Using the "old school" in-line reply technique, J wrote:> "I'm not actually sure I even like remembering my dreams."
Whatever one may think, say or do *is* one's *own* business (per the 10ᵗʰ Commandment, Exodus 20:17.)
However, I'll present to you the "what if?" scenario: What *if* one could A) learn to control one's dream (in essence, control one's life) and thereby B) have a direct (preferably positive) consequence *on* one's dreams / life? IF such were possible, *then* one's life could begin to reveal much greater light to the world of darkness, poetically speaking, as it were.
To that end, here's a link to what I call the "Right Eye First" technique, that I developed decades ago (and first posted here in alt.dreams) which has had various (mostly positive!) responses / feedback!
tinyurl.com/RightEyeFirstTechnique
I'm personally working on "brevity" by using links to avoid re-typing the same information over and over again (a bit like sharing a cooking recipe using cut & paste, but with a link.)
Meanwhile, many, *many* people try to share their own, personal tips on what brings "happiness" (or "meaning") into existence. That above link is simply a *physiological technique* that appears to function on *most people!* that is designed to instantly trigger REM phase, and to *aid* in dream recall.
But "happiness" / "meaning"?
Hmmmm.... well, my life was pure, prodigal garbage at one point, so I decided to "change role models" from what *I* wanted to what someone *else* was able to achieve. OK, so who then to pick as "the" role model? Someone who *never* lost, and even in the one event were it appeared all was lost, was actually the key moment of victory?
(I suspect you can "hear" where this is going.)
OK, so then I started *questioning intently* as to *why* that particular role model should be (or "is") preferable to all others? Well, to answer that, I had to start questioning the words recorded of what the person taught. In order to do that, I had to *discard ALL* of what "other folk" said about what X actually "means," and question the words recorded directly.
(Again, I suspect you can "hear" where this is going. However, what I'm sharing here is the *process* of investigation, query, study, analysis, result/consequence.)
So OK, I've got this "Concept 1" that I pick as the "new standard" by which to start applying my life, the standard(s) by which I treat others, and more importantly, the "template" with which I filter my words that they may be meaningful to the reader / listener.
Now comes the "important part," that is, picking an "antithesis" to "Concept 1," which was the *real* trick indeed! I can tell you more about that "journey," but unless you have any actual interest, there may be no actual "point" to sharing it.
So again, *to be brief,* I put the journey into a children's level story which (I believe) brings out the *point* that "Reality Conforms to Thought." (Now apply that to the reality of "Light" and "darkness" and you may *possibly* begin to "get the picture.")
That's the whole purpose to the link:
tinyurl.com/ITTA-TCoU
J:> "I did [use] to remember a lot more and make an effort to remember them when I was young. For some time I've not really thought much about it and let them fade as is the default human condition. Looking upon my old haunts on Usenet with the soon to be dismantling of GG brought me back to them."
Ditto. I remember back when I was just learning to understand that people dream (as a youth of around 3 or 4) that I tried to remember them all as well. To this day, I can remember some *very old* dreams (dreams from *long ago*) with fairly decent clarity (like the two-story hay bales with a hatch between the floors) although I started noticing *in my adult year* that certain dreams seemed to have a "real life analog" that occurred typically within 24 to 48 hours. (Then came the "out of body" / "astral body projection" experiences, and that *really* piqued my interest!)
So when I discovered alt.dreams, well, it seemed like practically a "god send" that I could *journal* the dreams, then see if any of them actually *did* "come true" in real life.
ONE such dream of significance *may* be found by looking back at July 25th (and for whatever reason I have trouble remembering the year, possibly mid-to-late '90s, certainly no later than 2004) wherein I posted a dream of being a female about to give birth, the feeling of trying to pass a bowling ball from inside my pelvic bone to the outside, and that if I squeezed one more time, something was going to "break." I posted that dream, then later that afternoon, my nephew was born (at least a full week or more ahead of his due date, somewhere in August.)
J:> "Is it even helpful to remember and analyze them. I don't know."
The dream I had of October 7th of 2023 was rather amazing, but by the time I'd posted it, apparently, the news of the invasion of Israel from the Gaza strip was already world news. It doesn't matter that I posted the dream *before* turning on the news: the news went public *at about the time* I was having the dream. (It's the idea of posting a dream *before* an event occurs that I find a fascinating possibility.)
J:> "There is some entertainment to be had from them, but it also feels somehow wrong in a way I can't put my finger on."
Well, I *sorta* get that. It's the near anonymity of alt.dreams that I appreciate: Sure, I can post some *wild* stuff that would *normally* get a person "committed" (back before the Left dumped out all the criminally insane into the streets as homeless addicts) but in alt.dreams, it's simply "just a dream," and as such, open to speculation / interpretation (even ridicule, but fortunately, there's been none of that visible in all the years I've been posting here. The "bad folk" tend to simply disappear, and only the auto-spammers leave any actual "defecation" in the space.)
Other than that, I am unable to see anything "wrong" about posting dreams. To me, it's analogous with the public "block chain" that's the core engine of bit-coin technology.
Here's an example of avoiding judgment: Say someone has a dislike, aversion, or even a hatred of firearms (anti-2nd-Amendment folk): they blame the cop(s) whenever a criminal (or even an innocent person) gets shot dead. Then, when some insane person goes on a killing spree, the *very same* people *blame the guns*. (In essence, blamers blame, judgers judge, haters hate, etc.)
Now look at the oxymoron of the phrase "gun violence": no gun is capable of "violence" as that is a *human* quality. *People* are either law-abiding, peace-loving, life-protecting, *or* criminally violent. It has *nothing* to do with "guns."
So if someone wants to "ban all guns," then who will have them? Those who *disobey* the law (eventually, the tyrants.) THEN where will you be? So if guns get banned, then people start using swords, knives, baseball bats, even rocks to defend themselves *if* they are life-protecting/life-defending, yet the criminally ill / violent use the same things to kill.
So where's the "point of peace" between these two sides? Simple: "Judge NOT—"
Is [X] "right" or "wrong"? No judgment. Feel the peace of that position?
J:> "The time to write in the morning is difficult to find during the week as well."
I get that too. Fortunately, my full-time "job" is caring for my elderly mother, so I basically am at the keyboard as much as humanly possible (between times of "activity" and/or rest/sleeping.)
The "method" I've adopted is to simply *find* time to post when there's a dream "worth the time / interest" to journal (to type up.) Otherwise, sure, I have other things I could be doing.
Then, when "tuning into" alt.dreams, it helps to take the time to reply to others *before* writing up whatever brought me here in the first place. That way, others get listened to / interacted with, *and* whatever brought me here gets tended to (finally) at the end.
RCS:> Here's a little something about "Webs": it ***could*** be that the black stuff represents "evil" structures that have set up a "stronghold" within your life.
J:> "Quite possible. Things I want to change, but am otherwise hopeless about."
I'd like to offer you some direct input to encourage you as to what is possible, but I've skimmed through some of what's to follow, and will just say for now: "Reality Conforms to Thought." (See also: Matthew 19:26!)
If you'd like to try to disprove that (that "Reality Conforms to Thought") it is exceptionally simple to show how trying to disprove it only proves it more clearly.
From there, you may begin to think of ways to "change your reality" as your reality begins conforming to your thought. (It's a bit of a process, like learning any skill that takes time to master.)
RCS:> The way to rid yourself of them (to get "clean dreams" again) is through an ongoing relationship with Jesus (in fellowship with the Holy Spirit, as some folk put it.)
RCS:> Here's a link you may wish to read on your own:
J:> "I'm an agnostic Californian as you so put it so venomously in another reply."
*** Excuse me? *** Please feel free to post a link to wherever that reference is allegedly supported.
I have a really peculiar form of "dain bramage": I reply to what I see before my eyes, and do all I can to *avoid* accusing or labeling (or judging or condemning) someone as any type of condition or position.
I may have *asked* or *opined* a "feeling" or "potential" of that condition—
*Is the term "agnostic Californian" something resonant or denied?*
I *do* seem to recall some type of images of homeless folk on sidewalks. *Much* (not "all") of California appears to be run by agnostics or atheists these days. At least, that's how it appears in all forms of nightly news: Fox says it "out loud" while those MSM type outlets say it tacitly (by "not" saying it, or by "looking/pointing away from" the conditions that *public, government/governing policies* are causing.)
J:> "I've had exposure to a number of religions growing up, I find good and bad in all of them, even atheism such as it is or isn't a religion."
My Indiana cousins (whom I deeply cherished in my youth) told me "There's a little bit of truth in every religion, but no religion has all the truth."
Turns out, one may argue either "for" *or* "against" that particular adage / axiom. It's possible to show how Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity *reveals* that which *is perfectly TRUE* ("Is-based ideology") while Islam *is NOT* Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity.
(Language = LOGOS = LOGIC = meaning, in binary: 1|0; in Logic: T|F; in much religion: "Good|evil"' in art, "contrast," etc.)
(See also:
tinyurl.com/Q-DJ-Boolean-IBI-NBI )
Funny thing about atheism: the structure of "there is no god" sets the value of [g=0] — reflecting the logically FALSE condition.
To state that God *is* Love ❤️ reveals that G=❤️=1, the logically, perfectly TRUE expression.
(Again, this may be explained in full, but that can wait until requested.)
J:> "The only thing that's really stuck with me is what my grandfather taught me in his [self-proclaimed] religion of the "Brick church" which is to follow the golden rule of 'Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.' Which is basically what your link is about."
Trying to follow that: a "Brick church" is the *consequence* of enough *people* congregating together as a common mind (as in Baptism into the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ) which is yet another example of how "Reality Conforms to Thought": as the congregation grows, the meeting in homes migrates to meeting in a common location which migrates to the building of a "Brick church" (etc.)
The "Golden Rule" comes from:
biblehub.com/matthew/7-12.htm "The Golden Rule": "In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets."
(For pseudo-authoritarians): Feel free to do yourself for others as you tell others to do for you.
(That last line is something that just "came to me" one day)
};^>
The *easiest* / clearest way I know how to explain that particular principle is through Matthew 7:1–2, which reads:
1 Judge NOT that ye be not judged.
[which simply states that one avoids judgment by NOT judging, just as one avoids the act of speeding by NOT speeding.]
2 For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Thus, my personal choice to *strenuously avoid* labeling, accusing, judging or condemning others.
J:> "Even that is difficult [to] follow ethically, as there are things others would want done to them that I wouldn't and vice versa and [et cetera.]
OK, so let's put "ethics" aside for the moment: The issue is for the individual to treat (do unto) others *as* one would have others do to the individual.
That is, let's reduce it to the binary choice: would you want others to 1) help you live, or 0) bring about your death?
Now as for me, personally, I'm all *for* others helping me "to live" therefore that's my primary objective for others, to help *others* to live. And, the easiest way I know how to do that is by sharing the very *crux* of the choice that led *me* to choose life:
(Tinyurl.com/ITTA-TCoU)
It's very easy: "Love the enemies of you" (Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 5:44) contrasts with [kill enemies] in Qur'an 9:5. So then, *which* of these two ideas is worth following? And how does one "weigh an idea?"
Simple: put oneself *into* the variable of "enemies": if I am (One is, You are) my own {one's own, your own} greatest of enemies, and Muhammad is exhorting me to [kill myself] while Jesus is teaching me to [love myself] then *which* of these two (opposite) paths leads to my (and my future family's) brightest, living future?
(Hint: Muhammad's path goes LEFT, the path of Jesus *reveals perfect love* yet the sun "rises in the east" (to the right.))
J:> "and it's easy to justify certain things that are otherwise self evidently wrong with it."
So here's another "peeling of the onion of judgment": *Only* Love *Reveals* Unity
(as in the "binary structure" of "Love thine enemies,"
aka 1❤️0) whereas all that is NOT Love thus "reflects" duality.
Unity = Oneness = Wholeness = "Salvation": 1❤️0, while
duality *reflects* Unity, yet *is NOT* Unity. In fact, duality *excludes* Unity, even as Unity *includes* duality.
(The donut *includes* the hole; the hole *excludes* the donut.)
(Lovers love lovers *and* haters; haters hate lovers *and* haters.)
Finally, 1❤️0 is the structure of "Key❤️lock" that *unlocks* ALL existence. (Or "locks" it, if you happen to be a Catholic, follower of a Pope who follows Peter, a *dead* Apostle.)
(And lest you think I'm pro-protestant, all protestants (many unknowingly!) follow Martin Luther who followed Paul, *also* a *dead* Apostle.)
"Christians" love and obey the teaching of Jesus ♱ Who *is* resurrected *and* ascended.
(Again, note the "IS-based" structure of that sentence, that which *is* TRUE, =1.)
J:> "He also taught me 'Everything in moderation.' Which I also believe where it can apply, but I don't remember finding that in any religion."
While I'm familiar with that (and try to apply it on occasion) it is now for me to see if I can "find" that, Biblically.... Hmmm... While that is *other than* an exact quote from Scripture, there is much Scripture *related* to that concept, which you may see for yourself at:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/everything_in_moderation
openbible.info/topics/everything_in_moderation
Now a bit about my own, personal preference: While I acknowledge *all* the Bible has to say, I *focus* on what Jesus teaches. Why? Because:
ALL reflectors (and shiny things) are to Light as all Apostles (and preachers) are to Jesus.
In other words, while Jesus *is* and *teaches* Unity, while Peter, Paul, and many, many others *preach* duality.
http://discussingjesus.quora.com/https-www-quora-com-What-are-some-introductory-critical-thinking-short-notes-answer-Richard-Carl-Silk
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-introductory-critical-thinking-short-notes/answer/Richard-Carl-Silk
tinyurl.com/itta-topic-ud
Make no joke nor mistake about it: there's a *HUGE* gulf between Unity (that which *includes* duality) and duality (that which *excludes* Unity) — Just as the donut *includes* the hole, yet the hole *is NOT* (excludes) the donut.
Regarding "Everything in moderation" —
Jesus:
Matthew 6:25–34,
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?
28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin,
29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’
32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
There are a few others, but that makes for a good starting point, discussion-wise.
J:> "The other thing organized religion has is community and co-operation, which is a huge flaw of atheism. There's been attempts, but I'd say they're largely failures and suffer from taking opposite stances from rebelling against Christianity specifically rather than forging something without such prejudices."
Oh yeah... just a minute...
https://youtu.be/s2__6jMtmIM?t=1511 << if you want a "concrete example" / "proof" to understand how and why atheism fails in contrast with Christianity, *feel free* to check out that particular link. Give it *two minutes* to see if it's "in your wheel house" as they say.
***Meanwhile, the "contrast of opposites" is what the contrast of Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity (that which *is* perfectly TRUE) and Islam (that which is NOT Hebrew/Judeo-Christianity) is all about.***
J:> "I've managed to find community and co-operation elsewhere, but it's crumbled under changes especially those brought by the lockdowns of Covid."
I could show you were the WuFlu is prophesied in the Book of the Revelation of Saint John of Jesus Christ, but that's something of an "advanced topic" for believers as well as eschatologists.
J:> "I find [evangelizing] distasteful, rude, and fails the golden rule in my case."
Right: you would avoid evangelizing others, as you would have them avoid evangelizing you. That appears to be a proper application of "The Golden Rule"— however, I ask you to consider, what does it tell you, yourself, that you apply Christianity (the teaching of Jesus Himself) in your behavior towards others? (Follow-up: Matthew 24:4— Take heed, lest anyone *you* mislead.)
J:> "Would you want someone trying to convert you to another religion?"
Actually, the Hegelian Dialectic (A with B produces ^ higher thought, the "absolute") resonates *perfectly* with Matthew 5:44.
J:> "If so then I'll happily send you all the atheist links I come across."
So I get all sorts of atheist-type content in my Quora news feed (see also:
divineatheists.quora.com)
yet while I often reply to atheistic (0-based) content, I rarely see any understanding *from* 0-based believers (who have no concept of "1".)
It's basically the "logical" fact that when "g=0" the speaker reflects the logically FALSE condition. For some reason, atheists (for the most part) appear to *lack* the understanding of Boolean / binary logic.
IF you yourself happen to classify yourself *as* atheist *or* agnostic, then I do indeed consider this (communicating *with* you) as something of a "rare privilege" / honor. It will be interesting to see how far it continues 👍✔😎
J:> "Otherwise I will will expect to be treated in kind."
So *here's the thing* that (let's be clear: hypocrites) fail to understand:
While person A has the *God-given right* to *avoid* evangelizing "others," as person A would have others do to person A,
*"others"* have that *same* God-given right: to share the TRUTH of "God is Love" with others (*including* person A) as they would have others do unto *them.*
Now here's "where the rubber meets the road" as they say: whether the listener *understands* OR NOT resides *solely* (or not!) within the mind of the beholder. And believe it or not, *that* understanding reveals the 10ᵗʰ Commandment (as recorded in Exodus 20:17.)
J:> "I will no longer reply to such attempts, even doing so this once is against my better judgement, but you seem otherwise cordial and I'll forgive the severe breach of etiquette this once."
LOL! Funny :-) I *appreciate* your extending the fellowship of your opinions / perspectives / conversation. 👍✔😎
In closing, I'd like to address the phrase: "I'll forgive the severe breach of etiquette this once."
Let's say person X "breaks the law" (by something simple, say, "speeding") thus, person X breaks *all* law, just as a woman either *is* pregnant (in the process of gestation) or *not*.
So if person X chooses to "forgive" one time, one has chosen the path of [forgiveness.]
Thus begins the existence upon "the path" of "righteousness" (the sense of being "upright" like a glass of water, as contrasted with "unrighteous" as a glass of water tipping or tipped over / spilled.)
This particular "quality" of one's life choices is recorded in
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18%3A21-22 as:
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
Thus, either a person *is* a "forgiver" *or not*— (personal choice.)
Likewise, one may either "judge" discussing ideology with an atheist as a "severe breach of etiquette" *or not*: that is, either a person "is a judger" *or not.* Again, personal choice.
Hint: EVERY instance of judgment (as in A judges B) reflects duality; *Only* Love (as in A❤️B) *Reveals* Unity. This Unity/duality perspective allows one to instantly determine (discern, observe) whether a sentence structure:
A) reflects duality (0) or B) reveals Unity (1).
Meanwhile...
I had a sense that:
A) you were seeking some objective feedback with respect to a dream (unless I'm reading text, I have little "specificity" regarding any idea that has already passed) so
B) I felt inclined to offer some feedback. (Normal behavior for this thread.)
I *sensed* a lack of "Oneness," "Unity," (etc.) within your text. No, I've never met you (that I know of) yet this "void" was "sensed" in your communication.
Thus, it is "nature's way" to "fill a vacuum" so I shared some of the "light" that is shared in the New Testament.
IF you wish to call that "evangelizing," such is your choice. Personally, I'm *fascinated* at the "perfect logic" (reasoning) that is *revealed* in the teaching of Jesus.
As to Peter, Paul, and the rest, well... All reflectors (and shiny things) are to Light as all Apostles (and preachers) are to Jesus.
In other words, I "view" / "understand" Scripture from a "logical" perspective. This may come as a bit of a shocker (to *many*) but:
*all* "worship" (as in A worships B) *reflects* duality (speaks falsely) whereas *Only* Love *Reveals* Unity. (And yes, I can show that in Scripture rather easily, namely, Leviticus 19:18 as well as Matthew 22:37–39.)
Finally, feel free to post a dream, and I'll do what I can to provide an analysis. That's how the usenet / alt.dreams basically functions.