Chris langan says Richard Dawkins is going to hell.

[Endangered-EGO]

From ToE with Curt Jaimungal.

He literally said that Richard Dawkins would go to hell once he dies.

This Guy is obviously more intelligent than me, but fuck me. Chris Langan is so confident in his CTMU, that he just casually claims how Dawkins is gonna go to hell for being a petty arrogant materialist atheist. And for being against "existence', which is "evil".

I only have my intuition to say that, but something is either really wrong with chris langan, or I'm fucking terrified that what he said might be true...

 

Unfortunately I only understand about half of his theory, and I'll probably need a few years to understand it entirely. But damn I wish he's wrong to a certain extent.

[Leo Gura]

Lol

Evil does not exist.

[Loba]

@Leo Gura Then what do you call evil acts?  Like murder, rape, ect?

[Endangered-EGO]

@Leo Gura

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Lol

Evil does not exist.

He calls "against existence" evil.

I would say that there's no such thing as being against existence. But he sounded pretty sure.

Maybe he's just hurt by what people did to him, idk.

Nomatter what, Chris langan creeps me out. If he's right I'm terrified. If he's wrong I'm relieved.

 

But how could anyone, be against God, if god is calling.

 

I guess that's how the church brainwashed and fear mongered people for the last centuries.

[UnbornTao]

Seems stage blue.

They were bashing Leo in their Facebook group with nonsense.

[Endangered-EGO]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

Seems stage blue.

They were bashing Leo in their Facebook group with nonsense.

@UnbornTao what's his facebook group?

 

If I understood enough abouth ontology and logic I might be able to have an opinion about it. I can't agree or disagree with him, I'm just very suspicious about his stance.

[UnbornTao]

Same name than his theory…

Here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/

I was looking into the person, not his theory — whatever it is isn’t true.

He may be smart; my intuition tells me he’s not deeply conscious at all, though.

I could be wrong, of course.

Edited November 23, 2021 by UnbornTao

[JuliusCaesar]

If/when Dawkins dies he'll wake up into a higher dream which ironically will probably be more like heaven than the christian notion of hell. The same could be said of any other human as well.

[Endangered-EGO]

25 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

If/when Dawkins dies he'll wake up into a higher dream which ironically will probably be more like heaven than the christian notion of hell. The same could be said of any other human as well.

@JuliusCaesar tbh I believe I have experienced hell more often than heaven or purgatory.

 

This existence for me is more hell (unnecessary suffering) than purgatory (cleansing suffering) or even heaven (being aligned with God)

I can't believe a lot of people have experienced the intensity of suffering I have been through. A lot do though.

This existence isn't a test run. It's more like a maze.

[AdroseAkise]

Chris Langan as well tried to claim that the Democratic Party in the U.S. was going to take America down a path of Communism.

[Carl-Richard]

If there is a hell, Dawkins is definitely going there 

[Gili Trawangan]

2 hours ago, Endangered-EGO said:

something is either really wrong with chris langan

Obviously this.

I don't even know who he is, but any message that doesn't come from a place of love is rooted in ignorance.

[Endangered-EGO]

33 minutes ago, AdroseAkise said:

Chris Langan as well tried to claim that the Democratic Party in the U.S. was going to take America down a path of Communism.

@AdroseAkise I'm not gonna take this out of context. I know how easy that would be.

 

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If there is a hell, Dawkins is definitely going there 

@Carl-Richard No man, he's obviously going to purgatory. Unless he's like putting other people through unnecessary suffering.

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

If there is a hell, Dawkins is definitely going there 

The man has never done anything wrong. He's very biased against anything remotely "out there seeming", because he has a family member with schizophrenia.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Loba said:

@Leo Gura Then what do you call evil acts?  Like murder, rape, ect?

I call them Love.

2 hours ago, Endangered-EGO said:

@Leo Gura

He calls "against existence" evil.

I would say that there's no such thing as being against existence. But he sounded pretty sure.

Existence is Absolute. Nothing can be against it.

Oneness cannot be against itself. But also it can

If your consciousness rises high enough, you will see that nothing in reality is against itself. It's PERFECT.

God is PERFECTION. And since there is nothing but God, everything is PERFECTION. Perfection is a function of selflessness. You literally cannot perceive perfection unless you are selfless.

- - - - - -

Langan is a Trump supporter. That tells everything you need to know.

Langan has not reached God-realization. It's quite obvious.

[Endangered-EGO]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I call them Love.

Existence is Absolute. Nothing can be against it.

Oneness cannot be against itself. But also it can

If your consciousness rises high enough, you will see that nothing in reality is against itself. It's PERFECT.

God is PERFECTION. And since there is nothing but God, everything is PERFECTION. Perfection is a function of selflessness. You literally cannot perceive perfection unless you are selfless.

- - - - - -

Langan is a Trump supporter. That tells everything you need to know.

Langan has not reached God-realization. It's quite obvious.

@Leo Gura I obviously have to be against what Lagan says, because if being against existence is "evil" and giving the circumstances I have been dealt. No fucking way I am "evil".

Dawkins needing to beg for forgiveness until God shows up again. Wtf.

All of that sophisticated language and phylosophical jargon to end up supporting someone who's vocabulary doesn't go beyond "very badly" is pretty astonishing.

 

@Leo Gura Can you point out the worst thing he claims in his CTMU? I lack the understanding of the phylosophical language he uses. I barely understand anything he says to contradict him.

I just know he doesn't give an answer to the paradoxes he claims to have solved.

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Endangered-EGO said:

@Leo Gura

Dawkins needing to beg for forgiveness until God shows up again. Wtf.

Dawkins is God

If Dawkins ever realizes that, he will naturally beg for forgiveness for being so stupid.

And then he will realize that since he's God/Love, no forgiveness is necessary. And that will be God's forgiveness.

God's forgiveness is that there's absolutely nothing wrong and noting to forgive. God's Love is eternally unshakable. And this Love is YOU!

Quote

All of that sophisticated language and phylosophical jargon to end up supporting someone who's vocabulary doesn't go beyond "very badly" is pretty astonishing.

Sophisticated jargon is often a defense mechanism against Truth.

Notice how academics love to talk in complicated ways about reality while having no clue what reality is. This is not an accident. This is a clever game their ego plays. It fools everyone around itself, including itself, that it knows more than it does. Academics cannot admit to themselves that all knowledge is groundless and impossible from the absolute perspective. Consciousness must be prior to all knowledge.

Quote

 

@Leo Gura Can you point out the worst thing he claims in his CTMU? I lack the understanding of the phylosophical language he uses. I barely understand anything he says to contradict him.

I just know he doesn't give an answer to the paradoxes he claims to have solved.

It is a mistake to try to get in the weeds of his technical work.

The deeper point is: all of his work is pure concept & symbols. But God/Infinity cannot ever be symbolized because all symbols are finite.

No matter how good your models of God are, they are not the same as being conscious of yourself as God.

God-realization cannot be symbolic. You cannot think your way into God-realization.

Langan is simply not in a high enough state of consciousness to realize that he's God. It's not his fault. He just isn't conscious of higher states.

With that said, his models and descriptions of Oneness are pretty good -- as models. He gets a lot of stuff right. But it's still not God-realization and pure nonduality.

Good vs evil is a duality.

The easiest way to understand that Langan is wrong is simply to ask yourself, "What kind of God would punish people? What purpose could it possibly serve?" It's obvious that God cannot have any need of punishing anyone. Such a God would be evil. And evil cannot exist God cannot punish you because God is so conscious it knows it is you. Why would God punish itself? This would be pure stupidity. So Langan's God is evil and stupid. Your heart knows this is wrong. Deep down you know you are not evil. Neither is anyone else. The most you can be is confused about your true nature.

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

The man has never done anything wrong.

Spreading heresy?  

[WelcometoReality]

3 hours ago, Loba said:

@Leo Gura Then what do you call evil acts?  Like murder, rape, ect?

Ignorance

[Endangered-EGO]

@Leo Gura In contrast to Chris Langans complicated jargon, what do you think about Jim Newmans "explanation".

Basically:

"This happening is a 100% mysterious, unknowable, absolute unconditional freedom and unconditional love".

And:" There's nobody to know that, it's just what IS"

Is that what it comes to in the end.

And paradoxes, ToEs, self inquiry just destroys every method, system and path that's in the way of the realisation of the mystery of existence or God?. (Basically what jim newman says)