I've had to learn to cope with my own life probs never mind beating myself up over countless poor sods worse off than me.

Reasons are not an excuse.

Funny old thing 'space', I would describe it as the absence of anything, that would of course include light, therefore space is nothing - non existent. As we are 'something' we wouldn't be in that nothing, if we were it would cease to be nothing and become something!

It's all make-believe.

Made by God that is.

Like the events in a dream are make-believe (made by the dreamer) so everything, other than God the dreamer, is make-believe.

So called 'God' could just be imagining the world and universe along with the concept of time, therefore everything would be part of God, not separate. It wouldn't have created 'us' as there would be no us (or them)

Looking back over my life I cannot think of any decision I've made could have been any different considering the conditions prevailing at that time. I get the distinct feeling that my actions were already set beforehand, which, if true, would indicate that free will is an illusion.

Well if we don't have free will then everything is pre-ordained, having knowledge of that but being unable to influence things would be totally disfunctional. On the other hand if we do have free will then how can we function if we don't use that option, we'd be automatons.

If we think we have free will, that it appears we have, then it doesn't matter.

Well that's one way of looking at it, on the other hand it could be wrong.

Kismet, there's no escape.

All it said on the bus was "... let's fund our NHS instead" it didn't say "we will". In any case when, or if, we leave the EU that money may well fund the NHS. So far it's not a lie.

That's ok, I checked before posting!

"Although the result was to join, not to remain"

Sorry but that is wrong, we were taken into the EEC in 1973 by the then Conservative govt under the leadership of PM Edward Heath, (without a referendum)

In 1975 the first referendum was whether to remain in the EEC.

The way I see it is: Since WW2 the UK has swung from left wing to right wing. One side is voted in because they appear to have moderate policies and the other side has become too far left, or right, depending which one is in power. Once in power they become gradually more extreme while the side in opposition creeps quietly to the middle, and so it goes, left, right, left, right. Each side occasionally has a bit of a makeover but the left wing right wing basis is still there. Why would either side embark on policies that will result in being voted out of power? It has to deliberate, the Establishment giving media coverage to two parties so that the majority of voters can be influenced not to break out of the pattern, then the left right swing gives an illusion of democracy whilst the Establishment runs the show.

Trouble is the Establishment influence in trying to keep the UK in the EU is starting to become a little bit obvious as a hard Brexit would seriously unbalance their political seesaw system. Will enough people see through it all to change it? I doubt it.

Putting all the wrangling to one side we are left with the fact that the majority of voters in the referendum indicated a wish to leave the EU. If a second ref is held will we be able to have a third one after two more years to address further lies by both sides. We are told a second ref will be on a more informed basis, but who will do the informing?

I understand meditation as something that isn't done, it just happens. As for wannabees, they are just human beings like everyone else, just doing what seems best, they exist everywhere. Buddhism says the middle way is best, which seems obvious to me, but that path isn't a straight line, it's impossible to walk that path instead we have waver side to side fron the dotted line because all humans are flawed.

My belief:

‘That Which Is' - an eternal awareness - the only thing that exists.

To feel what it’s like not be that, it pretends to be 'that which is not', which is everything we appear to see hear/touch/smell/taste. This ‘pretending’ involves forgetting what it really is until it remembers and wakes up.

'We' don't actually exist, we are, and are in, an illusion. To quote Roger Ebert just before he died, "This is all an elaborate hoax"

So all science vs theism vs philosophy is just over non existent complex detail in an attempt to somehow find a simple neat equation to explain the truth. Good luck with that.

Call me crazy if you like, I don't mind

Or, there is no Universe, it doesn't exist, it's an illusion. Videos shot in Earth orbit and on the Moon show no stars, just darkness.

I'll quote Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
"It is not God that is worshipped but the authority that claims to speak in His name. Sin becomes disobedience to authority not violation of integrity”

What I'm trying to say is that moral values can be subjective, in the western world its immoral to kill someone but in wartime it's not. In some Easter parts it is considered a moral duty to kill a Christian, so it's possible that science can detect moral values by referring to various countries' rules.

For me 'morality' in its usual form is meaningless, instead I prefer 'integrity'

Well I believe the so called human soul and God are one and the same, no separation or classification. Human beings don't 'have' a soul, the soul, or rather God, has a self image as a human being for a while. (also the word 'God' is just a label)

Advaita Vedanta the Hindu school of philosophy holds that Brahman, or God if you like, and Atman the human soul are one and the same (Advaita means 'not two' ) Though interestingly Vedanta says Brahman consists of the creator, the maintainer and the destroyer, a bit Holy Trinity (ish)

Bottom? line is what's important is love for each other, not the sexual kind, the kind of love that says you are concerned for the wellbeing of others.

Maybe but we're not talking about strictly heterosexual. There are many men who considered themselves strictly heterosexual but found they had a capacity for homosexuality when in men only unusual circumstances such as jail for example. How many so called strictly heterosexual men unknowingly have this capacity?

Sex doesn't necessarily always involve emotion.

Ha ha, though females do get 'inside out' erections.

It appears that many of these heterosexual men with capacity for sex with men also feel repelled by kissing men, or any show of affection.

Well yes, but it's not as clear cut as homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual. There's lots of men who claim that their sexual feelings for women are completely different to their ones for men. They claim that homosexual urges are totally mechanical whereas with women it involves feelings of affection and being emotionally attached.

Now that openness about sex is becoming more prevalent more and more men are saying they consider themselves basically heterosexual with a capacity for sex with men without any affectionate or emotional feelings.

Three classifications of sexuality, I say many shades of grey.

One big difference between gay and straightl pre sex, pregnancy looms on the horizon when preparing for heterosexual sex, this has formed the behaviour between men and women, they have evolved to ensure survival of infants and this has resulted in complex pre sex rituals unlike gay sex which doesn't involve these complications.

Why is homosexuality so prevalent in humans? My theory is that because of female necessity to be exclusive to one male, homosexuality has become an alternative, quite common for straight males to enjoy sex with males while remaining intrinsically heterosexual.

In his book Conversations with God, Neale Donald Walsch believes the human race is evolving from five sensory to multi sensory beings which will open up bigger challenges. Exciting times ahead.

Technically speaking it's not really a re-unification as God is the only thing existing and as we are God we're always united, it's just that 'we' forget when we begin another mortal life

"This is because sooner or later, everyone will get tired of suffering through the dark, lonely, sad Godless existence in Hell, and therefore seek union with God"

I prefer 're-union' with God That would mean we are all God, pretending to be temporarily separate from God in order to experience what it's like to be mortal. Re-union in this case means remembering you are God and abandoning self inflicted loneliness in so called 'Hell'

On a dualistic basis it doesn't add up but viewed as non dualistic i.e. that God is everyone/everything or everyone/everything is God it does make sense. God then is the giver and receiver of love, if anyone suffers it's because they are, in reality, God doing stuff to itself.

I had a discussion with a fully signed up Christian and she dismissed my interpretation of God, adding "But what if you're wrong?" I replied "But what if you're wrong?" She gave me a beatific smile and replied "But I'm not!"

It made me laugh.

Soory for the delay in responding to you.

If God is pretending to be all things by forgetting who it really is it can't help but be evil sometimes, but it has to be remembered that as a loving God is the only thing that exists then evil doesn't really exist, it's just a 'bad dream' in which God imagines it is doing evil things, but only to itself as there is no 'other' to inflict something on.

God isn't trying to rid the objective word of evil or make it evil it's just going with the flow to gain experience, to understand what it feels like to be all things (feeling and knowing are different things, God is all knowing but is trying to be all feeling as well)

God wants the adventure to continue so it will keep adjusting the dream to ensure the battle between 'good' and 'evil' endures.

Thinking is a priority over reading IMO, but thinking is difficult, it is a slow process, constantly going back and questioning your ideas. Once you have mastered the art of constructive thinking then you can look for reading matter that will help to expand on your ideas but always ready to change your mind and go back and modify those thoughts. It's a long process which doesn't appeal to some, who prefer the easier task of just reading about someone else's ideas.

I read a book if I'm interested in it, not because someone thinks I will be. If they are mistaken it's because they've failed to understand me. If they are offended that is their decision.

If everyone is God then paradoxically there is no 'everyone', it means 'we' are just one, God trying to see itself from a perspective outside of itself, but as there is no 'outside' it has to imagine there is by pretending to be all things and all people. To really pretend it has to forget who it really is and believe it's really a separate human being, that entails free will on the part of that human. God playing hide and seek with itself and getting into all sorts of adventures, some really dark but when it wakes up it knows it wasn't real, so all actions are useful for it to experience.

There is no one making a call on anyone. I'll quote Alan Watts:

"You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that he isn't really doing this to anyone but himself. Remember too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It's the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner."

"So, what's your best argument against suicide?"

My argument is the fact that in my scenario there is no escape from being the real you, God.

You could argue that everyone is God, that nothing else exists but You/God, that there is only You and nothingness. So You can only be You even if You try not to be either.

Suppose the real you is responsible for your human birth, that you made the decision to go through the process of experiencing life, that you are responsible for everything?