ON THE NATURE OF REALITY chapter 7

COMBINED IDEAS AND UNREALITY

     Mere prejudice considers the material to be real and the immaterial to be unreal. Actually, everything that the mind raises above the level of absolute nothingness is real when considered as simple and separate sensations, ideas or feelings. A photon is a simple immaterial packet of energy and yet is real. A neutrino is practically immaterial and yet is real. Therefore, simple abstract thoughts and feelings can be and are real. Even the idea of nothingness is real. Falsity only arises from incongruent combinations and judgments of the simple truths of reality.
     There are, of course, unreal objects in consciousness. there are simple ideas that denote such objects. Terms are used such as: "unknown", "delusion", "error", "illusion", "falsity", and many more. Such unreal objects always exist in the mind as incongruent combinations of true ideas, or as resulting from false theories, and never in the simple true ideas as given to consciousness.
     There are no false simple ideas, sensations, or feelings. Should anyone doubt this, try to think of a simple false idea. If considered carefully enough, one will always discover that one’s false idea results from an incongruent combination of simple true ideas, or is the product of a false theory. For instance, many have considered the idea called "ether" to be a simple false idea about space. Actually, "ether" is a product of a false theory pertaining to how light waves are propagated in space. This example illustrates the only way that false ideas can come to consciousness. The simplest ideas are always directly known and are always true and real. If the term ether" denotes the anesthetic, then it is a simple true idea. It matters not what terms are used. Even though the same sound was used for both ideas, the first example explains how false ideas always arise, and the second directly denotes a simple true idea.
Of course, false ideas can hang around for awhile. The false idea called "ether" persisted until scientific testing eliminated its supposed truthfulness. Since the beginning of civilization, some of the work of the human mind has been to reduce incongruent combinations to simple true ideas and to eliminate false ideas that arise from false theories.
     Falsity is always invented, never discovered. Simple true ideas are always discovered, never invented. The mermaid is an incongruent combination of the simple true ideas called "female" and "fish". These two realities are all that one can see or contemplate about a mermaid. The non-existence of the mermaid is never directly grasped. The mind never directly apprehends unreal objects or ideas.
     Consciousness can only indirectly grasp the unreality of incorrect combinations of real objects or ideas. Consciousness can not directly know false ideas. They never directly present themselves to consciousness. A simple idea is either real or it is awaiting discovery. False ideas result only from false combinations.
     Falsity is always invented, but falsity never negates the simple contents of consciousness considered singly and as separated from nothingness. Simple true ideas directly impress themselves on consciousness in all false combinations such as the "mermaid".
False combinations take many forms. Mermaids are seen for various reasons such as impaired vision, optical illusion, hallucination or because of other false sensate or physical combinations. However, no one can deny the realities of either "female" or "fish". Whether one observes or thinks mermaid, its falsity and non-existence are never known, but are hidden behind its realities.
     A word can be a false combination in one sentence, and a true combination in another. "Magician" is one such  word. In one sentence it can mean: One who works miracles. This is generally understood to be a false combination. In another it can mean: One who creates illusions for fun. This is a true combination. The meaning of a word is not determined by its sentence, but its sentence constrains the word to the meaning that everyone agrees that it has in that sentence.
     The one thing that can not be doubted is experience. Truth is in experience. Falsity is never directly experienced, being constantly equal to nothingness. The simple true ideas and their true combinations constitute the contents of reality regardless of whether they originate in sensory experience or mental experience, whether they are general or particular, whether they are abstract or concrete, or whether the meanings of words are determined by their use in language or point to particular objects.
     Now a strict realist might protest that the aforementioned object in the cave really exists independently of observation. He would indicate this by saying: "If the object is there, then it is really there." However, he reveals his use of a false combination by his use of the word "if" because that word means that the object may not be there. He has actually said: "Either the object is in the cave, or it is not", which is true but trite. The real object to which the realist refers is the one in his mind, not the one in the cave, if it is there. He has mentally entered the cave before he actually enters it.
     The object in the realist’s mind is a false idea, being the effect of a false combination, but not a simple false idea. A simple false idea can not be experienced. It is constantly unreal, never being available to experience. A simple false idea is equal to non-existence upon discovery that the object is not there. The idea of the object, not the object itself, is real in the realist’s mind when considered separate from the false combination. The idea of the nothingness of the object is real. The object itself is real, if discovered. Falsity arises from mentally imputing the reality of the idea of the object to the object itself before discovery.
To be a true empiricist, the realist should have said: "Whether the object is in the cave or not is an open question. Let us go in and see." Now he reveals the true condition of the object. The object may be there, but not really there because it may not be there. The object is potentially there. This same condition holds true for all undiscovered objects or ideas. As long as they remain unknown, they can be only potentially real. As soon as they become known, they are brought into reality.
     Simple false ideas are never discovered because they do not exist. They are not there to be discovered. In all of recorded history, not one simple false object or idea has been discovered. Atoms were there to be discovered. Galaxies were there to be discovered. Falsity is never there to be discovered. By inductive experience, falsity always comes from combinations. For these reasons, whatever simple ideas that are known to a mind, whether derived from sensory experience or not, they must be true and real.
     Simple true ideas and their combinations can be imagined as being similar to mathematics. Each number, no matter how large, is like a true simple idea. Zero is like the true idea of nothing. Nothing can not negate another true idea as in 1-0=1, but it can separate ideas as in 101. Numbers added or subtracted correctly are true combinations of true ideas. Numbers added or subtracted incorrectly are false combinations of true ideas. For example, 6-3-3=0 is a true combination of true ideas, but 6-3=4 is a false combination which means nothing even though the numbers themselves are true ideas. In the same way, the true ideas called "fish" and "female" when subtracted from their false combination called "mermaid" yields nothingness and unreality.
     Zero is a simple true idea only as it relates to other numbers. Zero, when considered as having no relation to other numbers, can mean absolutely nothing. To a similar extent, complete nonconsciousness equals absolute nothingness.
     The idea of nothing serves several purposes. In outer reality, it is space. In inner reality, it separates ideas and sensations in time, and also serves the subconscious mind.
     A famous philosopher once asserted that, in a sense, the abstract idea called "two" means nothing. This is quite surprising in view of the fact that he was also a great mathematician. One would think that only the abstract idea called "zero" could mean nothing.

     It is true that abstract ideas like "measurement", "quantity", "nothing", "equality", and "number" are not derived from sense experience. These ideas are either given to the mind, or they are abstracted from the powers of the mind as known to inner experience. However, they must be applied to the sensate world for both the world and these ideas to make logical sense. Try thinking of what any one of these ideas might mean if not applied to anything. Even the idea "nothing" must be thought of in conjunction with something or it can not be thought at all.
     Mathematics has been given to the mind in order to help the mind to make logical sense of the world. Thus, the abstract idea "two" means: "The name of that equal unity which follows the first unity in any possible measurement". The abstract idea "one" means: "that unit which follows nothing in any possible measurement".
     However, just as "George Washington" names a particular person; measurements, when applied to the world mean particular measurements of particular objects, quantities, or distances. Equal units such as feet, miles or quarts measure particular volumes or distances. However, equality is usually ignored when counting particular objects. Thus counting two apples ignores inequality in size. Counting twelve persons ignores inequalities in size, character, or personality.
     Twelve Apostles denotes an equal unit measurement of the set of Apostles, each being one equal unit. It is arbitrary which Apostle is considered first and which twelfth, or third, or in any other unit place. Thus to say: "The Apostle Peter is one, " simply means that he is arbitrarily being considered the first Apostle, or that he is arbitrarily being considered to be identified as one of the equal units in the measurement of the number of Apostles. Thus to say: "The Apostle Peter is one", makes perfectly good sense to most people who know anything about Christianity.
     However, to say: "The moon is one", could be confusing unless a group were discussing all the satellites in our solar system. Nevertheless, this statement would generally mean: that which is definitely considered to be one equal unit (being equal to itself) of the measurement of the number of earth satellites, all small ones being ignored.
     The number 12 represents the abstract idea of all possible twelfth units in the world. It represents all quantities or measurements that are exactly twelve or more. Twelve Apostles is a complete quantity in which the units are arbitrarily interchangeable. This does not hold with measurement of distance, however. The number of inches in a foot is twelve but they are not interchangeable. Similarly, the 12th mile in a measurement to the moon must be that particular unit and no other. The 250,000th mile is the abstract idea of the last unit in the measurement to the moon as well as all other quantities or measurements that are 250,000 or more.
     For these same reasons, one need not confuse a particular young man with the abstract idea "youth". "Youth" indicates all possible young people. Thus, when one observes a particular person and notices that he is young, then one has applied the abstract idea "youth" to this person. "Youth" is at once a real perception and at the same time a real abstract idea based on perception. These narrow applications of perception and abstraction always form true combinations. However, to reason that "youth" must have "two legs" is to apply additional ideas which only create false combinations. To observe a person is to notice whether or not he has two legs and/or whether or not he is young. If he is young, then that idea applies separately from whether or not he has two legs. Therefore, that the number 12 is the abstract idea for all possible 12th units of quantity or measurement has nothing to do with the abstract ideas for 11 or 13 except that 12 must come between them.
     When Bertrand Russell asserted that the abstract number "two" in a sense means nothing, he created a false combination in an attempt to show that abstract numbers are logical fictions and to that extent, unreal. When mathematicians endeavor to prove arcane theorems using abstract numbers, then such true combinations can be said to have aesthetic reality similar to the mental creation of unicorns. In addition, the building blocks of these theorems, the abstract numbers themselves, must also be real. Otherwise, the mathematicians would be calculating about nothing.
     The abstract number "two", and all other numbers, are real symbols of all possible abstract and practical applications to which they correspond. Even if "two" corresponds to 1+1 units of nothingness, it is nonetheless real. One can count, or even just think of, two zeroes.
     Only nothingness-in-itself is unreal, but mind causes nothingness to become real by raising it to the level of an idea. The idea of nothing is real simply because it is an idea.
When one asserts that "lions exist", one means that all of those abstract, descriptive ideas such as; "form", "tawny", "teeth", "claws", and all others that pertain to lions, are already combined in the forms of lions in the world. This true combination is precisely that which one means when one says: "Lions exist". However, should one mentally subtract each true idea from this true combination, one would be left with merely the idea of nothing.
     Of course, "fish" and "females" are also true combinations, but true combinations can be considered simple true ideas as well. Besides, true combinations are just as real as are simple true ideas. If in all cases, basic simple true ideas were used as a starting place, a compilation of them would have to be made which would probably take years of work using computers.
Nevertheless, the set of simple true ideas can be asserted to be real for the following reasons:   1.   Simple true ideas; whether abstractions, direct perceptions or inner feelings, constitute the necessary building blocks of reality.  2. Abstract ideas, direct perceptions, and inner feelings are equally real, being more than nothingness. Whether derived from outward perception of the world or from inward perception of the powers of the mind or feelings, abstract ideas are real. 3.All simple true ideas are useful in forming true combinations. That which is useful can not be unreal.
     Simple true ideas and true combinations correspond to that which is observable, useful, and creative. False combinations correspond to that which is unobservable, useless, and destructive. Simple false ideas do not exist.
     Some philosophers assert that outer reality is superior to inner reality, or that inner reality is not real. Actually, inner reality equals outer reality when both are separated into their simplest forms.
     A straight straw may appear bent in a glass of water because of a false combination called an optical illusion. When separated from the water, the straw appears in its true form, as straight. While in the water, the "bend" in the straw appeared as the effect of the false combination. A bend in-itself is a true simple idea, but as the effect of a false combination it masks absolute nothingness. The bend can be seen, but absolute nothingness can not be seen. The real but incongruent "bend" in the false combination equates with the idea of nothingness, but in false combinations the idea of nothingness which can be thought, covers up absolute nothingness which cannot be thought.
     Similarly, in the mind, true real ideas can be assembled into false combinations that mask absolute nothingness. Take two ideas not derived from sense experience; that is, that a finite mind can have "infinite" "intuition". The "infinite" is real because it can not be separated into simpler ideas. It is clearly and directly known to the mind. "Intuition" is also directly known to the mind as being that power of the mind that unconsciously puts together both true and false combinations. However, everyone knows that no finite mind possesses "infinite intuition". This is a false combination, and such an imagined power of the mind merely masks absolute nothingness.
     Therefore, both in outer and inner reality, false combinations mask absolute nothingness. Nevertheless, all simple perceptions in outer reality and all simple ideas and feelings in inner reality are equally real. This is true because unreality never directly manifests itself. Reality is that which stands out in consciousness against the background of absolute nothingness. Only in false combinations do holes appear in reality. These holes are the ideas of nothingness which mask absolute nothingness. That which is non-existent can not be directly known. Only the real can be known.
     The entire set of simple true ideas is real because consciousness raises this set above the level of nothingness. Even the idea of nothingness attains reality by being raised above absolute nothingness.
     Also, every simple true idea has been proven to be useful in the formation of true combinations. That which is useful must be real.
     There are no impressions except on minds. The mind is the only known instrument capable of both receiving and causing sensations, ideas, and feelings. It is useless to ask what are the outside causes of impressions outside of the purview of duality; that is, outside of that which is known or potentially known, there is an absolute nothingness that can never be known. Thus impressions from whatever source, and reality, are one and the same.
The Skeptics falsely assert a difference between appearance and reality. People make false judgments about appearances, but that does not negate the reality of appearances. False judgments always result from incorrect combinations.
     A person may falsely judge that the smoke that he sees on the horizon comes from a forest fire, only to discover later that it was really a smoky looking cloud. He sincerely but incorrectly combined the simple true ideas "smoke" and "fire", but this false judgment in no way negated the realities of "smoke", "fire", or "clouds". These are all more than nothing. The false judgment in his mind was an unseen unreality. To be precise, it was the idea of nothingness that masks absolute nothingness.
     People continuously argue over whether systems of ideas in religion, politics, science and other systems are true or false combinations. The purposes of investigation, scientific method, and discovery are to uncover the hidden true simple ideas and their true combinations that add to reality. Once found, simple true ideas and true combinations are never eliminate from reality. False ideas, which are always the effects of false combinations, are always eliminated when they are discovered to actually represent the idea of nothingness which masks absolute nothingness.
     The majority of words used in conversation and writing are simple true ideas and their true combinations. Otherwise, communication would be impossible. As long as two people converse in the same language and agree on the realities of their terms, they can generally understand each other quite well. As a general rule, they do not have to agree beforehand as to what are the positions of their appearances, or what senses are being used, or the states of their minds, or who is the expert and who is the amateur, although this is implied in the teacher to student relationship. Of course, an expert has a greater reality about his particular system than does an amateur, but both can converse using those true simple ideas and true combinations that they both understand.
     One may ask a Skeptic who doubts that appearances are reality. "What else is there?" Appearances are the only things that can be real. Outside of appearances, or possible appearances, that duality can focus upon, only absolute nothingness exists. (Of course, it does not exist but language constrains us to put it that way.)
     All appearances are also experiences. All experiences are impressions on the mind. Impressions may come in outer form; that is, as sensory experience, or impressions may come in inner form; that is, feelings and true simple ideas about feelings and the abilities of the mind. "Experience" is itself a true simple idea that denotes every possible impression on the mind whether in inner or outer forms. Every experience is an impression no matter how faint it may be.
     Every single experience is real. Otherwise, the mind could not be aware of it, put it into ideas, speak of it, or feel it. Simple true ideas that are unknown to a particular mind are merely potentially real until they become known.
     Falsity arises in one way only, from false combinations created by minds. False combinations yield ineffectiveness or non-existence; for example, a sputtering automobile or a mermaid. To the same extent that a system is ineffective, it is doing nothing. A sputtering automobile is doing a lot of nothing. The scientific theory about "ether" now means nothing. A mermaid is nothing. Thus "falsity" is a simple true idea which denotes the idea of nothingness which in turn, denotes the ineffectiveness and non-existence inherent in false combinations.
Does the golden mountain exist? When one subtracts the simple true idea "golden" and the simple true idea "mountain", one is left with merely the idea of nothingness which substitutes for absolute nothingness. It is in the false combination, not the simple true ideas themselves, that the golden mountain can be demonstrated to be non-existent in outer and inner duality. In this precise way, the golden mountain does not exist.
     Lions already exist because they are observable as true combinations. For this reason, it becomes a false combination to mentally disassemble a lion into its descriptive terms and then claim that the "substance" of the lion does not exist. The "substance" of a lion, and any true combination, subsists in its constituent simple true idea which are also its descriptions.
To mentally disassemble a lion does not reveal non-existence, as is the case with the golden mountain, but simply the background idea of nothingness upon which its simple true ideas are assembled into a true combination called a lion. There can be no difference in a subject and its predicates. The "substance" of all true combinations comprises their simple true ideas.
     If lions were undiscovered animals, they would be merely potentially real as true combinations. As soon as they were discovered, they would become real true combinations. If a unicorn is wandering in the wilds of Africa, it remains potentially real to this date.

CHANGES IN JOEY a short story

     When the preacher began, I was, as usual, a little bored. I began to kick my feet against the back of the next pew. Mother grabbed my arm and leaned toward my ear. "Joey, sit up and listen to the preacher or you'll get it when we get home," she said in a shouting whisper.
     I knew what that meant, so I tried to pay attention. The preacher was telling the story of Jesus. He preached about the love of God, and how Jesus had died on the cross to save sinners. He proclaimed that anyone could come to know Jesus as a friend. For some reason, my heart began to ache to know Jesus.
     When the invitational hymn began, our preacher kept repeating above the singing, "Come to Jesus. All you have to do is come to Jesus." I wanted desperately to go to Jesus. I had never asked Him to save me.
     I started to go, but another voice within me held me back. The voice growled, "You don't have to do it tonight. Wait until another time. You'll embarrass yourself. What will your friends think?" I hurt inside. I wavered. Two verses had been sung, and the preacher usually closed the invitation after three.
     The third verse started. I began to sweat as I leaned hard on the next pew. I wanted to shut out the voice holding me back completely, so I firmly decided and it was gone. I wanted to go to Jesus because I had come to believe that He had died on the cross to save me. I desired to know Him as my friend. I stepped boldly into the aisle to go forward. I had resolved to tell the congregation that I now believed in Jesus.
     On the second step, I felt as though I had taken in a huge gulp of air, but I wasn't breathing that hard. Then I realized what had happened. This was God. I had been born of the Spirit. Jesus had saved me.
     The next day while playing with a group of boys, my cousin Dan showed up. We all admired him for his good looks and leadership ability, so we all silently paused and stared st him.
     Dan said, "Joey, I heard that you got saved last night. Is anything different?"
For the first time in my life, I looked deeply into my own heart. I examined it closely and then I knew. "Yes," I said eagerly. "I am different and I'll never be the same."
     Later, after play was over, I thought more deeply about the condition of my heart and the changes I should allow God to make in my life. Since I now desired to be like Jesus, I knew I must learn to love even my enemies as He had taught us. I thought about my arch enemy Jimmy Hopper, who for a long time had delighted in tormenting my sister and me. How could I learn to love him? I despised him. I decided that, at least, I had to pray and make the effort.
     The following day I ambled toward Hopper's house, hoping he would not be home. I cut across an empty lot because a high row of hedges across the street from Hopper's house would hide my coming. I had just reached the bushes when I heard the loud voice of Hopper's father in their front yard. I paused and peeked through the thick bushes.
     Hopper's red-faced father was gesturing wildly. He yelled, "Get off the ground and fight, you little coward! I'm gonna make a man of you yet."
     Jimmy Hopper lay on his back sniffling and moaning; his boxing gloves stained with blood from his nose. His older brother hovered over him, grinning and pounding his gloves together. "What's the matter, Jimmy?" his brother taunted. "Can't take it, huh."
     "Please Dad," Jimmy pleaded. "Don't make me fight anymore."
     "Get up or I'll kick you," his father screamed.
     At that moment, Jimmy's mother hurried out the front door. She wore a frilly dress and her makeup painted perfectly. She was surprisingly pretty to be married to Mr. Hopper, marred with a pocky face and with many tattoos
on his wiry frame.
     "Jerry, you promised to drive me to the beauty parlor this afternoon and I'm running late," she gushed.
     "Well, you wouldn't be late if you hadn't taken so long gettin' dressed," Mr. Hopper retorted.
     Jimmy reached toward her from the ground. "Mom?" he whined.
     His mother yanked a hand mirror from her pocketbook and closely examined her face. "Get the car cranked. I've got to go," she demanded. She rushed to their beat-up old car, got in and slammed the door. Jerry Hopper squealed the tires as he sped away from the curb.
     Remembering this ugly scene had caused me to mope around the house for the rest of the day. Noticing this, my mother gave nickels to my sister Sarah and me and sent us to the small corner grocery to get each of us a Coke.
     While sitting out on the curb enjoying our Cokes, I happened to look toward our community baseball field which lay a little distance down a leaf-strewn road beyond a small concrete bridge over a rocky creek.
     There I observed Jimmy Hopper sitting on a sagging bench with his head in his hands, staring at the ground.
     Because of his constant ill will towards me, I felt a little leery about trying to talk with him. Yet, I thought maybe I could say something that would cheer him a little.
     I moved over to the ball field and quietly eased onto the other end of the rough, wooden bench. A mixture of tears and dirt smeared Hopper's face. Struggling to overcome my nervousness, I whispered, "Jimmy?"
     Jimmy's head snapped up and his right hand instinctively balled into a tight fist. "What do you want, fat boy; another pounding from my fists?" he barked.
     Impulsively, I threw up both hands, palms out. assuming a defensive position. "Whoa, Jimmy," I blurted in a quaking voice. "Listen a minute. If we start fighting we're gonna get dirty and sweaty and tear our clothes. Our mothers will yell at us, and my mother will send me to my room for a hundred years. Besides, it's too hot for getting sweaty and exhausted. So, let's just talk for a minute, okay?"
     Jimmy shook his fist at me. "What have we got to talk about,huh?"
     "Maybe the theory of relativity?" I suggested.
     Hopper slightly smiled but immediately hardened his face again. "Say what you gotta say and get lost." He waved the back of his left hand toward me as if pushing me away.
     "All I want to say is that a lot of boys and girls go to our community Sunday School. Our teacher tells us a lot of great stories from the Bible such as one about a boy named David who fought a giant. In a few days it'll be Sunday and I thought you might like to come and hear some of those stories." I swallowed hard, trying to get some moisture into my mouth.
     Hopper took on a strained but amused look. "Sunday School! Ha! Only momas' boys like you go to Sunday School."
     I shrugged my shoulders. "Okay, I just thought you might like to hear some great stories," I answered weakly. I retreated to the store where Sarah waited.
     Sunday morning dawned bright and clear but hot and muggy. Half of the simple, working people of our cozy community answered the familiar clang of the steeple bell over our white-frame Baptist church at the top of a small hill at the north end of our neighborhood. Walking from many little frame or brick homes, the men sported cheap suits and snap-brim hats, and the women pranced in plain dresses but fancy hats. Children skipped and laughed along the way.
     Because I was late, I bounded into my classroom out of breath. I flopped into a cane-bottom chair on the front row barely noticing anyone.
     Our teacher, Mr. Compson, a bald and bespectacled old gentleman, laid his enormous Bible on the dias and deeply cleared his throat which meant: Be quiet, I am ready to begin.
     Mr. Compson boomed, "Before we begin, I would like to recognize a visitor to our class. You all make him feel welcome. Stand up, son. What's your name?"
     Sheepishly, Jimmy Hopper stood up on the back row. "My name is Jimmy Hopper," he said in a barely audible voice.
     My mouth dropped open and I nearly turned my chair over.
     "We're glad to have you, son, " Mr. Compson said cheerfully. "All of you boys shake his hand." We gathered around Jimmy and shook his hand, but he barely glanced at me.
     Mr. Compson opened his Bible and peered over his glasses. "Our lesson this morning will be a story based on Psalms 27:10 which reads: 'When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up.'

A PERSONAL WITNESS

I want to give a witness today that I am a born again Christian (John 3:3) that I have been born of His Spirit, (I Corinthians 12:13) and washed in His blood (Revelation 1:5.) I believe that the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. ( I Corinthians 15:1-4.) I believe that Jesus died on the cross to save every human who ever lived from their sins which will destroy them. (II Corinthians 5:15) I believe that Jesus finished all of the work needed for man's salvation. (John 19:30) And I believe that anyone who repents of their sins and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation will be born into the family of God. (John 1:12-13.)

ON THE NATURE OF REALITY chapter 6

NOTHINGNESS IN RELATION TO REALITY

     Potential consciousness; that is, consciousness-in-itself, remains unconscious for as long as it possesses no object on which to focus. Potential consciousness literally possesses no consciousness of nothing.
An active consciousness can only be aware of nothingness as a reality when, at the same time, it becomes aware of other objects. Consciousness causes its object to stand out in consciousness against the background of nothingness. Consciousness separates its object from nothingness. Thus, the object becomes real to consciousness, and nothingness becomes objective in relation to the object. In this way, the idea of nothingness becomes real. The idea of nothingness is a simple true idea.
     Absolute nothingness can never be an idea and, therefore, never a reality. Consciousness-in-itself in the presence of absolute nothingness would have no impressions on it and thus would be equal to absolute nothingness. Consciousness of an object is also consciousness of space, if only the space that separates the self from that object. Thus the idea of nothingness is always something more than absolute nothingness. The idea of nothingness is useful to consciousness, but absolute nothingness is always useless and destructive of reality.
     Any potentialities that might exist in absolute nothingness are swallowed by, rendered impotent by, and, therefore, remain equal to absolute nothingness. Only when potential consciousness focuses on potential objectivity is absolute nothingness overcome by duality and reality comes into existence. Potential consciousness that focuses on an object becomes real, and the potential object thus focused on also becomes real. Consciousness without an object is unreal, and an object without consciousness is also unreal. Therefore, there are three modes of existence: nonexistence or absolute nothingness, potential existence or unreality, and real existence or duality. Duality is the only reality.
     Real nothingness is a separator of, and a background for, the objects of consciousness. In this way, consciousness causes nothingness to be more than absolute nothingness. Real nothingness is useful to consciousness. The most that can be said or thought about absolute nothingness is absolutely nothing.
Some assert that objects in a consciousless universe are simply what they are without resort to a consciousness that determines their reality. Such is not the case. All objects, including space, can not determine themselves to be anything because there can be no differences or separations among them. There is absolutely nothing that determines them to be anything. This nothingness can not be space because space is the idea of nothing that consciousness uses to separate objects. Since no consciousness is present to absolute nothingness, it can only be absolutely nothing. Thus, in a consciousless universe; objects, space and even the passage of time are determined by absolutely nothing. In a consciousless universe, everything bleeds together into a chaotic jumble that is equal to absolute nothingness.
     If one tries to imagine a consciousless universe, one must first separate its objects from each other and from space. One must also imagine it to be passing through time, unless one imagines it to be static. Thus one must cause a consciousless universe to become a conscious one before anything can be determined about it. Absolute nothingness must be overcome by duality for reality to exist. Thus duality proves to be absolutely indispensable to the reality of any universe whether inside or outside of one’s mind.
     Consider the Schrodinger cat experiment again. There are five possible determinations from this experiment. (1) If Schrodinger opens the box and determines the cat to be alive, then the consciousness of both Schrodinger and the cat have determined this. (2) If Schrodinger opens the box and determines the cat to be dead, then only Schrodinger’s consciousness makes this determination. (3) If Schrodinger does not open the box and the cat remains alive, then the cat’s consciousness determines itself to be alive. (4) If Schrodinger does not open the box and the cat is dead, then absolutely no determination can be made about the deadness of the cat.
     The fifth possibility is that as long as Schrodinger does not open the box, then the cat exists in what is called a quantum state in which it is neither dead nor alive. However, this is not true as long as the cat is alive because in such a case it determines itself to be alive. As soon as the cat is dead it determines nothing about its deadness and it can not be determined to be dead unless Schrodinger opens the box. The existence of the cat was previously determined before it was put in the box. However, as long as the lid remains closed, its aliveness or deadness remains undetermined as far as Schrodinger is concerned. Suppose Schrodinger’s consciousness, and all other consciousnesses except the cat’s, should suddenly disappear from the universe. In that case, as long as the cat remained alive it would be the sole determiner of its own aliveness and the reality of the universe. As soon as the cat dies, then even its existence or nonexistence would become undetermined. The cat would become equal to absolute nothingness.
    For precisely this last reason, life could never arise in a consciousless universe. Absolute nothingness would be the all-powerful non-determiner of everything. All possible chemical chain reactions that might lead to the accidental creation of life would be nullified at every step by absolute nothingness. Even the possibility of the existence of time, space, matter, and energy would always be equal to absolute nothingness.
This conclusion can not be proven. It is an intuitive truth. The reason for this is that absolute nothingness is not, nor can it ever be, an idea in duality. The idea of nothingness must always be substituted for absolute nothingness. Wherever absolute nothingness holds power, it renders everything equal to it, including any possibility of duality.
     Even if a duality were to think of itself as being stripped of all objects except itself, then it would still have two real objects; that is, the idea of nothingness and the self that is separate from it. Thus the idea of nothingness in outer duality is space which separates all objects including the physical self. In inner duality, the idea of nothingness separates all ideas and feelings, including the idea of the psychological self, though not spatially, thus duality can in no way think of absolute nothingness, because it must, at least, substitute the idea of nothingness and the self.
     Even though duality can not think about, or observe, absolute nothingness, nevertheless, duality can use the idea of nothingness to obtain an indirect idea of absolute nothingness. The bottom of a black hole in space beyond the event horizon is probably an example of the idea of nothingness concealing absolute nothingness. Whatever might exist there, including light rays, becomes equal to absolute nothingness, but one sees only the idea of nothingness.
     Now, an intuitive insight could aver that any consciousless universe would, of necessity, possess the same conditions as those that exist at the bottom of the black hole. Whatever exists would be equal to its nonexistence. Whatever happens would be equal to its not happening. Even light rays would be equal to  nothingness. Time itself would be equal to absolute nothingness. All effects which a consciousless universe might exert, such as a gravitational pull, could only be felt outside of itself into an observable universe.     However, a consciousless universe would probably be more like a singularity than a black hole.
     Consider again the dead cat in Schrodinger’s box. If Schrodinger never opens the box, then the cat exists in a kind of black hole, leaving out all other effects such as time and the smell of decayed flesh. It exists in a kind of self-contained universe in which nothing is determined.
     Now some may argue that the deadness of the cat can somehow determine itself. This is the same as saying that everything in a consciousless universe can actually, in some way, determine its own reality. This is the same as saying that a consciousless universe is just a real as one that contains duality. If this is the case, then duality would seem to be superfluous to our universe, if Schrodinger opens the box and determines the cat to be dead, this constitutes a double determination. If he does not open the box, then the cat is already determined to be dead in relation to its universe.
     If a consciousless universe can self-determine itself in some way, the duality (which seems to be a means of self-revelation) proves to be unnecessary. If a consciousless universe can determine itself to be real, then it also determines any duality which might arise in it to be real. However, the strange question is this: Why would a consciousless universe ever evolve duality (which seems to be a self-revelation) when such duality is not needed because such a universe would already be real because of self-determination?
     One may argue that a consciousless universe evolves duality as a self-revelation merely from blind accident. But complete blindness is complete deadness and complete deadness determines nothing. It is precisely because a consciousless universe is blind that causes everything that may exist within it to be equal to absolute nothingness.
     Consider another example. Imagine a universe which contains only one spherical object which remains the same size. Such a object can in no way be determined to be either moving or standing still. These two potentialities are equal to each other. Thus, what can be determined about the motion or non-motion of such an object? Absolutely nothing.
     Now suppose this universe becomes a consciousless universe. Remember, this universe can neither be seen with an eye nor imagined in a mind. If it can, it becomes a conscious universe; that is, an object in an inner or outer duality. In this consciousless universe, what can be determine about the very existence or nonexistence of this spherical object? Absolutely nothing. The existence or nonexistence of a spherical object in a consciousless universe is as indeterminable as is its motion or non-motion in a conscious universe.
The existence or nonexistence of a spherical object in a consciousless universe defines two equal potentialities. The motion or non-motion of a single spherical object in a conscious universe can not be determined because there can be no relation to other objects. Similarly, no determinations of the existence or nonexistence of objects in a consciousless universe can be made because there are no relations whatsoever. In a consciousless universe, all potentialities are equal, and this equality also causes them to be equal to absolute nothingness. This does not mean that equality itself is the same as nothing. This simply means that if, for instance, all numbers were equal, there could be no such thing as mathematics.
     One may argue that consciousness can still evolve in a consciousless universe because all potentialities would nevertheless act the same as if they were revealed to a mind. In other words, potentialities possess a separate reality of their own. The answer to this argument is: So what? Such a reality, even if it does exist, could never affect consciousness in any way, much less evolve it. Why? Because such a reality can have no relationship to a mind. The motion or non-motion of a single spherical object in a conscious universe remains undetermined because the object has no motion or non-motion relationship to consciousness. In other words, that which is completely unknown has no effect whatsoever on consciousness. A consciousless universe can never affect consciousness because it always remains a completely unknown universe.
     At best, a consciousless universe can be imagined to be a boiling caldron of chaos. It is difficult to imagine how life could evolve in such a universe.
The conclusions are these:
Duality can be the only real substance of any known universe.
The idea of nothingness hides potential reality.
The idea of nothingness can substitute for absolute nothingness.
Consciousness of objects, including the idea of nothingness, causes the universe of space and time to acquire real existence.

THE POWER OF HIS LOVE

The blood that ran from the crown of thorns
And down my Savior's face
Was pumped forth from a heart of love
That made Him take my place.

My place was on that cruel cross.
There, I deserved to die;
To suffer for the pain I'd caused;
My selfishness and pride.

Yet, should I hang eternally,
I could never pay.
That vast, infinitude of work,
He finished in one day!

ON THE NATURE OF REALITY chapter 5

THE SIMPLE IDEAS

     Every single, simple object in a duality is made real by consciousness. This is the task of duality in any known universe. This is true whether an individual object is a sense experience, an idea, or a feeling. Each individual object of consciousness is made real in duality simply because it is experienced by consciousness. However, it is not true that every individual object must either be a sense experience or be derived from sense experience. Many ideas in inner experience are directly given to the mind.
     It is certainly true that human duality does not properly develop unless combined with sensory experience. God’s will is that man should work hard with his hands and his mind in order to develop greater wisdom about the world and his relations with others. As man goes about this task, God gives such true simple ideas to inner duality as are needed. Men are able to receive these inner ideas because they possess potential duality in their minds that are already tuned to receive them. Thus, a person can not receive the simple true inner idea called "beauty" until that person observes, for example, a beautiful scene. The same is true for the realities of all simple true ideas in inner experience such as: "truth", "love", "hate", "ability", "talent", "will", and many more. However, in those areas where finite duality proves to be far too weak to be able to discover transcendent truths such as: "spirit", "faith", and "grace" on its own; then God provides for that weakness through the revelation of His Word.
     Every single object in consciousness is experienced and real because consciousness causes its objects to become more than equal to nothingness. Individual objects can be separated from the idea of nothingness by consciousness and consciousness alone Even the faintest thoughts and feelings are made real by consciousness to the extent that they are thought and felt. That consciousness causes its objects to be more than nothingness is the same as experience. To be real is to be experienced; to be experienced is to be real. Reality and experience are exactly the same.
     Every single object that appears to consciousness, whether in the world or in the mind, is made real by consciousness. The faintest feeling means something. The fact that one may be baffled by what it means is beside the point. The weakest appearance to consciousness is an experience and a reality. For this reason, philosophers should never shy away from such true simple ideas as: "substance", "object", or "thing". All of these ideas are real because consciousness makes them more than nothingness. Falsity appears by another means which will be explained later.
     An object in consciousness is made real by consciousness, and in turn, consciousness is made real by being conscious of something. This is duality.
     Duality is reality. Every individual object of consciousness becomes necessarily real. All real objects are separated from nothingness and from each other by consciousness. This constitutes the atomic structure of reality. These are the sets of simple true ideas.
     Some examples of the simple true ideas are: "extension", "hardness", "redness", "finite", "infinite", "love", "beauty", "ability", "will", "condition", and even "malaise". Even ideas such as "wisp" or "nuance" are real. Feelings and ideas that have no names are real. The simple true idea "real" is real. Every single, simple object in consciousness is real no matter how difficult it may be to grasp or explain. However, some philosophers maintain that such ideas as "substance" are not real.
     However, suppose a cave exists somewhere on earth that contains an object which no one has ever seen. It is a unique object and one would be shocked to see it. Now suppose a person enters the cave and views the object and returns to report to a crowd waiting outside. The crowd asks him, "What did you see, if anything?" He answers, "I can’t describe it, but something is in there". He refuses to say more.
     What idea does the crowd now have of the object? They have one idea only. The object is a "something" or a "substance". It is more than nothing. There is a "substance" that is real and that is all they know.
Now, even though the person who viewed the object is baffled by it and can not describe it, he nevertheless has more ideas about the object than the crowd does. He has seen all of the unique attributes of the object. Because he possesses more ideas about the object, it is more real to him than it is to the crowd.
     Now, suppose the crowd enters the cave and views the object. Then the object becomes more real to the crowd, even though some of them will be able to describe it better than others. This happens because the "substance" of the object plus the rest of its attributes form a combination of simple ideas that constitutes the totality of the object. Those who carefully observe each singular attribute; that is, the simple ideas, will obtain a better understanding of the object than those who merely observe the totality of the object.
     Now, suppose that the aforementioned object is never discovered. In that case, it could possess nothing except potential real existence. Absolutely nothing could or would be know about it; not even where it is or that it has substance. All of its attributes would be hidden in absolute nothingness. The object would be equal to absolute nothingness. In fact, to talk about the unknown is to talk about whatever is equal to absolute nothingness. However, to talk about the unknown also requires that one have an idea of nothingness that substitutes for absolute nothingness.
     Note here that there is an enormous difference between an object possessing potential real existence; that is, one that is equal to absolute nothingness, and nonexistence itself. The only potency that the former possesses is that it may be discovered by consciousness and therefore become real. Nonexistence never becomes real except that a simple true idea, the idea of nothingness, can be substituted for nonexistence in ways that are useful to duality. No one can be directly aware of absolute nothingness. If one were dead, without soul or spirit, then one’s duality would become the same as absolute nothingness.
     Now suppose the object in the cave does not exist; that is, it does not possess potential real existence. Then the object would be the same as absolute nothingness. Nevertheless, whether the object possesses potential real existence or nonexistence, in either case, the object is unreal.
     Suppose an astronomer trains his telescope on a patch of black space where there is an extremely dim star. His telescope is not powerful enough to catch its light. Also, the star emits no radio waves, gamma rays, or any other means by which it can be detected. What does the astronomer see? Nothing. He sees only what he thinks is empty space. He knows nothing about the star, not where it is or even that it exists. The star is hidden in absolute nothingness, but as far as the astronomer is concerned the star is equal to the idea of nothing. All that can be said about the star is that it possesses potential real existence.
     Now suppose the astronomer obtains a more powerful telescope. He looks at the same black spot and the telescope catches the dim rays of the star. The astronomer can now see it. At that instance, the star changes from potential real existence to real existence. However, if this star is never discovered by any astronomer, then it remains equal to the idea of nothingness in duality but also forever equal to absolute nothingness in potential real existence. That which is equal to absolute nothingness affects only absolute nothingness until such time as it becomes an object in duality.
     Consider Schrodinger’s mental experiment called Schrodinger’s cat. While the cat is in the box with the lid closed, the scientist can not know whether the cat is dead or alive. The most he can say is, "Either the cat is dead or alive", which is a mere truism.
     At the instance the scientist opens the lid, he determines by sight whether the cat is really dead or alive.
At that instance, the scientist demonstrates the precise purpose of consciousness in the universe.  Consciousness exists to bring the unknown into reality. Duality is the only reality. The atomic structure of reality; that is, that set of true simple ideas contained within any individual duality, including the faintest thoughts, feelings, talents, and desires, constitutes the total reality of that individual duality.
     When the astronomer looks through the weaker telescope at the black spot where the potential real star is, then he is in the same situation as Schrodinger when the lid is closed on the box. The fact that the astronomer does not know that he is in that situation is beside the point. The point is that both the astronomer and Schrodinger have a determination to make with their consciousnesses. Schrodinger already knows that the cat has real existence. He must determine whether the cat is really dead or alive when he opens the lid to the box. Only his consciousness can accomplish this task.
     The astronomer must determine whether or not the star is there, although he is not directly aware of that task except in a general way. When he obtains a stronger telescope and looks at the same spot, his action is the same as when Schrodinger opens the lid to the box. The moment that the astronomer sees the star, he determines its reality. Only the astronomer’s consciousness can accomplish this task; that is, bring the star into reality.
     The existence of objects in undetermined states indicates an important universal rule. If an object, such as a star, becomes fixed in duality at a certain time and place, then it is also determined not to be at all other times and places. However, this is not true of those objects that remain undetermined in time and place. Undetermined objects literally could be anywhere at any time, but that is the same as their being nowhere and at no time. Therefore, undetermined objects do possess potential real existence but that existence is also equal to absolute nothingness.
The conclusions are these:
The sets of simple ideas comprise every single sensation and impression of which an individual mind becomes aware, both in inner and outer duality.
Nonexistence and objects hidden in nothingness make no impressions on consciousness and are, therefore, not experienced and not real.
Consciousness is absolutely necessary to any real universe because consciousness alone possesses the potency that causes potentiality to become more than absolutely nothing.
Undetermined objects are unreal for that very reason.
Duality is the only reality.

WHO WILL BUILD THE THIRD TEMPLE? part four

Here read Acts 15:13-18
The 15th chapter of Acts records a controversy that had arisen between "a certain sect of the Pharisees" and the other Jewish Christians in the church at Jerusalem concerning how Gentiles should be converted to Christianity. Their arguments were presented to the Apostle James, one of the brothers of the Lord and the leader of the Jerusalem church, for his ruling.

The Pharisee sect argued that the Gentiles who were converted must first be circumcised and commanded to keep the law before they could become Christians. In other words, the Pharisee sect required Gentiles to become Jews before they could become Christians.

The orthodox Christians led by Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, testified that when, in their experiences, they had preached the gospel to the Gentiles, they had received the Holy Spirit as soon as they had believed. Peter offered this evidence as proof that all who hear and believe the gospel are immediately saved by the grace of God. His testimony agreed perfectly with Jesus' final words from the cross and the actions and teaching of the Holy Spirit that believers need no works or actions of their own to become Christians, but that they become born again immediately upon receiving Christ as their Savior by faith.
Here read John 19:30 John 1:12-13

After hearing these arguments, the Apostle James agreed with Peter and the orthodox Christians that God was visiting the Gentiles in order " to take out of them a people for His name." In other words, James ruled that the Gentiles could directly become Christians without becoming Jews first.

Then, in order to back up his ruling, James quotes the prophet Amos concerning God's regathering of Israel and His building of the third temple in the latter days. James' quote is quite interesting because he seems to have said that while Jews and Gentiles both get saved by the sacrifice of Christ, their histories are quite different.

James appeals to God's promises to the nation of Israel that He would return in the latter days to regather Israel and build the third temple as a testimony to the Gentiles that they, and the Jews, "might seek after the Lord." God had promised through Ezekiel and other prophets that in the latter days He would establish Israel as a nation on the earth forever. In other words, James seemed to be teaching the Pharisees that while the histories of the Jews and Gentiles would be different, they both must be saved by the same gospel and the same grace.

James goes on to rule that converted Gentiles must lead clean, moral lives. They must do so not in order to be saved, but as a testimony to unbelievers that they have been saved. The Jerusalem church then sent letters, in the hands of Paul and Barnabas and other chosen men, to all the other churches to confirm James' ruling.

Here read Daniel 9:27 Daniel 12:11 II Thessalonians 2:4
In the 9th chapter of Daniel, the prophet predicts that the last seven years of this sinful world system would be called the Tribulation period. This Tribulation period will be divided into two halves of 3 and 1\2 years each. The second half will be called the Great Tribulation. In the middle of this Tribulation period, Daniel prophesies that some wicked man who evidently holds some political and/or religious power will commit some sort of abominable act that will cause a desolation. Then this wicked man and the desolate will be consumed.

In the second chapter of II Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul wrote about this wicked man whom he called the "man of sin," "the son of perdition," and the "Wicked one." This "Wicked one" must be the same person that Daniel wrote about because Paul wrote that he and his followers would be "consumed" and "destroyed," and so did Daniel. Also, Paul wrote that this "man of sin" will sit in the temple of God and declare himself to be God, which will certainly be an abominable act. Although Daniel does not directly write that the Messiah will destroy him, Paul states that the Lord will destroy him.

In the 4th verse of the second chapter, Paul describes the abominable act of the "Wicked one." He will go into the "temple of God" and sit and claim to be God. His false claim will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

Therefore, at that time, there must exist an actual temple building for him to go into and make his false claim. Also, the church age must end before the Tribulation period can begin, and the church age ends with the Rapture. Therefore, Christ must build the third temple at some time subsequent to the Rapture and prior to the Great Tribulation. However, since the Rapture of the church will once again focus God's attention on the nation of Israel, one suspects that Christ will build His third temple immediately following the Rapture.

ON THE NATURE OF REALITY chapter 4

DUALITY DETERMINES REALITY

     Consider what happens when potential consciousness and potential objectivity link together. Suddenly, potential consciousness becomes active consciousness because it now possesses something of which to be conscious. Similarly, the potential object becomes an active object because its thereness (as well as all its other attributes) becomes established by, and separated from nothingness by, consciousness.
     Thus active consciousness in connection with active objectivity forms a duality which brings reality into existence. Reality can not exist outside this duality because outside this duality there is only a potentiality which remains equal to absolute nothingness so long as duality is absent.
     Consider an entire universe devoid of consciousness. Where are the objects of this universe and how do they move? What are the differences among the laws, energy and matter of this universe and their causes and effects on each other? Where is this universe anyway? Does it even exist? This universe many exist-in-itself but such an existence is no better than nonexistence. It has only potential real existence, if it exists at all.
One may counter that he can imagine such a universe. But he is too late. As soon as he imagines it, he has already used his consciousness to make it real, if only in imagination. If absolutely nothing can be determined about a consciousless universe from the outside, then is it not equally true that absolutely nothing can be determined about it from the inside?
     An evolutionist may object that the history of our universe can be traced prior to the emergence of consciousness. True. But what does the tracing? The history of our universe could never be a real history until determined so by duality, and a history without duality never becomes a real history because no more can be determined about a consciousless universe from inside of it than can be determined about it from outside of it.
     Suppose such a universe exists just beyond the reach of our most powerful telescopes? Since this universe can not be seen, what can be said about it? Absolutely nothing. Since this universe contains no consciousness on the inside of it, what can be said about it from the inside? Absolutely nothing. The universe is equal to absolutely nothing and that renders it completely impotent. Note that it is not the fact that nothing can be said about it that makes it equal to nothingness, but the fact that no differences or determinations can be made about it, and therefore nothing can be said about it.
     What could one say about quasars before telescopes found them? Nothing. What can one say about whatever exists or does not exist at the bottom of a black hole? Nothing, except speculative theories.
Consider the opposite extreme. A particle exists that can not be detected by any means whatsoever. It can not be detected by any instrument that has been, or ever will be invented by man. It has absolutely no effects on other particles that have effects on man. It has no direct or indirect effects on man whatsoever. Now two questions; what difference does it make whether this particle exists or not? None. Its existence is exactly equal to its nonexistence. The other question: if it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not a particle exists that can never be an object to consciousness, then what possible difference can it make whether anything exists or does not exist in a consciousless universe? If objects beyond the scope of consciousness can not affect consciousness, then surely objects without consciousness can not create consciousness.
     Now suppose a particle exists which has no direct or indirect effects on man in the present, but which can be detected in the future by some instrument not yet invented. As long as the particle remains undetected, its existence is equal to absolute nothingness. Yet, because the particle might be detected in the future by the right instrument, the particle possesses potential real existence. At the precise moment in the future that the particle is discovered, it attains real existence. If the right instrument is never invented, then the potential real existence of the particle remains forever equal to absolute nothingness.
     Many evolutionists aver that evolution proceeds from nonconsciousness to subconsciousness to partial consciousness; that is, from inert matter to one-celled animals to higher animals to intelligence. However, such a process is impossible. An unknown object can not be real except when it becomes an object to consciousness. As long as any object remains in nonconsciousness, then even its potential real existence remains constantly equal to absolute nothingness. No power exists, except consciousness, which can raise an object above its equality to absolute nothingness because all such possible powers would themselves be constantly equal to absolute nothingness.
     One may object that unknown objects can have effects on consciousness that are so faint as to be unrecognized by consciousness. This is true, but nevertheless, the reality of the unknown objects can never be more than equal to these unrecognized effects.  An unknown object may cause one to have ill health without that person being aware of the object, but unless he finds out more about this object, then its reality remains constantly equal to no more than its effects on his health. In other words, an unknown object that causes an ill effect on one’s health can only be known by the ill effects themselves. Should such an unknown object possess the potentiality of causing ill effects on health, and yet does not actually do so, and remains unknown in all other ways; then its potential real existence remains equal to absolute nothingness until such time as it begins to have ill effects on someone’s health.
     Any universe must contain duality to have reality. A universe of nothing but consciousness would contain nothing of which to be conscious and would, therefore, be void and completely unconscious. At best, such a universe would consist of consciousness-in-itself or potential consciousness. Similarly, a universe of no consciousness but with objects would possess no means to distinguish between the nothingness and the objects. At best, such a universe would consist of objectivity-in-itself, or potential objectivity. Duality is the only real substance.
     At this point, one may object that in an objective universe without consciousness, consciousness can arise by an evolutionary process in which organic elements, such as carbon and oxygen, are synthesized in the stars and then spread throughout the universe by supernovae, eventually forming life on some hospitable planets.
     However, considered deeply, what is an objective universe without consciousness? It must be one that is completely indifferent to differences. In fact, it must be completely indifferent to the difference between something and nothing. Such a universe is one that possesses no means whatsoever to distinguish between matter and energy, or even between space and matter. There could be no such action as one moment following another, or difference between motion and non-motion. There could be no difference between large and small, or even between inside and outside.
     With the faintest amount of consciousness applied to such a universe, probably no more could be determined about it than can be determined about an electron considered as a wave. With the least amount of consciousness applied, such a universe, at best, could be determined to be no more than standing waves in space.
     Consider the uncertainty principle. If an electron is measured as a particle, then its velocity can not be determined. If its velocity is measured, then its location becomes unknown. Perhaps the electron exists close to the limits of the powers of consciousness to separate the real from the unknown.
     A consciousless universe can not evolve consciousness because consciousness is absolutely indispensable to the reality of any universe, being the only power which can establish duality which makes determinations.    A consciousless universe may be potentially known, but as long as it remains unknown, it also remains unreal and impotent. Unreality equals impotence because of the absolute absence of determinations.
A consciousless universe can become real only if it becomes the object of a consciousness. It can never evolve such a consciousness because such a process would involve determinations which only duality can make.
     Duality separates objects from space and from each other. Duality determines the passage of time, and motion from non-motion. Only duality can set the laws that govern a universe and determine its mathematical constancies. Duality is that necessary determiner that makes any universe real.
     No system can properly operate if indispensable parts are absent. A consciousless universe can have no real function because it has been swallowed by nothingness. Absolute nothingness has rendered it completely impotent. All of its causes and effects affect only nothingness. At best, a consciousless universe can be described as having only  potential objective reality.
     True reality must, of necessity, be a known reality. Even if objects-in-themselves had a kind of reality, what good would it be? Every event in a consciousless universe becomes totally wasted on nothingness. Only a revealed universe can be appreciated and acted upon. The total waste of a consciousless universe is the precise reason that it can never bring consciousness into being. Evolution is impossible. Any consciousless universe is constantly wasted on absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness holds all power in any consciousless universe.

WHO WILL BUILD THE THIRD TEMPLE? part three

Here read Psalms 127:1
While this verse, no doubt, constitutes a statement about the continuous failures of mankind to accomplish anything of eternal value; it could also be considered a prophecy about an actual future house that the Lord will build.

Again and again in scripture, God allows man to try first to accomplish something of eternal value and when he fails; God takes over and succeeds. Where Adam sinned, the Lord Jesus Christ took over and led a sinless life. Where Israel failed to keep the law and establish a righteous nation, Jesus created a righteous people by purchasing and sanctifying His church with His own blood. Many other examples of this pattern occur in scripture.

This pattern also applies to the building of the first and second temples. Man built them both and man destroyed them both. These temples symbolized man's failure to establish a righteous nation on the earth. Taking this into account, then it stands to reason that God should succeed in building an eternal temple that would stand as a symbol of the success of His Son in establishing a righteous people through His death, burial and resurrection.

Here read John 19:30 Hebrews 1:1-3 Ephesians 2:8-9
Jesus' success in establishing a righteous nation where man failed also applies to each individual member of His church. No man can save himself, or even cooperate with God in his own salvation. Any attempt to do so always ends in complete failure.

Through His death, burial and resurrection, Jesus alone accomplished man's salvation. His blood has been provided to wash away every person's sins. His burial has been provided to take away each person's sins. His resurrection has been provided to justify repentant sinners and to give them His very own eternal life. He also sits at the right hand of the Father to intercede for penitent sinners. Any sinner who hears, or reads, or remembers the gospel and who realizes that he is completely lost and cannot save himself; and who humbles himself to God and puts his complete trust in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on his behalf, will experience the miracle of being born again.
Here read John 3:3

Here read Ezekiel 37:26-28
Beginning at verse 15, Ezekiel prophesies that God will gather the children of Israel from the heathen where they have been scattered, and that He will reestablish the nation of Israel. This prophecy was wonderfully fulfilled on May 15, 1948.

At some time in the future, God will establish an "everlasting covenant" with Israel and "David my servant" will be their king. "David my servant" is another Old Testament name for the Messiah.

God promises to cleanse them of their sins, to sanctify them, and to establish them as a nation forever. Since only the blood of Jesus can cleanse from sin, and only the Holy Spirit can sanctify anyone; then this "everlasting covenant" must be the same as the New Testament one provided by the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
God also promises Israel that He will "set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore," and that this sanctuary will be a testament to the heathen that God has sanctified Israel. This promise can only mean that God, in the form of the Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ, will personally build the third temple of God in Jerusalem.

Here read Amos 9:11
Amos's prophecy obviously has a double meaning. The first one is that God will reestablish the nation of Israel.

The second meaning seems to indicate, by the verbs that are used such as "raise" and "build," that God will personally build the third temple to replace the first two that fell due to man's failures.

WHO WILL BUILD THE THIRD TEMPLE? part two

In addition, God put a prophecy in the mouths of the crowd which represented the attitude of all mankind when they said: "His blood be on us, and on our children." The crowd simply meant that they would take the responsibility for Jesus' death because they wanted to be rid of Him. However, God's double, and exact, meaning of their unintended prophecy was that Jesus' shed blood would be made available to all men so that those who repent and believe in Christ will be washed clean of all their sins and reconciled to God.

Here read II Corinthians 5:18-19
All of humanity stands with that crowd either rejecting the Lord Jesus or accepting His blood, by faith, to wash away their sins.

Here read John 11:49-53
Another example of a double prophecy was the one uttered by Caiaphas the high priest. In Caiaphas' mind, his prophecy was simply a political one having to do with the relationship of the Jewish nation to their Roman masters. Caiaphas thought that the Jewish leaders could use Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of the Romans as a political tool to help unite the Jewish people, at home and abroad, in greater opposition to Roman control.

But the exact meaning of the prophecy that God put in his mouth was a spiritual one. This spiritual meaning was revealed in Caiaphas' use of the phrases "one man should die for the people" and "whole nation perish not." His use of these phrases revealed God's influence over what he said. Note that he did not say "one man should die for Judah" or "our nation perish not," which would have been the pure political meaning.

Instead, the exact spiritual meaning of what he said was that Jesus would die for all people: "whole nation" meaning all people. This meaning was further clarified in verses 51 and 52 when Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would not just die for the Jewish nation but that: "He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." This phrase reveals the exact spiritual meaning of that which Jesus did. Jesus died on the cross and was raised again for all people everywhere so that the gospel , through the power of the Holy Spirit, would spread throughout the whole world so that those who believe would be united into His church which He purchased with His own blood.

These evidences attest to the fact that the false witnesses, in the second part of what they said, really meant that Jesus would build the third temple even though they had no idea of what they were saying.

In addition, some of the Old Testament prophets also prophesied that Jesus would build the third temple.

Here read Zechariah 6:9-15.
In this passage of scripture, God causes Zechariah to act out a prophecy. Zechariah instructs certain men to make a crown of silver and gold, and to set it on the head of Joshua who was the high priest at that time.

Then Zechariah instructs those present at this event to speak to the high priest as though he were THE BRANCH. THE BRANCH is one of the Old Testament names for the Messiah. One of the things they said was: "he shall build the temple of the Lord." They then go on to prophesy that this Messiah will one day rule as king and priest. This prophecy can only refer to the age of the Messiah when He shall come to reign over the whole world, and also to the third temple which Jesus, the Messiah, shall build.

Furthermore, verse 15 refers to those that are "far off;" meaning that people from every part of the world will come and "build in the temple of the Lord." Note that this does not say that they will build the temple, but that they will "build in the temple." Apparently, worshipers will come from all over the world to build something inside the temple that will honor the Messiah who will be the ruler of the world.

WHO WILL BUILD THE THIRD TEMPLE? part one

Read John 2:18-21 Matthew 26:60-61 Zechariah 6:9-15
II Thessalonians 2:4 Acts 15:13-18 Psalms 127:1 Amos 9:11
KJV

Nowhere does scripture prophesy that the Jews will build the third temple of God. Biblical commentators often aver that before Jesus returns to the earth, the Jews must rebuild the third temple. This view does not accord with an exact reading of the Word of God. KJV.

In every place where the third temple is mentioned, the Bible (KJV) relates that Jesus Himself will build the third temple in Jerusalem. In John 2:18-21, Jesus prophesies that man will destroy the second temple, but that Jesus will raise it up in three days. Now it is certainly true that the closest fulfillment of this prophecy occurred with Jesus' resurrection, since He alone was the temple of the Holy Spirit at that time. However, prophecy often has a double meaning. Prophecy often has a near and a far fulfillment. The near fulfillment was about Jesus' resurrection, but the far fulfillment was that Jesus would actually rebuild the third temple.

Here read Matthew 26:60-61
The false witnesses lied when they misquoted Jesus as saying that He would destroy the second temple. Jesus had actually said that man would destroy the second temple.
The false witnesses inadvertently told the truth when they said that Jesus would build the third temple in three days. This is what Jesus had actually said. Unknowingly, the false witnesses were referring to Jesus' resurrection even though they probably knew nothing about it. However, in their minds, they were referring to the building of the actual third temple since they were witnessing as to what Jesus had said.

Satan is a master of a form of lying called a half-truth. Satan put this half-truth into the mouths of the false witnesses in order to attempt to justify the cruel men who would crucify Jesus.

However, God pre-empted Satan's attempt by using the truthful second part of the false witnesses' statement as an inadvertent prophecy on their part that Jesus would build the third temple. In other words, they thought they were lying but God had put a truth in their mouths. Several times in the events surrounding Jesus' arrest and crucifixion, God used even the wicked men who crucified Him as unintentional prophets who spoke the truth about Jesus even though they had no idea what they were actually saying.

Here read Matthew 27:25 John 3:17 II Corinthians 5:14-15
Acts 4:25-28
God used exact meaning where the first part of Matthew 27:25 states: "Then answered all the people." It does not say "then answered the crowd," or any words to that effect. God's meaning is exact. The crowd represented the attitude of all humanity towards Jesus. Because all men are born sinners, then all men have a natural aversion to communion with God.

Here read Romans 5:9-12 Romans 3:23
These facts make all men who were ever born responsible for the rejection and crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ.

ON THE NATURE OF REALITY chapter 3

OBJECTIVITY-IN-ITSELF

     Consider an object-in-itself; that is, an object in a void, completely separated from all consciousness. Where is this object? At what time does it exist? This object possesses no thereness or whenness. In the absence of consciousness, it possesses no means of definition, not even the difference between it and nothing. The object definitely exists within itself but what good is that? When its thereness, whenness, and all other attributes are subtracted; all of which can only be delimited by consciousness, then what does the object have left but nothing? At best, the object has only potential objectivity. The object may have existence, but it has no real existence.
     One may object that existence-in-itself is all the object needs to have real existence. However, until such time and place that the object impacts on consciousness, what possible difference can it make whether the object exists or not? The object is wasted on nothingness. No object can be a real object until it becomes an object of consciousness.
     Does a table continue to exist when everyone leaves a room? The table certainly continues to exist since it is still there when everyone returns to the room (assuming no one removes the table and replaces it with a duplicate). However, when everyone goes out of the room, then all of the attributes of the table exist only in the minds of those who remember it. Even the time and place of the table is merely something remembered. In-itself, the table continues to exist in the room, but the reality of the table exists only in the minds of those who think about it.
     Consider the existence of a hypothetical object somewhere in the world. Now suppose it possessed unique attributes which no one has ever seen. If someone were to find this object, that person would be shocked to see it.
     Now suppose this object will never be found. What can one say about it? Nothing. No one even knows where it might be. One can not even say whether or not it even exists at all.
Therefore, if this object exists, it has only existence-in-itself, or potential real existence; that is, reality, at whatever time it comes into the focus of a mind.
     At this point, one may object that because one can trace the changes in an object which happen whether one is aware of them or not,  this proves that objects are real independent of their being observed. One can return to the room where the table was to find that it had burned. Since only a real table can burn, then in the interval, the table had to be real. Also, one can trace, by scientific investigation, the exact chemical changes that happened to the table while it burned, and since it burned unobserved, then the table had to have been real when it burned.
       Of course, it is true that a table can burn unobserved, but until such time as these changes  are observed, they remain equal to absolute nothingness. In other words, if the table is never observed to have burned, and if its burning never affects consciousness in any other way, then what difference does it make whether it burned or not? Its burning is equal to its not burning. The table and all of its changes are equal to absolute nothingness as long as such changes have no effect on consciousness. Only when change affects consciousness does it become real change.
     Suppose our universe, with all of its exact changes, had happened just the way we observe it to have happened, but with no consciousness to observe it. What possible difference would it make whether our universe ever existed, or when it existed, or what changes it went through? Without consciousness, our universe would be equal to absolute nothingness.
For these reasons, evolutionists have made a fundamental error when they assert that exact, traceable changes in our universe led to the evolution of life, that is, consciousness. This process is impossible because even exact changes in a consciousness universe are continuously being wasted by, and swallowed by, absolute nothingness. In order for any universe to be a real universe, consciousness must be there to begin with.
     If a consciousness can only be equal to a void if it is not conscious of something, then surely the opposite must also be true. Any object of which no consciousness is conscious must also be equal to a void. At least, consciousness possesses an inner potency, or potentiality, to be conscious of something. Any object of which no consciousness is conscious possesses no such inner potency. It is completely inert. It possesses no known, inner power to determine anything about itself, no thereness, no motion or rest, no form, no time; that is, absolutely nothing. Any object not focused on by consciousness can only be equal to absolute nothingness. An object equal to absolute nothingness possesses only potential real existence.
The evolutionist’s argument that consciousness evolved from exact, deterministic actions of inert matter and energy seems strange. The argument seems to be that consciousness, which possesses the only known power of determinism, evolved from that which possesses no known power of determinism. In the first place, the argument is unscientific because it postulates a potency in inert matter which is neither observable nor repeatable. Second, the argument is self-contradictory because it makes that which is impotent more powerful than that which is potent.
     Whenever a person sees (or hears, or feels) a previously unknown object, it then gains real existence in sensory perception, but its real existence is limited to what one sees or hears. If one imagines a previously unknown object, it gains real existence, but only in the imagination.
     One could have imagined that the other side of the moon would appear pretty much the same as the side that can be seen, but before astronauts saw it, this could be done only in the imagination. Before the other side of the moon became exactly fixed by means of sensory perception, most of its reality existed only in the imagination. Before, only its time and place were known to be real. If the other side of the moon were never seen, then forever, as far as finite minds are concerned, its detailed reality would remain limited to time, place and imagination. Without time, place or imagination, its reality would equal absolutely nothing.
Any object which is not fixed by sensory perception, or which cannot even be imagined or felt, remains equal to absolute nothingness. It possesses only potential real existence. Until such time as any object or idea comes into the focus of a consciousness, then that idea or object remains equal to absolute nothingness.
     Any object or idea is real only when focused on by consciousness, and consciousness is real only when it focuses on an object or idea. Thus duality is the only reality.

ON THE NATURE OF REALITY chapter 2

                                                        CONSCIOUSNESS-IN-ITSELF

     Consider consciousness-in-itself; that is, consciousness in a void. Such a consciousness could be conscious of only nothing, and not even nothing. Such a consciousness would be absolutely unconscious.
With absolutely nothing present to such a consciousness, at best, it can only be described as potential consciousness. The most that can be said about a potential consciousness is that it is completely empty. It is as empty as the void that contains it. Thus, it is equal to the void.
     Consider the hypothetical idea that a potential consciousness exists. Suppose that, somehow, it gained the potency to concentrate on an object presented to it. Immediately, one can see that, to the same extent that it has concentrated on the object, the consciousness has separated itself from the void.
     Jean Paul Sartre said, "All consciousness is consciousness of something". When a potential consciousness focuses on an object, then that consciousness and its object become more than a void. The consciousness is doing what it is supposed to do; that is being conscious of something. At the moment a potential consciousness concentrates on any object or idea, the consciousness changes from a potential consciousness to an active consciousness. It becomes real consciousness.

SOME MATERIALISTS' MYTHS

                                                                                           by warrendhawkins
The materialist's philosophy and religion which has held the ascendency in academia since the middle of the 19th century has produced its own myths just as have all religions.

True Christianity has no myths because it is not based on religion but on faith in the revealed Word of God. In other words, Christians believe that God cannot lie to His people.

Materialism is the philosophy and religion that holds that only matter and energy are real and that God does not exist.

Religion has always been either a belief in nature gods or no god at all. These two belief systems are actually closely allied. The animists thought that they could gain wealth or power by worshipping the forces of nature which their gods represented. In other words, their religion was close to the philosopy of materialism. Usually, the atheists went along with the animists' religion out of fear of rejection or pure superstition.

In either case, materialism contains no spiritual content whatsoever. Christianity has Spirit because it is based on a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Atheistic materialism gained acceptance with the advent of the scientific method because the materialists thought that they could use the scientific method to prove eventually that God does not exist.

The first myth of the materialists is called the theory of evolution. This myth is based on the philosophy of Charles Darwin. This philosophy maintains that life created itself and progressed to all its varied forms by the natural forces of beneficial mutation and natural selection. In other words, this philosophy maintains that God is not needed, and therefore, does not exist. The natural forces of this philosophy are actually quite similar to the nature gods of the animists' religion.

Most of the first scientists were Christians. The theory of evolution ignored the findings of the Christian, Louis Pastuer, who discovered that only life can generate life, and that spontaneous generation is impossible. It also ignored the long-held observation that one kind can only reproduce its own kind. In other words, dogs can only produce dogs, and cats can only produce cats and so forth.

Today, the evolutionists ignore the findings of modern geneticists.
Through the scientific method, the modern geneticists have discovered that there exists a third necessary element to the creation and maintenance of life, in addition to matter and energy. This third element is called specific information. Specific information is like language or a computer code. The cells of all living things are loaded with specific information. Life cannot exist without it. Many geneticists believe that this specific information is actually a computer code far more complex than any ever invented by man. One thing is for certain, specific information cannot be produced by any force except an intelligent mind. In other words, true science has found that God exists.

The materialists political myth is that through socialism man can create his own paradise on earth, and that therefore, man does not need for God to bring His kingdom to earth. Time and again, history has proven socialism to be a failure in every country where it has ever been tried.

Another scientific myth of materialism is called global warming. The propagation of this myth is simply an attempt to shift most of the wealth of the world from the control of the capitalists to those who are controlled by the socialists. In other words, it is simply a scheme by the socialists to gain control of the wealth of the world. Most true scientists know that global warming is based on manipulated or flawed data.

There are other myths of the materialists, but these should suffice to show that they have their myths just as does any other religion.

Those who want to know the truth should read the Word of God. Jesus said in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me."