, 2014

Spinoza and my views

Spinoza is an interesting character. I have to say I agree somewhat with his views of God and Law, but not the Soul.

"What God is, for Spinoza, is Nature itself—the infinite, eternal, and necessarily existing substance of the universe. God or Nature just is; and whatever else is, is “in” or a part of God or Nature. Put another way, there is only Nature and its power; and everything that happens, happens in and by Nature. There is no transcendent or even immanent supernatural deity; there is nothing whatsoever outside of or distinct from Nature and independent of its processes."
I agree with much of this paragraph except that I do think it is transcendent, but that it is all inward, internal. There is no outside force. It is an all pervading force. I also do think the spirit is a very real aspect of nature, an invisible force that does actually connect all things to each other and it is this connection that I would call God. So, while I agree nature is all there is, I think there is more to nature than we realize. 
While Spinoza's God is not one to give worship to or thanks, for myself I think it is important and humbling and does reconnect you to the wholeness of everything. You are connecting than to the spirit that is in all of us, all of nature and is the most fundamental form allowing everything to exist. 
But I do agree with his statement. "Love your fellow human beings and treat them with justice and charity. This is all that is essential to the “true religion.” Everything else is just superstition."
I would say it is Love and Compassion which is true religion and this is what is at the essence or heart of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism and when this is not practiced, it becomes a lie and any religion without Love and Compassion is a lie. 
This is what I think the Buddha meant when asked about those who do not know Buddhism and what would happen to them and he replied, 'there is no other religion.' This is because at the core, all true religions are the same. Love and Compassion. Everything else is just details that often separate us into groups. 
But we are not separate, and even the physical world which we see which looks very separate is not separate, it is all one, in my view. 
I also agree with his views on the Laws. They were written by men and passed down from generation to generation. They were written to keep order, to promote prosperity, unity, happiness, and health. In many ways, at their heart, the laws are good. But when they come into conflict with love and compassion I would have to disagree. 
I do think men are inspired by the spirit that connects all of us and all things to each other and that it is possible to becomes more intuitive about nature and life by listening to this spirit. In that sense, some of the writings which we call spiritual or religious may have come, but I do think that one has to use their good judgment.
I also find it interesting that all four major religions speak of uniting as one. In Christianity Christ says "to become one with Father as I am one."  In Buddhism and Hinduism there is also a sense of becoming one with the nothingness, or one with Nirvana. There is a sense of denying the self and becoming less selfish, less separate to live in harmony, compassion, and love as one. In Christianity we are also taught to deny ourself and We find this common thread of love, compassion and oneness in many writings of religions.
In Kabbalah we also find a writing that says, "Everything is mysteriously one." Kabbalist Lucia may have written that, but I'm not sure. 
To me it seems the essentials are Love, Compassion, and Oneness.

As far as the soul, I obviously have vastly different views from Spinoza. I think there is a spiritual essence to nature at its very fundamental fabric which is invisible much like the quantum physics of things and I think it is at this level where everything is connected and one. 
I also think that consciousness is linked or connected to this oneness, this fundamental fabric. So, we are all one physically by quantum physics, but spiritually as well. Or perhaps this fundamental vibration that pervades all things in a quantum physics sense is also what one might call the spirit, that which continues and had no beginning or end and which is everything and all of us. 
But I do think there is a essence which is you or me which does exist after physical death. Like a vibration of energy or nature's echo left behind. I do think some people are more sensitive to seeing this vibration or echo and this is what people might call a ghost or a spirit. 
How long does it linger? 

I would also say that even Christ spoke about "your body is the temple of God." So, the idea of God dwelling within isn't really a new concept. God for the most part in many teachings is in fact internal. 

Christians have heard of the "All consuming fire." Well, it is consuming ALL. That means everything and everywhere. This idea of everywhere is found in many spiritual teachings, not just Christianity. 

So, I don't think my views differ so much from true teachings actually. I think where my views differ is from what has become mainstream or polar notions which most people can understand. 

But understanding and truth are two different things and I think truth is often beyond our understanding. 

Nature and Consciousness

It is just strange to think about that right now you can contemplate this rock outside, this universe, this sun and the arm on your body and even the brain with which out of you are contemplating....and yet nothing in nature can do that expect that which has a brain (that we know of). 

Actually, I think our brains are an exact reflection of nature itself. We often hear "Is it a coincidence that maths can represent nature and our own brains are capable of maths too?"

But all the skills our brains can do can be found in nature.

We have spacial skills/intelligence, and there is space in nature to perceive.

We have kinesthetic skills and all of nature moves its particles, chemistry, biology. 

We have musical skills and nature is made of all kinds of sounds and patterns of sounds to perceive.

We have linguistic skills and nature is made up of all kinds of communication. Two hearts put next to each other will start beating in sync. Electrons perhaps communicate instantly with each other across the universe according to some studies. Even bacteria communicate. 

It seems to me that on every level of nature: Quantum, Physical, Chemistry, and Biology we can find all the skills that we find in our brains as well.

Our brains are even wired for random vs nonrandom patterns. People say creative vs logical, but that is not true. Recent studies show both sides of the brain can do both...but it is How the information is organized or coming into our brains. 

So, is it any wonder that in nature we find both random and non random processes.

We have interpersonal skills, and all of nature has relationships. Gravity is the relationship of two massive bodies. ting works because of its relationship to another thing. 

We have interpersonal skills, knowing oneself, and all of nature seems to want to duplicate itself. From DNA and even to physical things. I mean why do we have lots of water molecules, why not just one. Conformity seems important to nature. Even virtual particles (from my reading) seem to pop in and conform in a sense, because if they don't they can't remain. 

It makes sense that our brains would reflect nature since they came out of in understanding our own minds and consciousness I think we will understand more about nature too. 

So, then what of consciousness....I would like to see more studies in science actually.  

But one more thing, If our brains came from nature and are a part of nature, and our brains have consciousness...then nature in a sense is conscious -or at least a part of it, because it is a product of nature and is nature itself. 

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Why our food industry is corrupt, and Christians need to wake up

Why I disagree with shows like Duck Dynasty

I wanted to address the discussion many religious folk have about the good shows like Duck Dynasty do and I disagree. 

We need to buy meat, if we eat it, only from local markets, fresh markets, organic and range free sources. Cage free doesn't mean what you thin it means. No fast food, no mass meat products produced for mass chains like grocery stores. We need to REDUCE our consumption of meat. Or nothing will change.

The expose videos on how animals are treated is sickening. 

As those who read my blog know, I profess to be a Christian. This is because I agree with the teachings of Christ, but I clearly disagree with most Christians on most issues and this is one more. Below is how I see the popularizing of hunting shows. Clearly, I'd prefer more people join PETA. I don't think the Bible teaches us to eat meat and in fact in Genesis we can see Paradise meant living vegetarian. (Biblical reference will be last in this blog). 

My biggest problem with people eating meat is that 1) We don't honor the animal's life in this country and so we have no right to take the animal's life. 2)We consume too much. We are gluttons. We drive to fast food places and with no thought have ordered a cow or chicken on the bun. Our ancestors had to work for their meat. They didn't eat meat everyday. Hunting took time and planning and one animal would suffice for a good while.
3) Christians, Muslims, Americans, the American Government, and American Farmers are contributing to this problem of over consumption because in the religions of the west we are taught that we should "populate" and then we are taught "animals are our food". This demand for meat grows and grows partly because of these two reasons. Now, I realize many non religious people contribute to this as well, but I'm concerned about those who profess to love god, to love life, to want to practice compassion. Should we be hypocrites? We should expect more out of ourselves, from those who profess to care.

 In America this demand has been met with a supply that is corrupt by our government, media and forced pressure on farmers. The government gets loads of profit from this and so they promote this eating meat on television and by forcing farmers to mass produce.

How can such a huge demand for meat be supplied? Whenever we have a huge demand for something, the care involved of that supply becomes less, because it just is not feasible anymore to take care of it properly. This is WHY chickens went from the ground to cages, because there were just too many of them to manage. This is why their treatment now, even in Europe, is disgusting!

Until our mass consumption and demand lessens, the supply will also have to be met and this inhumane range of care will be a problem.

To counter this we have to take multiple steps.

1) If you are religious, We should be teaching about the "paradise" of the Bible and that period was vegetarian. If we are going to look at the Bible for our source of answers, then we should know well enough that Biblically speaking it was God's "plan" for us to live in paradise. People screwed it up and our nature is weak, and this is why we started eating meat and "God" allowed this, just like "God" found grace over divorce. It clearly was not God's "Intention" to have us eating meat in paradise. (Find Biblical references at end of blog)

2) We have to stop demanding so much meat. If we want to look at evolution or the Bible, our ancestors did not consume this much meat. They ate meat maybe once a week at best. They may have had fish more often. If we look to our Eastern Buddhist or Hindu friends, they don't eat as much meant and they are healthier, thinner. Let's learn!

3) Health reasons tell us we should only have red meat once a week.

4) We need more education on the ill and inhumane treatment of animals in captivity and for our "food".

5) We need to talk about this to people, about buying locally and from fresh markets. NOT from mass produced meat places like Publix, Winn Dixie and other grocery stores which simply store the meat from mass farmers which have mass supplies of cows and chickens in inhumane conditions.

BUY ORGANIC or FREE RANGE chicken instead.

Our government doesn't care!

Below is my discussion with another Christian.

While hunting on an individual basis is not completely offensive to me (more humane than keeping animals locked in cages, and allowing them to grow in their natural habitat at least) ,promoting it on television is offensive to me. Promoting hunting and popularizing hunting will only make the use of guns more popular, causing many more gun problems. More accidental shootings, people not knowing how to use a gun properly and having more guns in the house causing not only hunting accidents, but home accidents as well. 

Further in hunting many people will not be responsible. People will hunt for fun, hunt animals into endangerment, and hunt illegally, and hunt babies. People do that now, this will only make the statistics higher. 

Solving the FDA problems and animal care problems of our food industry, I feel, is not in promoting hunting shows on television. 

Yes, hunting when done responsibly is more humane than the conditions we have now.  If a family wanted to teach their children how to hunt responsibly I think that may be a fine thing. But a television show is a different thing altogether.

 It is different because anyone can watch it and not necessarily learn the facts of responsibility. It is different because you don’t necessarily have a mentor like a father teaching you properly (if he even would). It is different because it popularizes an idea and doesn’t take into account other factors. Young people are easily influenced and I’m hesitate about anything mass promoting something on television and anything with tons of money behind it (because power and greed and corruption always follows), and large corporations and governments. 

We also all don’t hunt now. Many people won’t even be able to hunt, having to travel far to get to places where it would even be legal. This leaves many areas, many people who will still rely on meat bought at stores and fast foods even if once and awhile. Meats bought at markets and at fast food places and restaurants won’t stop even if hunting becomes popular. Bought Meat won’t stop. 

The problem that has to be solved is the ill treatment of animals on farms, in captivity. To honor the life of every living thing, to have respect for every living thing. 

To have more shows on caring about animals, on animal abilities, their lives, and how they learn and live would develop a sense of compassion and concern for all living things. 

We don’t learn a sense of this by teaching people it is God’s will that animals are here for us to kill and eat. Biblically, that is not even correct. Biblically speaking God created paradise where Adam and Eve would eat as vegetarians, and it wasn’t until after the fall where people started eating meat. Just because people do it in the Old Testament or New Testament doesn’t make it right. People also divorced in the Old Testament where God said he did not like that, but he condoned it because people were hard. 

This does not mean this is God’s preference.

Further, animals are not here for our purposes only. The Bible says that if we did not worship, even the rocks would cry out. So everything is a testament to God. Even animals. They are for God, not for us. 

To rule over the animals, does not mean to kill them. It means to care for them.

The problem even is not because of the farms that hold the animals. Even as you had said, the reason is the pressure the GOVERNMENT puts on farms. So, they fall by the pressure. 

How would hunting be governed? How would areas be legal and illegal? How would everyone keep tabs on what is killed and how? Again, the government would have to be involved in mandates and laws.

So, we are back to the same problem. The government and the people’s lack of sense when it comes to animals.

PETA is an organization that promotes the care of animals. To teach to love our fellow animals. They are very much like us in many ways. The problem is not PETA fighting against shows that promote the slaughter of animals. (Which many children watch and then only develop a sense of 'all the animals are there to serve me'). 

The problem is in people needing to fight the government or farms into providing good care for our animals. To refuse to buy from farms that don’t care about the animals OR to refuse to buy meat altogether.

There would not be a problem if farms allowed the animals to roam freely and feed them properly and took proper care of them. Avoided biological or chemical engineered products. Their lives would then be honored. 

If people did not hunt, you had said animals would increase in numbers. I also wanted to address this.   Firstly, people are numbered 7 billion. 7 Billion. Think about that number. You has said, many people get sick and die. Millions from cancer. Yes. And we still have 7 billion. 

Let us compare that to how many animals die. 

 There are only 50,000 Bonobos and 200,000 Chimpanzees left. At least 4,000 Chimpanzees are killed for their meat every year. 48% of primates are in danger of going extinct. Gorillas and Orangutans are decreasing in number rapidly. 

Big cats are endangered. Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Cheetahs and others may go extinct in the next twenty years. They rare hunted for their bone remedies and meats. 

Huge numbers of bird species are becoming extinct because hunting has become a popular sport for fun and food in the Asian continent. 

I could go on and on and on about how other animals, besides humans, are decreasing in number while humans are increasing rapidly. 

Humans are not only the LARGEST group of animals alive, even if you eliminate half of our numbers, we would still be the largest number group alive. 

Let us compare 7 billion with 50,000 Bonobos living. This is the sad reality. Just think about those numbers. 

Further, we are taking up so much space, and causing so much pollution…pushing and pushing more and more animals off land that belongs to them too that this is also causing endangerment issues for many animals. 

Further, if people did not hunt, animals would not take over the worldbecause nature has a way of balancing things. Humans are the ones who throw everything out of order. Top predators would still eat the lower predators and herbivores. If there were more chickens roaming, more wolves and more smaller and big cats would have more food. They would keep the chicken population down by themselves even without our help. As top predator numbers increase, they then fight and kill each other off for the food that is available. Nature works fine on its own. 

The problem comes up because we kill the cats and wolves and then we over-populate the chickens to feed our over-population of people. We made the mess. Not nature, and not God. Nature can take care of itself just fine. It always does without us. It is when we step in when things become a mess. 

I cannot agree with some of your premises as an animal lover and even Biblically speaking and scientifically speaking, though I think you brought up some valid points which are very good, and on those single points I think I can agree.

Such as the FDA sucks. 
Such as the government should not be using chemicals or GMO in food.
Such that farms should be taking good care of animals. 
Such that hunting is a better alternative when done responsibly in comparison to the way the government runs animal food now. (But the solution to me is more complicated because to me the situation is much more complicated, and while I can agree on an individual level that this may be a better solution, I can't agree that on the mass scale or promoted on television that this would be a good solution and in fact would cause many more problems).

What does the bible say about this?

In paradise "Adam and Eve" ate from the trees and fruits. There was no meat eating until after the fall. Now whether you take this literally or symbolically, the spiritual lesson here is clear. Our spirit benefits from a vegetarian diet. Our NATURE is what is weak, our flesh, our bodies have evolved to eating meat and has lots of weakness. We like lots of things not good for us.  But like Paul tells us in scriptures, the spirit and flesh (nature) are always in opposition to each other. "What I want to do, I do not and what I do want to do, I don't do."
God by His grace overlooked Divorce and allowed this too, it doesn't make that God's ideal and should not be our ideal either. Likewise though we love eating meat, that should not be our ideal.

While vegetarianism is not a common practice in current western Christian thought and culture, the concept and practice has scriptural and historical support. According to the Bible, in the beginning, before the Fall, human and nonhuman animals, which are beings that have or are an ānima, Latin for soul,[6][7] were completely vegetarian, and "it was very good".[Genesis 1:29-31] .

We also see the soul given to all animals in Day 5 when bara is used for the creation. Rosh Hashanna also shows this in Judiasm with the 2nd blow of trumpet remembering the creation of the soul of all animals. Rosh Hashanna has 3 trumpet blows. The 1st for the creation of all things. The 2nd for the creation of the soul of animals and the 3rd for the creation of the spirit of humankind. We see this reflected in the creation story when the Hebrew word Bara is used for creation, not asah.

According to some interpretations of the Bibleraw veganism was the original diet of humankind in the form given to Adam and Eve by God in Genesis 1:29, "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat

There is strong scriptural support for ALL animals having a soul. We see this in the 7 days of creation and also in Genesis 2.

When people bring up Peter and God telling him to "Kill and Eat" they forget some important information that this was a specific lesson for Peter to learn, to go out and convert the unbelievers. This was the purpose of the dream, not to tell him to kill animals. This was not the purpose at all. It is the question of unclean meat and clean meat being used as a symbol for gentiles versus Jews  and (early Christians).

 I'll also post here from wikipedia

Luke's Acts of the Apostles portrays a story where the Apostle Peter has a vision where God declares previously unclean meat as "clean"[Acts 10:7-16] and orders Peter to "kill and eat". Christian vegetarians maintain that "Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the dream might mean".[Acts 10:17] John Vujicic argues that "In the sheet were also so called CLEAN animals. Peter could have at least selected some sheep or cattle and killed but he didn’t. Simply because he considered all flesh defiled and unclean. Peter was vegetarian as he himself states in Clementine Homilies. […] Peter would not kill any of them because he knew that this vision had another meaning […]. Any animal which is slaughtered is defiled and its meat defiles. Peter explains this in Clementine Homilies."[19] He recognized its meaning when the gentile Cornelius invited him to dinner. Peter realized that the dream was instructing him not to go out and eat meat, but to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Jewish dietary laws should not prevent the spread of Christianity, and, at Cornelius' dinner, Peter related to his hosts, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."[Acts 10:28][20]

What about when people say Paul said those of weak faith are vegetarians. Remember Paul was talking about meat that was offered to idols and new Christians didn't want to eat something offered to an idol. It had nothing to do with compassion for animals. This had to do with Paul teaching the new Christians that eating meat offered to an idol doesn't defile you.

Wiki reference:  Within the Bible'New Testament, the Apostle Paul appears to ridicule vegetarians, arguing that people of "weak faith" "eat only vegetables",[Romans 14:1–4] But when you actually study this verse and context you can understand it doesn't have to do with meat eaters versus vegetarians. The context is Very important here. 
He also warns believers to "stop passing judgment on one another" when it comes to food in verse 13 and "[It is] good neither to eat flesh" in verse 21. Paul also said, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They […] order […] to abstain from certain foods".[1Timothy 4:1–3] 
 Paul was not referring to vegetarianism, which was not an issue in those times, but to the practice of not eating meat from the meat market because of fear that (like the above issue involving Daniel) it were sacrificed to an idol.[1Corinthians 10:19-29][20] "Wherefore, if meat [brōma, Strong's #1033,[22] 'anything used as food'[23]] make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."[1Corinthians 8:13]

Within Luke's Acts of the Apostles, he recounts that the Jerusalem Council recommended (at least for Gentile Christians) abstention "from things strangled, and from blood".[Acts 15:19–20] Vegetarianism appears to have been a point of contention within early Christian circles.

Further we have an old Testament scripture where God gave manna and it would become anything the people waned, and they lusted for meat and so God killed them.

On the other hand we do have Christ giving fish to the people. However, I would argue that fish and mammals are very different and mammals have emotional capabilities whereas fish do not. Fish do suffer physical pain though and should still be killed humanely and live a natural life.

In my opinion fish are healthier to eat as well, than compared to chickens or cows. But this giving of fish again, needs to be taken into context. The fish were not kept in water pools for the sole purpose of being our food. They lived in the oceans, as a mutually beneficially part of nature.

But again, this is after the fall and "God" is being gracious with our natural weaknesses.

I truly do not think that God wants us to live on meat and in the paradise hereafter I really don't think we will be eating meat either, just as "Adam and Eve" did not in Paradise. This stage after the fall and before heaven is an in between place, where our nature is with us just as much as our spirit, and so we will constantly stubble between the two...and that means have all our natural weaknesses as well (which to me symbolically came from the fall, but literally came from evolution).

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)