Webs & RC car

[Justisaur]

Two different dreams from different days. I didn't post "webs" as I
only remember a snippet, it must've been several weeks now.

"Webs"

I was walking into my house, I see a number of 'webs' for lack of a
better term. They are each about as thick as my forearm, they look to
be made of black licorice candy with a sort of splatter at each anchor
point, each is a single strand, not actually web shaped, they also have
an uneven shape as though they were made out of string cheese which had
been stretched far enough to start splitting, but then melted back into
a slightly blob like shape, or perhaps a bit like cave rocks. It's hard
to describe, but I could draw it easily enough.

Each is diagonal anchored on a wall and the floor or ceiling. There's
one anchored on the door frame and diagonally on the floor further into
the room, and a good number further in the house to make it appear webbed.

I'm moving into the house with some trepidation, and feeling anxious,
wondering what monster did this, or is it fungus, or some horrible
prank. I get the impression I'm 20's female of slight build and
bookish, perhaps wearing glasses (I'm not either) and crouched a bit,
and that my wife is besides and behind me.

There's some yellow flickering light, almost a miasma within the house
as though illuminated by candles or a fire. I also get the impression
there's police around and the outside is taped off.

At that point I wake.

I just remembered now I had moved up to the police and had had asked
"what's going on?" and they'd said something like "We're investigating
Ma'am." I said "That's my house!" in a loud but not yelling voice with
some frustration. I move past the police, who seem to be standing about
ineffectually, and brushed aside the tape - where the description began.



"RC Car"

Once again at my kid's school. I park in the nearly full parking lot,
which is much larger than my kid's school. My wife is with me
semi-following to the right, a building on the left. We seem to be
trying to walk through the school, as if to get home (With the physical
configuration of the real school that wouldn't be possible, and it makes
no sense to park at the school to go home) and we're chit chatting
nothing of import about what I don't remember.

I find I'm driving an RC car a few feet in front of me. There's a bunch
of brown things on the sidewalk that I'm having trouble navigating the
car through. They look sort of like chunks of tire with the steel
threads in them other than being the color and size of wood chips.

I have a black remote control, the car appears to be made of a a number
of blocks of blue white and black, perhaps Legos with some curved pieces
on top to make it look more car like. It's about 5 or 6 inches wide. I
seem to be looking down on it from very high, perhaps I'm much taller
than normal.

I feel my wife move past me as I'm futzing around with trying to drive
the car through the chips, I look up after a few moments.

I look up and don't see my wife, I look around and see see an elderly
black man wearing a cloth fedora with a pattern that looks 40 years old,
yellow-beige with thin dashed lines of blue and red. He has white
stubble and a bit of white and is healthily thin. He's wearing slacks,
has dress shoes somewhat worn and a button up short sleeve shirt, also
with a dotted line pattern. His arms are draped on the bench he sits
on. He nods in the direction in which we were headed as if to say "over
there." I look over there, there's a shadowy figure on a side walk a
good couple hundred feet away. Thinking about him now still is giving
me the shivers.

He is in all black wearing a hat and trench coat of the kind an old 60's
cartoon spy might wear. He's a little thick around the middle. I can't
make out the face. His hands are in his pockets. His head is all fuzzy
as if made of shadow-stuff. He's pacing slowly back and forth. I want
to know what he's done with my wife. He stops to face in my direction,
but without apparent recognition.

I hop feet first in the pool to the right (no pool at my kid's school,
and I don't think had been there a moment ago) to escape his gaze.

The following is 10/10 clear as being awake:

I see myself from out of body a few feet away in the pool ramrod
straight fully submerged. I'm not myself though. I'm a thicker black
man, about mid way between line backer and tight end, of milk chocolate
complexion (I'm white) maybe in his 40s, with a widow's peak of tight
curls, floating up a bit in the back to make a sort of W. He has a short
mustache and roundish face, which reminds me a bit of an amalgam of Key
& Peel, and a hulking meathead of an old college friend I had a falling
out with. I'm wearing one of my favorite shirts, a short sleeve autumn
green with large boxes of dark blue dashed thread, and breast pockets.

The pool is well illuminated by the sun and clear, I see a few bubbles
around 'me'. I'm going through some strange expressions, concentrating
to look toward the shadowy man though still underwater Then shifting to
look back. I get the feeling of tightness in the chest from holding my
breath. I'm holding my arms straight against my body and my legs
straight out as if standing, but I'm obviously floating underwater a
half-foot at a slight angle. I'm not struggling.

I wake up.

Looking back on it the angle and the fact I was holding my arms and legs
like that was very odd, almost as if a force was keeping them there, but
I wasn't struggling and didn't feel any such force. It's very odd I was
able to keep underwater and somehow turn to look back without otherwise
moving, though I get the impression I was moving my hands like fins to
do so, only I moved as if turning around quickly out of the water.

I've never dreamt I was a black man that I can remember, nor so large as
that. Seeing myself from the outside clearly like that is very unusual
too. Usually when I see myself at all from the outside it's more like
an impression of a memory or just an awareness of what I look like and
very dreamlike.

Seeing myself as a woman isn't common, but has happened, usually it has
no real impact on the dream, perhaps on this occasion it is just
representing the vulnerability and trepidation I was feeling in the
dream. I might have even been my normal waking 'me' before I started to
enter the house.

I imagine the 'webs' dream was about the state of our house which I
haven't been able to do much about due to a variety of factors, and
which is constantly angering and stressing me out.

The only thing I have any idea about in the 'RC Car' is that I was rear
ended last weekend, and my car was taken away by the insurance company,
as it was totaled. That seems very tangential to the dream though. Also
the neighbor's wood chips were washing down the sidewalk in the rain a
couple days ago and I had some trouble navigating them when I was
walking my dog. Hmm, the RC car could represent my little dog.

[Justisaur]

Two different dreams from different days. I didn't post "webs" as I
only remember a snippet, it must've been several weeks now.
"Webs"
I was walking into my house, I see a number of 'webs' for lack of a
better term. They are each about as thick as my forearm, they look to
be made of black licorice candy with a sort of splatter at each anchor
point, each is a single strand, not actually web shaped, they also have

<snip>

There's some yellow flickering light, almost a miasma within the house
as though illuminated by candles or a fire. I also get the impression
there's police around and the outside is taped off.
At that point I wake.
I just remembered now I had moved up to the police and had had asked
"what's going on?" and they'd said something like "We're investigating
Ma'am." I said "That's my house!" in a loud but not yelling voice with
some frustration. I move past the police, who seem to be standing about
ineffectually, and brushed aside the tape - where the description began.
"RC Car"

<snip>

I've never dreamt I was a black man that I can remember, nor so large as
that. Seeing myself from the outside clearly like that is very unusual
too. Usually when I see myself at all from the outside it's more like
an impression of a memory or just an awareness of what I look like and
very dreamlike.
Seeing myself as a woman isn't common, but has happened, usually it has
no real impact on the dream, perhaps on this occasion it is just
representing the vulnerability and trepidation I was feeling in the
dream. I might have even been my normal waking 'me' before I started to
enter the house.
I imagine the 'webs' dream was about the state of our house which I
haven't been able to do much about due to a variety of factors, and
which is constantly angering and stressing me out.
The only thing I have any idea about in the 'RC Car' is that I was rear
ended last weekend, and my car was taken away by the insurance company,
as it was totaled. That seems very tangential to the dream though. Also
the neighbor's wood chips were washing down the sidewalk in the rain a
couple days ago and I had some trouble navigating them when I was
walking my dog. Hmm, the RC car could represent my little dog.

<snip>
So the content of those dreams is *very rich* in that they convey a LOT of "rich detail," such that comprises a LOT of the "quantum realities" of your life.
I enjoy reading the experiences of being "other than" your current life form. I've been through a few of those myself.
The best I can *recommend* is that you *keep* an active dream journal throughout your days on earth. These "patterns" may be used by future analysts in order to "establish patterns and precepts" that may help with dream interpretation in the future. (It may also help you to better understand your *own* dreams in like manner!)

I'm not actually sure I even like remembering my dreams. I did used to
remember a lot more and make an effort to remember them when I was
young. For some time I've not really thought much about it and let them
fade as is the default human condition. Looking upon my old haunts on
Usenet with the soon to be dismantling of GG brought me back to them.

Is it even helpful to remember and analyze them. I don't know. There
is some entertainment to be had from them, but it also feels somehow
wrong in a way I can't put my finger on.

The time to write in the morning is difficult to find during the week as
well.

Here's a little something about "Webs": it ***could*** be that the black stuff represents "evil" structures that have set up a "stronghold" within your life.

Quite possible. Things I want to change, but am otherwise hopeless about.

The way to rid yourself of them (to get "clean dreams" again) is through an ongoing relationship with Jesus (in fellowship with the Holy Spirit, as some folk put it.)

tinyurl.com/ITTA-TCoU (and let me know what it means to you afterward.)

I'm an agnostic Californian as you so put it so venomously in another
reply. I've had exposure to a number of religions growing up, I find
good and bad in all of them, even atheism such as it is or isn't a
religion.

The only thing that's really stuck with me is what my grandfather taught
me in his self proclaimed religion of the "Brick church" which is to
follow the golden rule of "Do onto others as you would have them do unto
you." Which is basically what your link is about.

Even that is difficult follow ethically, as there are things others
would want done to them that I wouldn't and vice versa and etcettera.
and it's easy to justify certain things that are otherwise self
evidently wrong with it.

He also taught me "Everything in moderation." Which I also believe where
it can apply, but I don't remember finding that in any religion.

The other thing organized religion has is community and co-operation,
which is a huge flaw of atheism. There's been attempts, but I'd say
they're largely failures and suffer from taking opposite stances from
rebelling against Christianity specifically rather than forging
something without such prejudices.

I've managed to find community and co-operation elsewhere, but it's
crumbled under changes especially those brought by the lockdowns of Covid.

I find evangelization distasteful, rude, and fails the golden rule in my
case. Would you want someone trying to convert you to another religion?
If so then I'll happily send you all the atheist links I come across.
Otherwise I will will expect to be treated in kind. I will no longer
reply to such attempts, even doing so this once is against my better
judgement, but you seem otherwise cordial and I'll forgive the severe
breach of etiquette this once.

[Richard Silk]

Using the "old school" in-line reply technique, J wrote:> "I'm not actually sure I even like remembering my dreams."

Whatever one may think, say or do *is* one's *own* business (per the 10ᵗʰ Commandment, Exodus 20:17.)

However, I'll present to you the "what if?" scenario: What *if* one could A) learn to control one's dream (in essence, control one's life) and thereby B) have a direct (preferably positive) consequence *on* one's dreams / life? IF such were possible, *then* one's life could begin to reveal much greater light to the world of darkness, poetically speaking, as it were.

To that end, here's a link to what I call the "Right Eye First" technique, that I developed decades ago (and first posted here in alt.dreams) which has had various (mostly positive!) responses / feedback!

tinyurl.com/RightEyeFirstTechnique

I'm personally working on "brevity" by using links to avoid re-typing the same information over and over again (a bit like sharing a cooking recipe using cut & paste, but with a link.)

Meanwhile, many, *many* people try to share their own, personal tips on what brings "happiness" (or "meaning") into existence. That above link is simply a *physiological technique* that appears to function on *most people!* that is designed to instantly trigger REM phase, and to *aid* in dream recall.

But "happiness" / "meaning"?

Hmmmm.... well, my life was pure, prodigal garbage at one point, so I decided to "change role models" from what *I* wanted to what someone *else* was able to achieve. OK, so who then to pick as "the" role model? Someone who *never* lost, and even in the one event were it appeared all was lost, was actually the key moment of victory?

(I suspect you can "hear" where this is going.)

OK, so then I started *questioning intently* as to *why* that particular role model should be (or "is") preferable to all others? Well, to answer that, I had to start questioning the words recorded of what the person taught. In order to do that, I had to *discard ALL* of what "other folk" said about what X actually "means," and question the words recorded directly.

(Again, I suspect you can "hear" where this is going. However, what I'm sharing here is the *process* of investigation, query, study, analysis, result/consequence.)

So OK, I've got this "Concept 1" that I pick as the "new standard" by which to start applying my life, the standard(s) by which I treat others, and more importantly, the "template" with which I filter my words that they may be meaningful to the reader / listener.

Now comes the "important part," that is, picking an "antithesis" to "Concept 1," which was the *real* trick indeed! I can tell you more about that "journey," but unless you have any actual interest, there may be no actual "point" to sharing it.

So again, *to be brief,* I put the journey into a children's level story which (I believe) brings out the *point* that "Reality Conforms to Thought." (Now apply that to the reality of "Light" and "darkness" and you may *possibly* begin to "get the picture.")

That's the whole purpose to the link: tinyurl.com/ITTA-TCoU

J:> "I did [use] to remember a lot more and make an effort to remember them when I was young. For some time I've not really thought much about it and let them fade as is the default human condition. Looking upon my old haunts on Usenet with the soon to be dismantling of GG brought me back to them."

Ditto. I remember back when I was just learning to understand that people dream (as a youth of around 3 or 4) that I tried to remember them all as well. To this day, I can remember some *very old* dreams (dreams from *long ago*) with fairly decent clarity (like the two-story hay bales with a hatch between the floors) although I started noticing *in my adult year* that certain dreams seemed to have a "real life analog" that occurred typically within 24 to 48 hours. (Then came the "out of body" / "astral body projection" experiences, and that *really* piqued my interest!)

So when I discovered alt.dreams, well, it seemed like practically a "god send" that I could *journal* the dreams, then see if any of them actually *did* "come true" in real life.

ONE such dream of significance *may* be found by looking back at July 25th (and for whatever reason I have trouble remembering the year, possibly mid-to-late '90s, certainly no later than 2004) wherein I posted a dream of being a female about to give birth, the feeling of trying to pass a bowling ball from inside my pelvic bone to the outside, and that if I squeezed one more time, something was going to "break." I posted that dream, then later that afternoon, my nephew was born (at least a full week or more ahead of his due date, somewhere in August.)

J:> "Is it even helpful to remember and analyze them. I don't know."

The dream I had of October 7th of 2023 was rather amazing, but by the time I'd posted it, apparently, the news of the invasion of Israel from the Gaza strip was already world news. It doesn't matter that I posted the dream *before* turning on the news: the news went public *at about the time* I was having the dream. (It's the idea of posting a dream *before* an event occurs that I find a fascinating possibility.)

J:> "There is some entertainment to be had from them, but it also feels somehow wrong in a way I can't put my finger on."

Well, I *sorta* get that. It's the near anonymity of alt.dreams that I appreciate: Sure, I can post some *wild* stuff that would *normally* get a person "committed" (back before the Left dumped out all the criminally insane into the streets as homeless addicts) but in alt.dreams, it's simply "just a dream," and as such, open to speculation / interpretation (even ridicule, but fortunately, there's been none of that visible in all the years I've been posting here. The "bad folk" tend to simply disappear, and only the auto-spammers leave any actual "defecation" in the space.)

Other than that, I am unable to see anything "wrong" about posting dreams. To me, it's analogous with the public "block chain" that's the core engine of bit-coin technology.

Here's an example of avoiding judgment: Say someone has a dislike, aversion, or even a hatred of firearms (anti-2nd-Amendment folk): they blame the cop(s) whenever a criminal (or even an innocent person) gets shot dead. Then, when some insane person goes on a killing spree, the *very same* people *blame the guns*. (In essence, blamers blame, judgers judge, haters hate, etc.)

Now look at the oxymoron of the phrase "gun violence": no gun is capable of "violence" as that is a *human* quality. *People* are either law-abiding, peace-loving, life-protecting, *or* criminally violent. It has *nothing* to do with "guns."

So if someone wants to "ban all guns," then who will have them? Those who *disobey* the law (eventually, the tyrants.) THEN where will you be? So if guns get banned, then people start using swords, knives, baseball bats, even rocks to defend themselves *if* they are life-protecting/life-defending, yet the criminally ill / violent use the same things to kill.

So where's the "point of peace" between these two sides? Simple: "Judge NOT—"

Is [X] "right" or "wrong"? No judgment. Feel the peace of that position?

J:> "The time to write in the morning is difficult to find during the week as well."

I get that too. Fortunately, my full-time "job" is caring for my elderly mother, so I basically am at the keyboard as much as humanly possible (between times of "activity" and/or rest/sleeping.)

The "method" I've adopted is to simply *find* time to post when there's a dream "worth the time / interest" to journal (to type up.) Otherwise, sure, I have other things I could be doing.

Then, when "tuning into" alt.dreams, it helps to take the time to reply to others *before* writing up whatever brought me here in the first place. That way, others get listened to / interacted with, *and* whatever brought me here gets tended to (finally) at the end.

RCS:> Here's a little something about "Webs": it ***could*** be that the black stuff represents "evil" structures that have set up a "stronghold" within your life.

J:> "Quite possible. Things I want to change, but am otherwise hopeless about."

I'd like to offer you some direct input to encourage you as to what is possible, but I've skimmed through some of what's to follow, and will just say for now: "Reality Conforms to Thought." (See also: Matthew 19:26!)

If you'd like to try to disprove that (that "Reality Conforms to Thought") it is exceptionally simple to show how trying to disprove it only proves it more clearly.

From there, you may begin to think of ways to "change your reality" as your reality begins conforming to your thought. (It's a bit of a process, like learning any skill that takes time to master.)

RCS:> The way to rid yourself of them (to get "clean dreams" again) is through an ongoing relationship with Jesus (in fellowship with the Holy Spirit, as some folk put it.)

RCS:> Here's a link you may wish to read on your own:
tinyurl.com/ITTA-TCoU (and let me know what it means to you afterward.)

J:> "I'm an agnostic Californian as you so put it so venomously in another reply."

*** Excuse me? *** Please feel free to post a link to wherever that reference is allegedly supported.

I have a really peculiar form of "dain bramage": I reply to what I see before my eyes, and do all I can to *avoid* accusing or labeling (or judging or condemning) someone as any type of condition or position.

I may have *asked* or *opined* a "feeling" or "potential" of that condition—
*Is the term "agnostic Californian" something resonant or denied?*
I *do* seem to recall some type of images of homeless folk on sidewalks. *Much* (not "all") of California appears to be run by agnostics or atheists these days. At least, that's how it appears in all forms of nightly news: Fox says it "out loud" while those MSM type outlets say it tacitly (by "not" saying it, or by "looking/pointing away from" the conditions that *public, government/governing policies* are causing.)

J:> "I've had exposure to a number of religions growing up, I find good and bad in all of them, even atheism such as it is or isn't a religion."

My Indiana cousins (whom I deeply cherished in my youth) told me "There's a little bit of truth in every religion, but no religion has all the truth."

Turns out, one may argue either "for" *or* "against" that particular adage / axiom. It's possible to show how Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity *reveals* that which *is perfectly TRUE* ("Is-based ideology") while Islam *is NOT* Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity.
(Language = LOGOS = LOGIC = meaning, in binary: 1|0; in Logic: T|F; in much religion: "Good|evil"' in art, "contrast," etc.)
(See also: tinyurl.com/Q-DJ-Boolean-IBI-NBI )

Funny thing about atheism: the structure of "there is no god" sets the value of [g=0] — reflecting the logically FALSE condition.

To state that God *is* Love ❤️ reveals that G=❤️=1, the logically, perfectly TRUE expression.

(Again, this may be explained in full, but that can wait until requested.)

J:> "The only thing that's really stuck with me is what my grandfather taught me in his [self-proclaimed] religion of the "Brick church" which is to follow the golden rule of 'Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.' Which is basically what your link is about."

Trying to follow that: a "Brick church" is the *consequence* of enough *people* congregating together as a common mind (as in Baptism into the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ) which is yet another example of how "Reality Conforms to Thought": as the congregation grows, the meeting in homes migrates to meeting in a common location which migrates to the building of a "Brick church" (etc.)

The "Golden Rule" comes from:
biblehub.com/matthew/7-12.htm "The Golden Rule": "In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets."

(For pseudo-authoritarians): Feel free to do yourself for others as you tell others to do for you.
(That last line is something that just "came to me" one day)
};^>

The *easiest* / clearest way I know how to explain that particular principle is through Matthew 7:1–2, which reads:
1 Judge NOT that ye be not judged.
[which simply states that one avoids judgment by NOT judging, just as one avoids the act of speeding by NOT speeding.]
2 For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Thus, my personal choice to *strenuously avoid* labeling, accusing, judging or condemning others.

J:> "Even that is difficult [to] follow ethically, as there are things others would want done to them that I wouldn't and vice versa and [et cetera.]

OK, so let's put "ethics" aside for the moment: The issue is for the individual to treat (do unto) others *as* one would have others do to the individual.

That is, let's reduce it to the binary choice: would you want others to 1) help you live, or 0) bring about your death?

Now as for me, personally, I'm all *for* others helping me "to live" therefore that's my primary objective for others, to help *others* to live. And, the easiest way I know how to do that is by sharing the very *crux* of the choice that led *me* to choose life:

(Tinyurl.com/ITTA-TCoU)

It's very easy: "Love the enemies of you" (Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 5:44) contrasts with [kill enemies] in Qur'an 9:5. So then, *which* of these two ideas is worth following? And how does one "weigh an idea?"

Simple: put oneself *into* the variable of "enemies": if I am (One is, You are) my own {one's own, your own} greatest of enemies, and Muhammad is exhorting me to [kill myself] while Jesus is teaching me to [love myself] then *which* of these two (opposite) paths leads to my (and my future family's) brightest, living future?

(Hint: Muhammad's path goes LEFT, the path of Jesus *reveals perfect love* yet the sun "rises in the east" (to the right.))

J:> "and it's easy to justify certain things that are otherwise self evidently wrong with it."

So here's another "peeling of the onion of judgment": *Only* Love *Reveals* Unity
(as in the "binary structure" of "Love thine enemies,"
aka 1❤️0) whereas all that is NOT Love thus "reflects" duality.
Unity = Oneness = Wholeness = "Salvation": 1❤️0, while
duality *reflects* Unity, yet *is NOT* Unity. In fact, duality *excludes* Unity, even as Unity *includes* duality.
(The donut *includes* the hole; the hole *excludes* the donut.)
(Lovers love lovers *and* haters; haters hate lovers *and* haters.)

Finally, 1❤️0 is the structure of "Key❤️lock" that *unlocks* ALL existence. (Or "locks" it, if you happen to be a Catholic, follower of a Pope who follows Peter, a *dead* Apostle.)
(And lest you think I'm pro-protestant, all protestants (many unknowingly!) follow Martin Luther who followed Paul, *also* a *dead* Apostle.)
"Christians" love and obey the teaching of Jesus ♱ Who *is* resurrected *and* ascended.

(Again, note the "IS-based" structure of that sentence, that which *is* TRUE, =1.)

J:> "He also taught me 'Everything in moderation.' Which I also believe where it can apply, but I don't remember finding that in any religion."

While I'm familiar with that (and try to apply it on occasion) it is now for me to see if I can "find" that, Biblically.... Hmmm... While that is *other than* an exact quote from Scripture, there is much Scripture *related* to that concept, which you may see for yourself at:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/everything_in_moderation

openbible.info/topics/everything_in_moderation

Now a bit about my own, personal preference: While I acknowledge *all* the Bible has to say, I *focus* on what Jesus teaches. Why? Because:
ALL reflectors (and shiny things) are to Light as all Apostles (and preachers) are to Jesus.
In other words, while Jesus *is* and *teaches* Unity, while Peter, Paul, and many, many others *preach* duality.

http://discussingjesus.quora.com/https-www-quora-com-What-are-some-introductory-critical-thinking-short-notes-answer-Richard-Carl-Silk

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-introductory-critical-thinking-short-notes/answer/Richard-Carl-Silk

tinyurl.com/itta-topic-ud

Make no joke nor mistake about it: there's a *HUGE* gulf between Unity (that which *includes* duality) and duality (that which *excludes* Unity) — Just as the donut *includes* the hole, yet the hole *is NOT* (excludes) the donut.

Regarding "Everything in moderation" —
Jesus:
Matthew 6:25–34,
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?
28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin,
29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’
32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."

There are a few others, but that makes for a good starting point, discussion-wise.

J:> "The other thing organized religion has is community and co-operation, which is a huge flaw of atheism. There's been attempts, but I'd say they're largely failures and suffer from taking opposite stances from rebelling against Christianity specifically rather than forging something without such prejudices."

Oh yeah... just a minute...

<< if you want a "concrete example" / "proof" to understand how and why atheism fails in contrast with Christianity, *feel free* to check out that particular link. Give it *two minutes* to see if it's "in your wheel house" as they say.

***Meanwhile, the "contrast of opposites" is what the contrast of Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity (that which *is* perfectly TRUE) and Islam (that which is NOT Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity) is all about.***

J:> "I've managed to find community and co-operation elsewhere, but it's crumbled under changes especially those brought by the lockdowns of Covid."

I could show you were the WuFlu is prophesied in the Book of the Revelation of Saint John of Jesus Christ, but that's something of an "advanced topic" for believers as well as eschatologists.

J:> "I find [evangelizing] distasteful, rude, and fails the golden rule in my case."

Right: you would avoid evangelizing others, as you would have them avoid evangelizing you. That appears to be a proper application of "The Golden Rule"— however, I ask you to consider, what does it tell you, yourself, that you apply Christianity (the teaching of Jesus Himself) in your behavior towards others? (Follow-up: Matthew 24:4— Take heed, lest anyone *you* mislead.)

J:> "Would you want someone trying to convert you to another religion?"

Actually, the Hegelian Dialectic (A with B produces ^ higher thought, the "absolute") resonates *perfectly* with Matthew 5:44.

J:> "If so then I'll happily send you all the atheist links I come across."

So I get all sorts of atheist-type content in my Quora news feed (see also: divineatheists.quora.com)
yet while I often reply to atheistic (0-based) content, I rarely see any understanding *from* 0-based believers (who have no concept of "1".)

It's basically the "logical" fact that when "g=0" the speaker reflects the logically FALSE condition. For some reason, atheists (for the most part) appear to *lack* the understanding of Boolean / binary logic.

IF you yourself happen to classify yourself *as* atheist *or* agnostic, then I do indeed consider this (communicating *with* you) as something of a "rare privilege" / honor. It will be interesting to see how far it continues 👍✔😎

J:> "Otherwise I will will expect to be treated in kind."

So *here's the thing* that (let's be clear: hypocrites) fail to understand:

While person A has the *God-given right* to *avoid* evangelizing "others," as person A would have others do to person A,
*"others"* have that *same* God-given right: to share the TRUTH of "God is Love" with others (*including* person A) as they would have others do unto *them.*

Now here's "where the rubber meets the road" as they say: whether the listener *understands* OR NOT resides *solely* (or not!) within the mind of the beholder. And believe it or not, *that* understanding reveals the 10ᵗʰ Commandment (as recorded in Exodus 20:17.)

J:> "I will no longer reply to such attempts, even doing so this once is against my better judgement, but you seem otherwise cordial and I'll forgive the severe breach of etiquette this once."

LOL! Funny :-) I *appreciate* your extending the fellowship of your opinions / perspectives / conversation. 👍✔😎

In closing, I'd like to address the phrase: "I'll forgive the severe breach of etiquette this once."

Let's say person X "breaks the law" (by something simple, say, "speeding") thus, person X breaks *all* law, just as a woman either *is* pregnant (in the process of gestation) or *not*.

So if person X chooses to "forgive" one time, one has chosen the path of [forgiveness.]

Thus begins the existence upon "the path" of "righteousness" (the sense of being "upright" like a glass of water, as contrasted with "unrighteous" as a glass of water tipping or tipped over / spilled.)

This particular "quality" of one's life choices is recorded in biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18%3A21-22 as:
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

Thus, either a person *is* a "forgiver" *or not*— (personal choice.)

Likewise, one may either "judge" discussing ideology with an atheist as a "severe breach of etiquette" *or not*: that is, either a person "is a judger" *or not.* Again, personal choice.

Hint: EVERY instance of judgment (as in A judges B) reflects duality; *Only* Love (as in A❤️B) *Reveals* Unity. This Unity/duality perspective allows one to instantly determine (discern, observe) whether a sentence structure:
A) reflects duality (0) or B) reveals Unity (1).

Meanwhile...

I had a sense that:
A) you were seeking some objective feedback with respect to a dream (unless I'm reading text, I have little "specificity" regarding any idea that has already passed) so
B) I felt inclined to offer some feedback. (Normal behavior for this thread.)

I *sensed* a lack of "Oneness," "Unity," (etc.) within your text. No, I've never met you (that I know of) yet this "void" was "sensed" in your communication.

Thus, it is "nature's way" to "fill a vacuum" so I shared some of the "light" that is shared in the New Testament.

IF you wish to call that "evangelizing," such is your choice. Personally, I'm *fascinated* at the "perfect logic" (reasoning) that is *revealed* in the teaching of Jesus.

As to Peter, Paul, and the rest, well... All reflectors (and shiny things) are to Light as all Apostles (and preachers) are to Jesus.

In other words, I "view" / "understand" Scripture from a "logical" perspective. This may come as a bit of a shocker (to *many*) but:
*all* "worship" (as in A worships B) *reflects* duality (speaks falsely) whereas *Only* Love *Reveals* Unity. (And yes, I can show that in Scripture rather easily, namely, Leviticus 19:18 as well as Matthew 22:37–39.)

Finally, feel free to post a dream, and I'll do what I can to provide an analysis. That's how the usenet / alt.dreams basically functions.

[Justisaur]

Post by Richard Silk
I remember back when I was just learning to understand that people dream (as a youth of around 3 or 4) that I tried to remember them all as well. To this day, I can remember some *very old* dreams (dreams from *long ago*) with fairly decent clarity (like the two-story hay bales with a hatch between the floors) although I started noticing *in my adult year* that certain dreams seemed to have a "real life analog" that occurred typically within 24 to 48 hours. (Then came the "out of body" / "astral body projection" experiences, and that *really* piqued my interest!)

I can remember a few bits of a couple dreams I had when I was around 15,
and a couple particularly from around 7 or so. I don't really have time
right now, but I'll try to write what I remember of them here at some
point. It's possible I've written them down at some point, I'll have to
look through my old files.

Post by Richard Silk
So when I discovered alt.dreams, well, it seemed like practically a "god send" that I could *journal* the dreams, then see if any of them actually *did* "come true" in real life.

I've had a number of deja vu moments that I swear I dreamed about
sometimes decades before, but unfortunately don't think I wrote them
down. I may have done one, again I'll have to look through the old files.

Post by Richard Silk
J:> "Is it even helpful to remember and analyze them. I don't know."
The dream I had of October 7th of 2023 was rather amazing, but by the time I'd posted it, apparently, the news of the invasion of Israel from the Gaza strip was already world news. It doesn't matter that I posted the dream *before* turning on the news: the news went public *at about the time* I was having the dream. (It's the idea of posting a dream *before* an event occurs that I find a fascinating possibility.)

Ah, but that's not an analysis, and were those dreams of any help?

Post by Richard Silk
J:> "There is some entertainment to be had from them, but it also feels somehow wrong in a way I can't put my finger on."
Well, I *sorta* get that. It's the near anonymity of alt.dreams that I appreciate: Sure, I can post some *wild* stuff that would *normally* get a person "committed" (back before the Left dumped out all the criminally insane into the streets as homeless addicts) but in alt.dreams, it's simply "just a dream," and as such, open to speculation / interpretation (even ridicule, but fortunately, there's been none of that visible in all the years I've been posting here. The "bad folk" tend to simply disappear, and only the auto-spammers leave any actual "defecation" in the space.)

I doesn't look to be anyone here but you and Sandy at this point. Well
and me, but one never knows when someone will join or rejoin, or find
some Usenet discussion in the future, or it will be incorporated into
the Superintelligent AI of the future. :)

Post by Richard Silk
Other than that, I am unable to see anything "wrong" about posting dreams. To me, it's analogous with the public"block chain" that's the core engine of bit-coin technology.

I think it's a mix of something like unnecessarily reliving the horror
or nightmares, perhaps damaging one's psyche', and peeking behind the
curtain in the theater of life. Either way "Things that man was not
meant to know."

It gives me a certain vibe that the insane give off.

Post by Richard Silk
"gun violence"

I'm a pragmatist. Statistically other countries that have banned
general ownership of guns have had beyond significantly less both
violence and suicides, and it's even evident in places within the US
where gun laws are stricter.

So in general I'm for banning guns, as I prefer to keep deaths as low as
possible.

To freedom, having regular guns doesn't really have much impact as when
the laws were written there were no, tanks, air planes, helicopters,
chemical and nuclear weapons, which put guns as useful as a rock vs.
those in power.

However, there is the significant outlier of Switzerland, which has a
requirement of both military service and gun training, which has one of
the lowest rates of any violence. I'd prefer to go that way instead of
the worst of both worlds we're in in the US, and it seems it would be
easier to get us to bans than full military service.

Post by Richard Silk
Is [X] "right" or "wrong"? No judgment. Feel the peace of that position?

Interesting. I'm coming more from the right or wrong of effectiveness.

Post by Richard Silk
I *do* seem to recall some type of images of homeless folk on sidewalks. *Much* (not "all") of California appears to be run by agnostics or atheists these days. At least, that's how it appears in all forms of nightly news: Fox says it "out loud" while those MSM type outlets say it tacitly (by "not" saying it, or by "looking/pointing away from" the conditions that *public, government/governing policies* are causing.)

I'm in the capital, a lot more of the right up here, and a lot of right
in the rural areas, which mirrors the rest of the country, but they have
much less pull on california than they do nationally.

It was also Regan who dismantled the mental institutions here, which
started it everywhere else, a republican. There was a lot wrong with
those though, a lot of abuse of people putting away inconvenient people
and keeping people there as a way to enrich the institutions.

I don't really know which was better. It feels scarier out there, but
statistically crime is way down.

Post by Richard Silk
J:> "The only thing that's really stuck with me is what my grandfather taught me in his [self-proclaimed] religion of the "Brick church" which is to follow the golden rule of 'Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.' Which is basically what your link is about."
Trying to follow that: a "Brick church" is the *consequence* of enough *people* congregating together as a common mind (as in Baptism into the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ) which is yet another example of how "Reality Conforms to Thought": as the congregation grows, the meeting in homes migrates to meeting in a common location which migrates to the building of a "Brick church" (etc.)

Sorry, it's a bit of an inside joke that started with his enlistment
into the Navy when asked to declare his church he replied "brick." Which
meant he didn't have a preference for any and was fine for any. I am to
understand that was a common 'joke' of the time, but I'm not sure, I
never did any research into it. I'm not sure I'm explaining that very
well.

I realize now that I pretty much just imprinted on that, much as many if
not most do exposed to whatever religion is about them.

Post by Richard Silk
Make no joke nor mistake about it: there's a *HUGE* gulf between Unity (that which *includes* duality) and duality (that which *excludes* Unity) — Just as the donut *includes* the hole, yet the hole *is NOT* (excludes) the donut.

Your argument seems semantics at best, which disinterests me. Umbrella
classification. A house cat is a feline, but not all felines are house
cats. Classification is an invention of man as well, and both maters
and plays tricks only upon himself.

Post by Richard Silk
Oh yeah... just a minute...
http://youtu.be/s2__6jMtmIM << if you want a "concrete example" / "proof" to understand how and why atheism fails in contrast with Christianity, *feel free* to check out that particular link. Give it *two minutes* to see if it's "in your wheel house" as they say.

Hmm. Interesting, if all that's to be believed, I'd put it more on the
'liberal' who started it than atheism. Plenty of places work without
the christian god (though other ones take the same place) on a varying
scale of success as well as those that have one.

Post by Richard Silk
It's basically the "logical" fact that when "g=0" the speaker reflects the logically FALSE condition. For some reason, atheists (for the most part) appear to *lack* the understanding of Boolean / binary logic.

The main points of atheism that make sense to me is that

* There's thousands of religions, most of them are formed on the basic
of only 'one true god' an that others aren't.

* I and (most) people including myself have a moral compass regardless
of religion. (Those who don't having a mental illness, and occur
regardless of their espoused religion or being of none, and in fact seem
to occur more in those with strictly religious upbringing.)

* The writings of all those are factually wrong with regards to how the
universe works, if it did indeed come from an all knowing and truthful
god, they would not be.

Among others

Post by Richard Silk
IF you yourself happen to classify yourself *as* atheist *or* agnostic, then I do indeed consider this (communicating *with* you) as something of a "rare privilege" / honor. It will be interesting to see how far it continues 👍✔😎

I don't consider myself an atheist, though I am an unbeliever. I feel
like there's something greater beyond what we are or appear to be, but
religions have made a terrible mess of it.

I've seen and experienced things I can't explain. They could be tricks
of the mind, human minds are so easy to trick, but I can't shake the
feeling that they're true. Thus I lump myself in with agnostic.

Post by Richard Silk
Thus, either a person *is* a "forgiver" *or not*— (personal choice.)

I'm fickle in that regard. I've got grudges I've held for years, but
I'm generally forgiving. Or you might say I'm fickle in most regards,
but some I'm very steady in.

Post by Richard Silk
A) you were seeking some objective feedback with respect to a dream (unless I'm reading text, I have little "specificity" regarding any idea that has already passed) so
B) I felt inclined to offer some feedback. (Normal behavior for this thread.)

Not particularly, more just journaling, but I'm fine with being provided
such. I was particularly interested in some feedback on the appearing
as someone else, and the particularly vivid dreams which I find unusual.
Or perhaps I just haven't noticed as I've let dreams fade without
commend for the most part for nearly 3 decades.

I was just very turned off by the pointing to Jesus. If it's done
academically out of interest of themes, and is possible on the internet
it's quite easy to misinterpret words alone.

Post by Richard Silk
IF you wish to call that "evangelizing," such is your choice. Personally, I'm *fascinated* at the "perfect logic" (reasoning) that is *revealed* in the teaching of Jesus.
As to Peter, Paul, and the rest, well... All reflectors (and shiny things) are to Light as all Apostles (and preachers) are to Jesus.
*all* "worship" (as in A worships B) *reflects* duality (speaks falsely) whereas *Only* Love *Reveals* Unity. (And yes, I can show that in Scripture rather easily, namely, Leviticus 19:18 as well as Matthew 22:37–39.)

Of the takes on Christianity, I am most attracted to Jefferson. The
Jefferson Bible I find of some interest, and I really must get around to
reading it in it's entirety at some point. If you aren't familiar it's
Thomas Jefferson's very abridged (compared to other bibles) account of
just Jesus' teachings, life and morals.

If there were a Jeffersonian church near me I would be sorely attempted
to attend.

In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe
(even if I don't and can't.)

Franklin's belief sounds more plausible to me as well, but I really
haven't delved into that either.

I'm actually most attracted to the silly atheist reaction religions,
because I find the whole of religions utterly ridiculous. But I can't
bring myself to actually attend one (if one is even around) as they too
are quite silly. I did at one point call myself a Discordian (All hail
Eris!) but that was a bit before I quite realized what it really was,
just a silly rebellion against Christianity.

All that said, I could be an atheists, because when I was 15 after one
of those dreams that stuck with me, I decided I was tired of wrestling
with the paranormal and/or supernatural and I would instead actively
disbelieve everything. Things calmed down considerably after that, but
I still had some unexplainable things happen, but when I disbelieved
them they didn't bother me in the least.

Delving into dreams seems like it's like playing with fire in that
respect. Will I open the flood-gates and drown in it?

Oh, I almost forgot, before all that I made up my own religion, or did
it come to me from (a) god? It's rather embarrassing (or cringe as they
say now,) but then I'm getting old and being embarrassed doesn't mean as
much to me. By the god's tenants I'm not supposed to reveal it to
anyone else though. I'll have to think (or pray?) upon what I'm allowed
to reveal. Did I "sin" by just revealing that? *shrug*

Post by Richard Silk
Finally, feel free to post a dream, and I'll do what I can to provide an analysis. That's how the usenet / alt.dreams basically functions.

I will take that into account, and I've spent a good hour and a half
more than I intended to or had time to and must get to bed.

[Richard Silk]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 1:01:22 AM UTC-6, Justisaur wrote (in conversation with Silk):

J:> "Of the takes on Christianity, I am most attracted to Jefferson."

While I understand the "context," it would help to have a specific reference point, such as a "point of reason" within the Jefferson ideology—

J:> "The Jefferson Bible I find of some interest, and I really must get around to reading it in it's entirety at some point. If you aren't familiar it's Thomas Jefferson's very abridged (compared to other bibles) account of just Jesus' teachings, life and morals."

Ah. Much better focus, thank you. I've had the same idea, but found it easier to simply point the individual to obtaining a "Red Letter Edition" (preferably of a KJV or NKJV, but what have you. Biblehub . com / interlinear / book / ##-## . htm works *perfectly* for revealing the "nuances of original definitions" around *every word*, like: biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-4.htm ) < you need to *visit* that link to "see" the exploded definitions. It's "mind opening!"

J:> "If there were a Jeffersonian church near me I would be sorely attempted to attend."

Never knew there to be such a church, however, I *suspect* the new MAGA movement of the GOP / RNC is right along that line of ideology.

J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe (even if I don't and can't.)"

Let's start with "belief," in the sense of "believing" in the sense of "bathing": Do you believe in bathing? (If so, then it is *most likely* that you bathe.) If one does "not believe" in bathing, chances are, that someone *may* be a homeless, mentally ill individual, the type seen defecating on the sidewalks and shooting up drugs on sidewalks in front of public schools, etc.

Now here's a "starting element" from which to develop a "full platform" of belief / beliefs / a personal ideology:

1) Reality Conforms to Thought.
(Try arguing *against* that and *see* what happens.)

2) Reality Conforms to Thought which conforms to Love, as one's heart conforms one's thought into reality. (Hence, families, growing farms, businesses, etc.)

3) That which *exists* "is logically TRUE" (=1) while that which does "not" exist, that which "isn't" (or "can't, won't," etc.) reflects the logically FALSE condition (= NOT 1, = ¬1, =0, = FALSE.)

#3 is *very important* in understanding *all* language (and thus, the *thought within* the word(s)) as language may be seen, heard, evaluated in two essential forms (like binary: 1 and 0):
1) Is-based ideology (that which *is PERFECTLY TRUE*) or
0) NOT-based ideology (that which is NOT.)
(See also:) discussingjesus.quora.com/UNDERSTANDING-THE-WORD-%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82-logos-LOGIC-of-GOD-As-the-Word-of-God-is-TRUE-thus-it-behooves-people-especi

#3b:
There is the *correct* (and very rare!) correct usage of "not", such as in [duality NOT] which reveals "Unity"— such as in the (4 or 5+) "nots" of Jesus:
Condemn NOT— (Luke 6:37)
Fear NOT— (Matthew 10:31)
Judge NOT— (Matthew 7:1)
Resist NOT— (Matthew 5:39)
Swear NOT— (Matthew 5:34)
all of which illustrate the principle of [duality NOT] thus they all express Unity, and *Only* Love Reveals Unity.
(In other words, Unity❤️duality, as 1❤️0, as TRUE❤️false, as Husband❤️wife, as Parents❤️child(ren) etc.)

Understanding this allows the individual to *easily* observe ("discern") as to whether the written (or spoken) word "is true" or "is not."

So here's a "crash course" in "not-based ideology":
To say that "Five is not one" may *appear* correct, *however*:
It analyzes thusly:
5 = NOT 1
5 = 0
thus, to say "five is not one" is to "speak falsely," which some folk refer to as "lying."

To say "One is one" is to say "1=1" which "speaks truly"— see the difference?

Now let's take a "look back" at what you wrote previously:

J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe (even if I don't and can't.)"

Let's take the *first* part of that *alone*:
J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe"

OK, that flows *very* easily, as every individual's own preference is what it is, thus, "speaks truly" for the individual. *Others* may *hear* and *observe* the truth of what is being said. Those who *understand* truth will simply acknowledge "TRUE" in some manner, or simply go on to the next element.

Now let's look at the *tail end* of that previous quote:

J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe (even if I don't and can't.)"

Translation:
[TRUE (even if false and false.)]

That which is TRUE may be worked with, while that which is FALSE falls away, as one *cannot* work with a tool that does NOT exist — One can *only* work with a tool that *does* exist.

At any rate... to address that comment as a whole, I'd like to refer you to the teaching of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19:26— …“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

And now focus on the 2nd half of that observation: "...*with* God *all* things *are* possible.”

Think of it this way: Love = light, thus ❤️=💡.
Now contrast that with *no* love, and you get... {█} (nothing.)
Now remember: God *is* Love (1 John 4:8.) (Note the "is-based ideology"!)

Finally, one more take:
J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe"
What *any* individual chooses to believe *or not* is that individual's *own* business, *per the 10ᵗʰ Commandment* (see Exodus 20:17, regarding *anything* that "is thy neighbor's.")

J:> "Franklin's belief sounds more plausible to me as well, but I really haven't delved into that either."

Franklin was his own self, pretty much, but to "evaluate" any specific idea, I need to "see" it in writing. (Audio / oral / aural is *much* more difficult, due to the dain bramage.)

J:> "I'm actually most attracted to the silly atheist reaction religions, because I find the whole of religions utterly ridiculous."

I *used* to think that "other religions are meaningless" because of the very strong "Christian bias" with which I was raised. But *then* I started to ask myself, "Why should I believe in *any* religion, much less *disbelieve*, unless I *first* 'check the tires, check the teeth,' etc.?"

Like: say you're gonna buy a car: Why? Do you just walk onto a lot and buy the first car available? Or do you use a "reasoned, researched" approach? (I can give you two major horror stories based on buying without research.)

So I started investigating 1) Christianity and 2) other religions (namely Islam) in order to determine contrasts & comparisons, looking for ideas (*any* idea) of value, much like sifting through the spoils of the outhouse looking for the gold ring that fell into the muck.

One of the first things that helped, was understanding *all* the Old Testament "points to" the New Testament, and *all* the New Testament *points to* Jesus. OK, so the lazy student in me wanted *only the Cliffs Notes* so I only studied the "red letters" (in the NT) of what Jesus actually says.

(I mean, if you're gonna pick a horse to win a race, what does that horse have to say for himself?)

I gotta tell you, His teaching started *challenging* my understanding of "logic." (That's a bit of a longer story that can wait for later.)

Meanwhile, I *did* understand that Christianity is what led to Western Civilization as we know it (succeeding where Roman civilization had failed) and also to the "why" methods and reasons as to why Christianity succeeds / grows (like fruit!) and *that* led to *trying* to find a contrasting / comparative idea within Islam. (Anybody with half a brain can *see* how disastrous Islam is to the world, but *why then* are so many people "suckered into" / trapped *by* it?)

Flashback to my youth, near very early teens, possibly even pre-puberty, when I hear the verse from Matthew 5:44, "LOVE thine enemies" — and thinking, "What the HECK is THAT supposed to mean???"

Finally, somewhere following the "dain bramage" from August of 2013, I start to study "the Sword Verse" from Islam, Qur'an 9:5, and having to "weed through" the "window dressing" of the "flood of words" to get it down to the essence of what it is saying: [KILL enemies.]

OK, well, "that *sorta* makes sense, but 'sounds fishy' for some reason," so I finally thought, "AHA! I have something *nearly comparable* between Christianity and Islam!" — So I've got [kill enemies] on the left, and [love enemies] on the right, so *now* what? "How do you *weigh* an idea????"

Simple: Put yourself *into* the variable of "enemies" and see how each idea *affects YOU* personally.

So "If I am my own, *greatest* of enemies, and Muhammad is telling me to [kill myself] on one side, and Jesus is teaching me to [love myself] on the other," then *suddenly* the Light simply came *ON!* ☀️

(Put yourself into the variable of "enemies" and ask yourself: which path leads to your *and* your future family's brightest future?)

J:> "But I can't bring myself to actually attend one (if one is even around) as they too are quite silly."

Gotta share with you a small video on the effects of atheism as a "lifestyle" in contrast with Christianity:
http://youtu.be/s2__6jMtmIM

(The neat thing about YouTube is you can "speed up" the playback to 1.5x or even up to 2x if you can "listen faster" than otherwise.)

Jumping ahead just a bit, in this contrast/comparison between Christianity / Islam, all *sorts* of understanding began to "open up" with the understanding of "Love the enemies of you" aka "Love thine enemies" aka 1❤️0.

This *ultimately* led me to understand "Unity" ❤️ "duality" (as in "sinless❤️sin" or even TRUE❤️FALSE) but this allowed me to start analyzing "ideas" in terms of "Unity" (*perfectly* TRUE) in relation with "duality" — and the results began to get *really* interesting!

For example, Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity *reveals* "is-based ideology," that which *is perfectly TRUE* whereas Islam *is NOT* Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity, just as "false" is NOT "TRUE." In other words, Islam *reflects* "NOT-based ideology" (see Qur'an 4:157 for a *prime* example of this!)

The "point" being, that something as curious as Buddhism became something akin to "math/logic homework" as I began dissecting the tenets (beliefs) of the higher, more learned, "devout" Buddhists.

And *not just one of them,* but *several of them* — taking *their* explanations of *their* religion, and guess what I found? They *all* reduced to "0 = 0" — in other words, the basic "structure" of Hindu-Buddhist belief *reveals* the structure of "0=0" — which, while a logically TRUE EQUIVALENCE, says "linguistically" that [all lies are truly lies.]

ONLY Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity teaches 1❤️0, aka "Unity" aka "Oneness, Wholeness, Salvation", and even the raw form of Hebrew/Judeo (the "traditional, Jewish religion") reveals it in a *much more unpacked format* (such as the 10 Commandments.)

(See also: qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3fc6758e93e5d1723a49c9b2869766e5 ***and/or*** discussingjesus.quora.com/https-www-quora-com-What-are-the-essential-differences-between-traditional-Chinese-philosophy-and-Western-philosophy-a )

Atheism, by contrast, is rather simple: "There is no god" says:
"There" (Location, L, a place or condition that exists, =1)
"is" ("=")
"no god" (g=0)
Thus:
(L=1) = (g=0)
Thus:
1=0
Thus: "speaks falsely." (Atheism lies.)

J:> "I did at one point call myself a Discordian (All hail Eris!) but that was a bit before I quite realized what it really was, just a silly rebellion against Christianity."

Succinctly, *all* instances of [A "against" B] reflect duality ("speak falsely") whereas *Only* Love (as in A❤️B) *Reveals* Unity.

Love is the Key❤️lock that *unlocks ALL* existence, ALL meaning, *EVERYTHING that *is* that unlocks "that which is NOT" —
"Is❤️not"

J:> "All that said, I could be an [atheist] because when I was 15 after one of those dreams that stuck with me, I decided I was tired of wrestling with the paranormal and/or supernatural and I would instead actively disbelieve everything."

That would, in effect, "disbelieve" that you had a dream to begin with. Do you *deny* having had a dream? If you *accept* that you had a dream, then you *accept* that it had/has/will have *some* meaning (hence, the nature of this particular USENET group, alt.dreams !)

The "journey" is in discovering *what,* precisely, any such meaning may contain or reveal *to* the dreamer (or to the public, for that matter.)

J:> "Things calmed down considerably after that, but I still had some [inexplicable] things happen, but when I disbelieved them they didn't bother me in the least."

Disbelieve a woman, and see how fast she disappears from your life.

J:> "Delving into dreams seems like it's like playing with fire in that respect. Will I open the flood-gates and drown in it?"

***GREAT*** question!!! 👍✔😎

Please allow me to start answering that this way:
"Reality Conforms to Thought" (="Thesis")
"No, it doesn't!" (="Antithesis.")
No matter *which* side of that "coin" the individual chooses to believe / follow, the individual's reality conforms *immediately* to the individual's thought.
(Some folk may be able to show this in Eisensteinian terms, but I'll leave that to the rocket scientists / Quantum physics folk.)

So here's a "baby step" (if you will, or a "first step" using "grown up words"):

Consider that *every* thought in a person's mind = "a discrete unit of energy" (which it is, but that's beside the point at the moment.)

Thus, every idea *may* be thought of as a "unique person" or "perspective" or "point of view."

(Again, this idea *still* "holds true" as it's speaking allegorically / metaphorically, but to continue....)

Now consider what happens when "ideas fight" or "go in opposite directions" (like trying to hold *two differing ideas* as "TRUE" even though they *disagree*) — such is referred to in "normal, mundane, *human* terms" as "Cognitive dissonance." Ideas that "pull apart" or "fight each other" are what lead jihadists to suddenly go *BOOM!* and kill themselves (and often other innocents along the way) which is a *hallmark* of Islamic ideology. (Islam "reflects" the structure of 0∩1, that is, death intersects life — but to continue....)

So *regardless* of whether an idea is "apart from" or "against" another idea, the concept of "duality" is being reflected "in the real world," such as A "against" B, or A "apart from" B. The very definition of the word "sin" happens to be a military term describing an arrow that falls astray of its target, that is, "missing the mark", A *astray of* B, and *actually looks like* what it says in logical notation:
1¬0 (The arrow misses the bull's-eye.)

ONLY A❤️B (such as Husband❤️wife, or Seed❤️earth) *Reveals* Unity, the "sinless" condition.

(See also:
discussingjesus.quora.com/https-www-quora-com-Is-the-bible-more-likely-to-be-true-than-the-Quran-answer-Richard-Carl-Silk
for the image at:
qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-293f114c7fd101add0dcf2f12ddd5416 )

So how Unity applies to issues of "Cognitive dissonance": Consider the "mentally troubled" individual who is having "conflicting ideas" or is "struggling with" ideas:

Now put into place a "sovereign" (supreme ruling) idea:
"ALL who believe in Me are One."

This means: ANY idea that wants to "set up shop" as it were within the individual's mind *must* agree as One *with* all *other ideas* within the individual's mind. (SEE ALSO ESPECIALLY: Matthew 5:39, "Resist NOT evil....")

Remember: any / every thought / idea that floats across an individual's mind is a "discrete element" like as if it were its own "unique person."

OK, so does "John Bag o'Donuts" want to be a nut-job / Sybil case with dozens to thousands of multiple personalities? Fractured asunder? Or does John choose to be *ONE* with himself, ONE with God and ONE with all others on Earth?

Well, it *starts* with "Oneself"— "Do I believe I exist?" (Answer: 1 or 0.) (If 1, then ALL who believe "in Me" are "One" as well. Those who do NOT believe are "free to exit." No one is stopping them from leaving.)

This will empty the mind of all "competing" ideas *really fast!* and "peace" will "be revealed," even the "peace" that *exists* as One, rather than the "false peace" that does NOT exist.

Now I realize, this has been a LOT of words. OK, I acknowledge that. But rather than meant to be a "flood," it's designed to "flow as a stream," much like an infinite water fountain: you (the individual) are free to "drink" from it "as you like" *or NOT!*

The ideas shared here are here to *help* (rather than *hinder* or *obstruct*.)

"Help" is one of those things that only "count" *if/when* needed!

J:> "Oh, I almost forgot, before all that I made up my own religion, or did it come to me from (a) god? It's rather embarrassing (or cringe as they say now,) but then I'm getting old and being embarrassed doesn't mean as much to me."

Well, *now* you have *my* attention! :-) Forming one's own religion puts the individual in with the "good company" of many, *many* others, although only a "few" gain "world-wide" attention.

I started thinking to myself, "If computers ever reach a level of 'sentience,' they may start to ask themselves if there *is* a 'God,' and if so, how would they perceive Him?"

The outcome of this exploration became "The Church of the Great High Bit" (which you can still find on Fascist-Book, at
facebook.com/ITPO1 ) (The SBLF (Silicon-based life form) asks: "Is the Power ON?")
but *also* started to "morph" into "Boolean Monotheism" which you can look into at:
docs.google.com/document/d/1UwFVR0CHi1-Dx-SMPKhtUBAjTWsU9obsP7kSxB9_hmQ/edit?usp=sharing

Now here's the "fun thing" about that exercise: it began to "resonate with" the teaching of Jesus Himself! (see also:
tinyurl.com/IntroToTheAdvocate )

I actually found that "my own religion" led me to comparing those elements with His teaching, and *WOW!* He just *continues* to "open my mind!" (After awhile, I got so accustomed to my mind getting "blown away" that I realized it was simply "opening wider" as a consequence.)

So here's a question for you: Name something of the religion you developed, and I'll be *happy* to compare / contrast it with other (existing) religions (although Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity seems to be the "benchmark" or "Apex" of *all* others.)

J:> "By the god's tenants I'm not supposed to reveal it to anyone else though."

There is some "agreement" and "contrast" to that sentence:
Take a look at:
biblehub.com/psalms/119-11.htm Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You.
biblehub.com/psalms/119-17.htm Deal bountifully (wean) Your servant that I may live and keep Your word.
biblehub.com/proverbs/4-4.htm He also taught me, and said to me: “Let your heart retain my words; Keep my commands, and live.
biblehub.com/ezekiel/3-10.htm Moreover He said to me: “Son of man, receive into your heart all My words that I speak to you, and hear with your ears.
biblehub.com/proverbs/3-1.htm My son, do not forget my law, But let your heart keep my commands;
(One of my favorites):
biblehub.com/matthew/4-4.htm But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”
Now *this* one gets a bit interesting:
biblehub.com/matthew/6-3.htm But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

So if you share that which is good, let not your left know what your right is up to.

Now we get into the "revealing" portion:
biblehub.com/matthew/5-14.htm Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that your "god" (and I mean that respectfully) has given you a word, a "seed" to plant within your heart, to nurture *until* it is come to fruition, that the fruit of his word may be shared with others.

OK, now let's take a look at the plant, at the fruit, and "see" how it's coming along.

What have you got? (I can *nearly guarantee you* that what you have resonates *in some way* *directly with* the teaching of Jesus.)

J:> "I'll have to think (or pray?) upon what I'm allowed to reveal. Did I 'sin' by just revealing that? *shrug*"

From Matthew 7:1, John 7:24, Luke 6:37 (et al.): "Judge NOT—"
However, *if* you feel *comfortable* in sharing a peek at it, I'll be happy to give you as honest an assessment as I am capable of sharing.

RCS: > Finally, feel free to post a dream, and I'll do what I can to provide an analysis. That's how the USENET / alt.dreams basically functions.

J:> "I will take that into account, and I've spent a good hour and a half more than I intended to or had time to and must get to bed."

Ooooh, I understand *that!* I've spent the better part of *all day* hammering out this reply....