Should atheism be an organized movement?

lol A financial adviser would be the first to admit they ain't everybody, for legal reasons primarily. :-D

No matter how one defines any, any is still only of every, not every. It is any body that it is, not every body. You want to draw a distinction between the self and the body, but even the self cannot draw one! lol

You want everybody to mean everyone, ( all selves ) and it does, and every body to mean every thing, which it does. Every thing is everything, not any thing. The self is a thing. Being is a thing. Becoming is a thing. Selves are things. Everything is a thing! lol Every 'body' does not die. It's funny, you and I both know existence is inherent, I don't know what you could possibly have against my expression. :-D

I was joking! I wouldn't have you disown yourself! I'd have the utter opposite! That's why I say the self is its body always no matter that it exceeds it in conception.

Creation may have you, but I've yet to see its 'claim' on you. :-D

-D) Reaching for more significance is not leaving what is already significant behind. So no, you may not be so cold.

Not saying it is. Realization needn't be spoken for, remember?! :-D

Of course not. I personally prefer to think on my feet, that's all, and love to see others who do too.

I understand that. Words for me are not solid either, being a painter of them. You too, someday, will remember what I have said because of how I have said it. :-D

lol Big 'claim'! Love is not permitted its own growth?! Love is its own condition, just like life, but this doesn't prevent them being eachothers condition. Everything changes. Everything does not stand still. Everything does not die.

That you would teach? You would use a teaching aid? Why not just love directly knowing there is no disparate self?

Ice is a sort of warmth, relatively speaking. ;-D

I allow you all the warmth you want you big dope! You see, ( or maybe you honestly don't! ) I see the condition of your love.

My love, as its own condition, is nevertheless conditional on my life. If I die, you're going to have to make do with remembering me. :-D

 

I am not your body but I am present in it. The body is symbol of limitation and proof of separateness to those who believe separation is possible.

I want nothing, my feelings are to share. Words are symbols of conditionality
not the conditions themselves. As far as conditional events, their parameters are defined solely by the observer or speaker of conditions, that is the observer determines or influences the outcome of the experiment.

I am loved.

Love being without condition is beyond what can be taught.

Condition means to speak with. You can allude to it but you cannot define it being, unconditional. Loves recognition is conditional on focus but you needn't nor can you speak love into being, although we may speak of love.

Agreed, every body dies.

Love is beyond what can be taught, but we can remove the barriers we have erected against the perception of it. Love does not overcome things but it makes all things right.

Your right, the frost on the inside of the window does comfort in the respect that you at least have a window.

I know I would not seek to contain it through description.

That is so now as I reflect on your past in these pages.

 

thedope:

Symbol, not proof.

You don't want to share? Not being able to help but do so is something else. All events are conditional. There is no eventuality without condition.

Your claim to being claimed stands.

As you've found out from trying to teach me? :-D

I completely disagree.

Needn't, no, but there is nothing we can't invoke in ourselves.

Not in the slightest. Everything is a thing. What doesn't take form?

Would you ever agree to disagree?!

That's like saying love is not loving, that it is never in itself instructive. Love is beyond nothing. Love is given its condition. How could it be without it?

You said once that love supports all action. I'd live to see that, but don't ask me to believe it.

Cold.

I think you're here unwittingly limiting what may be described as description. :-D

Remembrance is a pity where we don't also behold...

I'll be here later in the week.

 

So convincing to some that they would swear that they were their bodies.

I do share. Is life unworthy if it is uneventful? Nothing has ever occurred in this life to alter in the slightest that thing that is indelibly me. The child that awoke in my earliest memories is the same child that awakens today. There was time when I thought that child had been irreparably spoiled by an all too eventful life. I got over the accusations. I got over the idea that I was responsible for events or that events had a way of altering pieces of myself.
Events are descriptions arising from the conceptual machinery of the mind and their conscripts are chosen for the sole purpose of providing support for a narrative of life . That is, for the sake of conversation. There are no events outside of conditional descriptions, only current emergence.

What is the reason for eventuality? Same question as what is the reason for time. That we may be able to determine results where there are none and in so doing we precipitate bones from the ethereal.

And that claim is, I am loved.

So far I have managed to expose your colder side so that it too may know your warmth. The barriers that we erect against the perception of love do not appear as barriers but always appear as just, that is, we must condemn in order to justify our unwillingness to forgive, which ultimately is the realization that there is nothing, no eventful thing, to forgive.

Is that your description?

God is that which we invoke.

I was just playing but, the unbidden .

I would never abandon you in disagreement.

Love can be shared, but not taught. Love doesn't take sides because it stands in opposition to nothing and supports everything.

I don't recall ever asking you to believe anything.

I am now confused on this issue. Is it cold or relative warmth?

Witless then.

Would you take joy hostage, to be beholding to you?

I'll be here for the duration.

 

thedope:

You don't mention those who swear they're their bodies because they know they are more than them? The body doesn't only speak of limits.

I know you share, and you want to, whether you know it or not.
Life is the only event of worth. Love, the idea, is the valuing, is judgement. A generous question, that of asking to what end anything should eventuate. ;-D Your answer to why there is time is so that we may end it. What I had to add was "in mind". Would you end time in the body? It's impossible, just like nothing is. Your attempt to make sense of saying everybody dies by having it 'every body dies' remains the attempt. I understand what is meant when it is said conversation is more refreshing than light. Is the ethereal ethereal for a reason too?! Why precipitate a bone? Would you adduce a skeleton? We flesh these things out or not at all.

By who? That your familiars do, that I do, that many, many others do too, - means nothing! Whose claims are whose?! Like a sea of shoes! Creation has no claim on you, all that matters is that you love.

But there you are building a barrier! Our unwillingness to forgive in continuing to condemn is not utimately the realization that there's nothing to forgive, but only results in it. There are better ways to get the same result, the difference being we can also be left with everyone to love :-D I'm a hard man when it comes to words. No-one will ever be my colder side.

No, but you could imagine it couldn't you?

eg:

thedope: Condition means to speak with. You can allude to it but you cannot define it being, unconditional.

Dejavu: I completely disagree.

thedope: Is that your description?

Dejavu: You say condition cannot be defined, only alluded to, because it is unconditional? Condition is conditional. But you're not claiming condition is unconditional? Rather you claim a special case for love; that it is without condition. I ask how love can ever be without its condition, without itself, simply without. Now let's never speak of this again until we do.

I wish you'd say what you mean by god. I've always thought you meant good, but who'd know? God?

So now you're not playing? :-D

the unbidden doesn't take form? I hardly call it the unbidden then. It just mustn't be the going thing. Even the blob had more appeal.

For real though, I hear you. Life doesn't work out, or in for that matter, as a horror show.

We would never agree to abandon anyone. We share a vision, we even share expression, ---I can't agree that every body must die. Belief in joy is not the same thing as the fear of pain.

Love can be taught, the distinction you seek ( yes, seek ) is that it always finds individual expression. It supports everyone, not everything.

No, and it's not important. Just like my belief in you. Which is why I ask - do you insist that every body dies? I don't insist that every body doesn't. My belief in the matter gets drafted as opinion.

As you like it.

I doubt it.

I know you're not trying to insult me. :-D All that is 'beholden unto me' is the knowledge that we don't mind being held hostage by joy, for all that we fear our longing may amount to. Joy loves to say: "take me, or else nothing!" lol

I hope that's not a sentence. The punctuation is off-putting. Whatever, it's an infinite improvement on saying you're already gone.

 

The body less than all them?

I would call life invaluable. There is a difference between valuing something and evaluating it. If you attempt to evaluate loves' position then you miss it's value in every instance. There are no degrees love to evaluate, all expressions of love are maximal.

Nothing is impossible. The body has no time that is not borrowed.

Not for me but then I regard the word death being as being a condition we only observe in life, not a consequence of life.

No. It is ethereal only in relation to those who must have their pound of flesh.

Not a bone but, indeed.

It is not my idea as I recall. the body is supported by the skeleton. Far from fleshing things out, we dabble.

Magnanimous intent.

Exactly! No condition to teach.

If love is matter then it must have some specific gravity, what is it?

The statement, "there are better ways to get the same result", is a barrier to understanding. There is a universal curriculum that is taught in many forms and common vernaculars and no one is better than the other as all are suitable to the time and purpose.

The lesson of forgiveness ends with the opening of the mind as is it's purpose. The antecedent of forgiveness is evaluation. As to measure of difficulty, the practice of forgiveness is a quick and easydoor to realization as we are liberated form the strain of perpetual arbitration and our mind becomes warm to the pace and expanse of freedom.

 

No, exceeded in conception.

No difference. Life is invaluable because it alone is of value. As for valuing, loving, well...wait, what was that about missing loves value in every instance? Condition your love this instant! :-D

That's what I was saying.

The 'word' death? I don't believe death is either of those.

Everyone?

Not so fast! lol

Life!

You weren't kidding when you said you were tired of taste? I did say "better ways to get the same result, the difference being we can also be left with everyone to love"

When? Now? No better time, but still, when? :-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0s6QXK3eyI"]B.U.G. K.A.N.N. - 9MM ( VIP SPECIAL ) 1995 - YouTube

lol

 

I used to think so but I am relieved to discover that I cannot and no longer imagine myself, without.

No I mean to say that love cannot be defined because t is unconditional.

My claim is that being without condition it is the sponsor of all conditions or conversely there is no condition that prohibits love.

To me, god is informative and in-formation, itself transcending and preceding the appearance of all form. The thought, that comes first, or that which we invoke.

I am always joking, seriously.

This is important.
There is a whole class of word symbols that have no objective constituents in reality. These are no, non, not, and un, and I may have missed some. A misunderstanding is not in fact understanding in the common sense. A misunderstanding does not produce large resonance because it attunes to nothing existing. It is not debilitating in a real sense, as it remains without meaningful substance and does not harm or perturb the fabric of reality.

Then it is not taught but exposed by current emergence and it sponsors every emergence.

So that we do not die with it. It is a measure of identification. I am immune to dissolution of the body although it occurs. Although dissolution of a body may occur, it is not the dissolution of all bodies and I am not a body, I am free.

As others opine upon my statements. I claim no special gift, it is expedient to consistent theory.

Joy would deny no experience to the one mind.

I have nail fungus.

 

I made a distinction between evaluating and valuing. Evaluating leads to the experience of uneven values. Valuing is always consistent with itself, no one is without this virtue.

What do my tastes or sensations have to do with loving anyone? Is your verdict then that I am without some measure of love?

Love does not wait on time, but invitation.

 

So you do? Insist that every body dies, so that we don't die with them? lol Or just your own so you don't die with it? I can't follow you there wherever it is you'd have me understand you on this point. :-D

But it's of no importance, like your formless unbidden whatsit. ;-D

Theory is consistently theory. Just don't go practising your disembodiment. I'm one of those idiots that cares about you.

 

I don't make that distinction.

Everything! My verdict is that you lack nothing of love. Which is why I expect you ( at any moment ) to get over your fixation that matter has to 'die'. I don't know where you picked that up, but you should put it back. :-D

True, sometimes its very own. :-D

 

My point is not to be too attached because molecular bonds break. Many find grief at the passing of the body.

Is that observation something of value then?

If I were to stop writing you would find our bodies at an impossible distance to relate to.

 

Grief is not reason enough for me. There is no 'after' life except in others, and then only during life.

Comparitively, yes. You won't agree, as you would have evaluation something 'other' to valuing. For example, your observation that every body dies - isn't one. That matter breaks down doesn't mean it has to, only that it can.

Really? They say it's the thought that counts.

Nothing is without its condition.

I don't believe it. Everything takes form. Your god sounds like 'the unbidden'! :-D

We're free because we are our bodies. What we are free for relates to the self. Like you say, if you'd never had a body, you'd never have missed it. :-D

I hope you overcome it.

 

Why?

 

Interesting read thus far.
I don't feel that love is something you "do" or give or take. Love is beyond our power to direct and control. What do we do have power over is the choice to "allow" love in our lives. Love isn't focused, it emanates. Love that is beyond condition, love that is truly life changing and unfolding only need be allowed to emanate and the rest takes care of itself.

Emanation covers and effects all within it's influence, the vehicle of emanation has no choice over who is or isn't receiving love, we are merely opportunities for emanation.

Love doesn't exist in the past and knows nothing of the future, but is forever emerging into the present.

At least that's sorta kinda how I think about it.
Sorry to interrupt, carry on.
:lurk5:

 

thedope:

Doesn't it make your fingernails fall out?


Noxiousgas:

Ahhhh, the efflating emanations of Noxiousgas ;-D

Do you really feel lifes emanating love places it beyond condition?! Love is always something we do and have and give and want, it's how we allow it.

 

No, but what if it did?

Although the most common state of matter is a form, plasma like gas, has no distinct shape or volume, (form), unless it is contained.

One conjugation of the word form,
basic structure: the shape or structure of a thing that gives it its distinctive character, considered apart from its content, color, texture, or composition.

I told you that there are other platforms that we may engage in besides, the body, and that they were expressed in terms of intensity rather than solid shape. The word formless obviously has no meaning as existing without form, but it does have meaning as disorganized or confused, which is why many consider the world emerges from chaos.

 

thedope:

You'd have to say goodbye to manicures I suppose.

"Considered apart from" LOL

Yes you did tell me that. I'm still not really sure why, when we engage in nothing without the body.

The world can and does emerge from confusion. That it emerges from itself is something we could get to understand in ourselves. :-D

 

Why does the statement, I have nail fungus, represent some form of lack to you?

Yes by definition such considerations exist and this is akin to my statement that form can be confused with content and vice versa.

What body?

Confusion being some kind of creator?

I did not create myself although I express myself.

 

thedope:

lol Far from it, it represents some form of growth. An unwanted one though, no?!

Form is content, just as formlessness is void. But we've had this discussion before, like the one about perception being knowledge, you insisting that it only leads to knowledge. Is there further understanding for either of us on these matters to be resolved in 'words'?

The one growing nail fungus for a start. By way of extension though, try the universe. Don't worry that you may not at first feel yourself able to take in infinity. Just remember you're a part of it. The thought comes, not first, not finally, but comes. Inexorability itself. If you need further reassurances, I offer up this: - The only way consciousness can cope with it is through joy.

Even chaos has its condition. Creation is not necessarily a conscious action. It loves to be though! :-D

Not to begin with, but you do now. No need to be shy.