God - The Greatest Myth?

[cuckoobird]

Is God the greatest myth?
As I grow older in this life of mine; the mind wanders!

Who or what is GOD? No human has ever claim to ever having seen GOD, hear GOD speak, hear GOD preach! There are some who claims to have felt GOD's presence! Yet still, millions or even billions believe in GOD's existence! Not a single shred of evidence that GOD exist; yet the strong belief of GOD's existence is never doubted by billions of human.

We have books that proclaim the existence of GOD! Historical references of ancient wars per se; yet these are written and published by humans. Fact or fiction? No one can say for sure....
Was it all just ancient tales told over centuries that somehow and in all honesty be accepted as the TRUTH?!

[Thomas Knierim]

cuckoobird: No human has ever claim to ever having seen GOD, hear GOD speak, hear GOD preach!

Welcome to thebigview.com, cuckoobird!

Ahhw, let me guess: you don't live in/near/close to devout Christian communities!? There are dozens of people if not hundreds who have claimed exactly that. Even more people claimed to have received signs by "big G". It seems he prefers signs, apparitions, and messengers.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Greetings cuckoobird,...let me begin by saying I disagree,...many people have seen, heard, and even speak to god, ie:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

However, I agree with your underlying premise,...god is a myth,...and a cruel, insecure myth at that. Take the 10 Commandments for example,...what other than an highly insecure god would begin by issuing those first 3 edicts. As for cruel,...I'll leave you with some facts:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html

Beliefs, by their very nature, are dishonest. Belief in a god must be one of the ultimate dishonesty's. So before you go out and refute missionary's, be prepared, ie:
http://liekki.tripod.com/dok/dok9.html

Have you ever checked out Buddhism? They are not interested in gods, but instead look for ways to remove the beliefs which obscure our real selfs,...ie:
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
http://buddhism.koolhost.com/buddhaongod.htm
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/budd-christ.htm

Of course, Spiritual Atheism is a rather interesting discussion also, ie:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Spiritual_Atheists/

Then again,...with so many gullible people in the world, you could start your own religion,...here's a few pointers:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/meme.html
http://www.christianitymeme.org/

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Hi also, cuckoobird -

Originally posted by cuckoobird@Aug 29 2003, 12:20 AM
Who or what is GOD? No human has ever claim to ever having seen GOD, hear GOD speak, hear GOD preach! There are some who claims to have felt GOD's presence! Yet still, millions or even billions believe in GOD's existence! Not a single shred of evidence that GOD exist; yet the strong belief of GOD's existence is never doubted by billions of human.
I started wondering what this question and following pro·claim·ations would read like if reference to "the LIFE-FORCE" concept was subsituted for the "GOD" concept. It's interesting, I think:

Who or what is the LIFE-FORCE? No human has ever claim to ever having seen the LIFE-FORCE, hear the LIFE-FORCE speak, hear the LIFE-FORCE preach! There are some who claim to have felt the LIFE-FORCE's presence! Yet still, millions or even billions believe in the LIFE-FORCE's existence! Not a single shred of evidence that the LIFE-FORCE exists; yet the strong belief of the LIFE-FORCE's existence is never doubted by billions of human.

The only thing that really stands out as 'questionable' or 'dubious' in that case is the part about there not being "a single shred of evidence" that some sort of LIFE-FORCE (whatever you think of it!) exists.

Your next comment:
We have books that proclaim the existence of GOD!
reminded me that The Bhagavad Gita (which translates as The Song of God) uses several words fairly synonymously with GOD (or, to my way of thinking, the LIFE-FORCE) -- "the Self," "the Presence," and "the Eternal Spirit," for example. What is expressed in the following passage, I think, ties in quite nicely with the 'point' I am trying to make about a possible different 'meaning' to the paragraph of yours I quoted, that is, different from the 'sense' I think you have in mind, IF you think of what "GOD" refers to as (something like) "the LIFE-Force."

I will speak to thee now of that great Truth which man ought to know, since by its means he will win immortal bliss – that which is without beginning, the Eternal Spirit which dwells in Me, neither with form, nor yet without it.

Everywhere are Its hands and Its feet; everywhere It has eyes that see, heads that think and mouths that speak; everywhere It listens; It dwells in all the worlds; It envelops them all.

Beyond the senses, It yet shines through every sense perception. Bound to nothing, It yet sustains everything. Unaffected by the Qualities, It still enjoys them all.

It is within all beings, yet outside; motionless yet moving; too subtle to be perceived; far away yet always near.

In all beings undivided, yet living in division, It is the upholder of all, Creator and Destroyer alike;

It is the Light of lights, beyond the reach of darkness; the Wisdom, the only thing that is worth knowing or that wisdom can teach; the Presence in the hearts of all.

OR you can go on thinking of what the GOD concept refers to as 'really' being nothing more than a 'cover' for demogoguery and keep tilting at all them windmills -- there's a slew of 'em out THERE somewhere!

Methinks you are unlikely to find such lance-aims counter-challenged here.

- David

[vicente]

The term "life force" would have certainly precipitated a difference response from me. Not that it is any more truer than the myth of God(s), especially the murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist God of the 3 Abrahamic religions, but that it demands a broader discussion.

DavidS, I liked that you used "life force concept", since from Source's point of view that is exactly what it is,...a concept.

The "life" in life force is obviously pointing to the Dream, which when one wakes up is of course no longer real.. The "force", which is usually defined as the "capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power", likewise points to the Dream, which, when one awakes, that force is no longer real. While in the Dream, we think the Dream is real.

As for the Hindu's,...I've never heard of one Enlightened Hindu,...that is why Siddhartha left Hinduism, is it not? So what does it matter if their God is viewed as Eternal Spirit,..except that Eternal Spirit is not a myth, as God is.

If, instead of "life force", the term Source was used,...than that would have prompted a fully different response, ...a response beyond the concepts and beliefs in God(s),...for the Source of us, unlike the "life force" which sustains the dream, is as a Causeless, unconditional fulcrum from which the Dream effects its motion, or Life Force, to sustain itself.

The Life Force by the way, is indeed described in literature, ie., in Vajrayana Buddhism, also in the Mayan Popol Vuh, where it discusses the 7 gods who created the earth. The Life Force arises from the perception of separation from Source.

To conclude,...the term life force is really a New Age delusion for people to present, in their proselytizing, the old God more palatably. Their God, speaking of the Western religions that is, is no longer the the murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist God of the 3 Abrahamic religions, but is now "The Life Force",...LOL

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Nobody, but "no body" can say with absolute certainty, if God 'does/does not', exist. :o

Those who are members of organized religions, (and there are many) believe[, or are supposed to] in the concept of God their particular religion teaches them to believe. If one does not believe, it would be foolish to lie to ones' self, and continue to make believe, you believe.

However, that does not mean that a person can not believe in a higher
source of power, or a supernatural power, which we do not understand, with our limited knowledge. That does not rule out, that at sometime in the future, when the evolution of man, has reached a certain plateau, that we will be able to understand that which we do not understand now.

The above is strictly my own POV, and I would like to share it with you. I am not asking anyone to agree or disagree, just expressing my thoughts. :)

[vicente]

RichieT,...just because you cannot say with absolute certainty that no God exists,...I can say, with absolute certainty, that the God of the 3 Abrahamic religions does not exist,...I can also say that God, as defined in todays dictionaries, absolutely does not exist.

I'm not saying that there is no Source,...but I am saying that there is absolutely no way, not even remotely, that the Source of us, is a supernatural, creating, Ruler of the Universe.

It is said that "joy is your sorrow unmasked",...or another, one that Alex Collier spoke: "the love that you withhold is the pain that you carry".

Those sayings present such a awesome message for Now, and the unveiling of Nowness. Joy and Love is already with us,...always has been.

For me, the above also suggests a sort of litmus test regarding the difference between teachers who have realized, or at least tasted, Light, and those who have not. This is to say, that E'Beings (those who have observed light, or enlightened beings)share a message of Now, and ways to trigger the unfolding of that Now, whereas teachers of ego, that is, obscured from light, present the past, albeit regurgitated, and an anticipation and hope for the future based on the past. Ego teachers speak of God,...but there is no God in the Now.

Yes, I can understand that for most, we feel we need to know where we been to know where we're going,...perhaps, if we honestly looked back far enough, where we been, that is, before the accumulations, is where we're going. Perhaps the Ascension is merely the reverse of the Descension.

What if the great adventure is not through the beliefs of the past, but lies through surrender. Not the surrender of who we are, but the surrendering of who we think we are.

vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente,
Another idea, I forgot to post in my previous post, is ones conception of "God"/Superpower".

What if IT was a non-judgmental, but rather an ALLUNDERSTANDING type of intelligence, that made our own being possible.
Would you still have objections to the fact, that YOU AREand YOU BE, from being thankful to Some INTELLIGENCE, (outside of yourself) for being HERE and NOW, having been able to have read this messsage? :unsure:

[DavidS]

Hi vicente -

If, instead of "life force", the term Source was used,...than that would have prompted a fully different response, ...a response beyond the concepts and beliefs in God(s),...for the Source of us, unlike the "life force" which sustains the dream, is as a Causeless, unconditional fulcrum from which the Dream effects its motion, or Life Force, to sustain itself.

'See' if you 'get' this: In my view, there is no 'duality' of the kind there is in yours. In my view, there is only one THANG - IOW, what you call the 'dream' part and relegate the LIFE-FORCE to and what you call the 'Source' are inseparable (except 'conceptually' that is) aspects of one and the same THANG, as a matter of fact of the ONLY thang. IOW, vicente, the way I see things, it's ALL 'synonymous' with and worthy of the "God' concept-name.

What is 'see', is that you, on the other hand, persist in 'reserving' the titles' of 'Reality', 'God', etc. only for the Source-aspect of the THANG. And you relegate the TREE-OF-LIFE aspect of the THANG to 'dream' status, which you imply has lesser 'validity', 'value', 'significance', 'function', etc., etc., etc. This is a 'terrible' (sacrilegious really) bias, in my view, since it it looks 'down' on all known the 'worldy' aspect of God and only 'honors' its unknown 'neti' aspect. And that is the also height of 'hypocricy', in my view -- it's saying one love's "God's" innards while disparaging HIS/HER/ITS manifest ACTualization, simply dismissing that being no more than a 'mirage'.

I recognize that because of the Relativity principle, you also regard my statements as 'sacrilege', because they do 'demote' what you regard as being the greatest in the "God" concept category to a position that is co-equal with things which you regard as intrinsically 'inferior'. At least I think that's what your 'condescending' bias naturally inclines you to do.

To conclude,...the term life force is really a New Age delusion for people to present, in their proselytizing, the old God more palatably. Their God, speaking of the Western religions that is, is no longer the the murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist God of the 3 Abrahamic religions, but is now "The Life Force",...LOL

Let me put it to you one more time to see if I can be instrumental in your 'getting' it. There is ONLY ONE 'coin', vicente. This coin may be conceptually 'divided' for purposes of image-ination, logical reason-processing, and interpersonal verbal communication. It may be thought and talked about as having and 'inside' and 'outside', the 'inside' representing its Source aspect and the 'outside' as manifesting its 'worldy' aspect. And one may furthermore choose to think and talk about these 'different' aspects in terms of one being 'real' (because it is 'eternal', 'timeless', 'ever-present', etc) and the other a 'dream' (because it is 'transitory', 'ephemeral', etc.)

HOWEVER, let there be no illusion that in the Reality where ALL are ONE, that is, in a non[/I]dualistic[/I] frame of reference, both the 'reality' and the 'dream' referenced above are twin-aspects of the same 'identity' -- neither being REALLY 'better' or 'more valuable' or worthy of 'worship' (or less so for that matter) than the other -- as a matter of fact, both aspects are completely 'codependent' -- except in 'imagination', without the other neither would 'be'. THAT'S WHY, vicente, what is referred to by concepts such as the LIFE-FORCE, the ETERNAL SPIRIT, the PRESENCE, as wel as the SOURCE etc. qualify to be considered synonymous with what is referred to by the concept of GOD.

What if the great adventure is not through the beliefs of the past, but lies through surrender. Not the surrender of who we are, but the surrendering of who we think we are.

A'm very much looking forward to the day when you do just that, Vicente! :lol:

David

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 1 2003, 03:59 AM
Vicente,
Another idea, I forgot to post in my previous post, is ones conception of "God"/Superpower".

What if IT IS Non-judgmental, and ALLUNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENCE, which made our b eing possible, via the invention of the human body, functioning as it does through our senses, would you still have objections to the fact, that YOU AREand YOU BE? Would you be thankful to Some INTELLIGENCE, (outside of yourself) for being HERE and NOW, having been able to have read this messsage? :unsure:
See post above, for edited message.

[sahyo]

What if the great adventure is not through the beliefs of the past, but lies through surrender. Not the surrender of who we are, but the surrendering of who we think we are.

A'm very much looking forward to the day when you do just that, Vicente!



"looking forward"? ;)

on other threads daviding expressed still hasn't surrendered fearthinkingpast'hope'future

[vicente]

DavidS,...the last post highlites the flaw in your thinking,...yes, duality, god, the Dream, are all "one thang" as you say,...however, that "one thang" is not synonymous with Source, Love, Peace, nor the Stillness of Light.

This confusion of "one thang" arises from Greek philosophy, which abhored anything but Natural Numbers, even going so far, as killing anyone who challenged their concept that everything comes from 1,...ie., as the Pythagoreans murdered Hippasus.

The belief of Westerners regarding a "one true god" arose from the Greek conviction in 1,...that is, from Greek mathematics. Even a rudimentary understanding of Zero didn't exist in the Western World till the 13th Century CE., and then, merely relegated to art or bookkeeping.

To have a Here, there must be a There,...to have a One, there must be a Many,...to have a Subject, there must be an Object. That is duality,...that is the reality of God.

Source, as I said, is as a Causeless fulcrum from which duality, the Illusion, effects its motion. There is not "1" fulcrum,...nor is Source "one thang". Source is as beyond all that.

Your "one coin" doesn't exist DavidS,....you think it exists, just as those in the Dream, who do not realize they are in a Dream, think the Dream is real. Your coin is inherently divided once you see the coin,...just as, in the moment you see Oneness, their is simultaneously, a Many. It is impossible to have One without Many, or Many without One,...such is the mechanics of the Dream.

In your reality you may consider yourself One,...however, in Reality, we are not "One", nor "Many". You simply use that concept of "One" to make palatable to ego, what ego is afraid to be let known. Of course, you may ask, what are we, if not One or Many? I could tell you, but you would not believe a word of it. However, you could wake up, even if for a moment, and realize for yourself, that the Dream is not real.

For most, living in a world of separation (the Dream), we define what we are through the delusion itself. In other words, we can see, through our preception, the duality of our reality,...so then we conjure up, from this delusory conceptualness, that this duality reality must be One, and some God must be in charge of this Oneness.

On the other hand, even quantum philosophers are uncovering what Vajra Buddhists have known for a millennia,...that there is no Big Bang, no singularity, no time, no creator,...there never was a before and after,...nor a Oneness.

I can very much empathize with how and why people hold tightly to their beliefs,...but what can I say, except ask that they meditate on what honesty means, every day, every hour of each day.


Vicente
:)

[rich]

Guess you are right vicente, I do not exist, you do not exist, david and asheera are non-existent, for what we write, what we think is zero, just plain nothing. Excuse me folks, I'm returning to the causless fulcrum,
thinking the see is sawing, and the saw is seeing. Just tittering and tottering. But tht is what it is, to and fro, back and forth, breathe in, breathe out, etc.ETC. & etc. LoL :lol: :P :wacko:

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 1 2003, 10:17 AM
Guess you are right vicente, I do not exist, you do not exist, david and asheera are non-existent, for what we write, what we think is zero, just plain nothing.

Excuse me folks, I'm returning to the causless fulcrum, thinking the sea is sawing, and the saw is seeing. Just tittering and tottering.

But that is what it is, to and fro, back and forth, breathe in, breathe out, etc.ETC. & etc. LoL :lol: :P :wacko:
Post slighly edited. See above.

P.S. If you believe, that I believe, what written above, please do not!
I am being sarcastic, to what vicente wrote.

[vicente]

Rich,...only those who cling to the belief in Oneness would say Zero is nothing,...what if Zero is Everything. What if the Buddha's were right,...what if this reality where Oneness is believed to true, is actually false? What if all you have to do is wake up,...and see for yourself?

What is your 'Now' Rich? Your posts suggests that your Now is merely the past,...but how can that be? How can the past be the Now?

ACIM said: "the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to intellect), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves.
The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is.
No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it"

It seems to me Rich, that you may not be in your right Mind.

vicente
:)

[a random hack]

Buddha said, "Through the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment I acquired not even the least thing. This is altogether everywhere, without differentiation or degree."

'More' here :) (http://www.kheper.net/topics/mysticism/Buddhism-unitive_state.html)

[vicente]

Buddha said, "Through the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment I acquired not even the least thing. This is altogether everywhere, without differentiation or degree."

Hey, that sounds good to me. Enlightenment isn't something acquired, but a realization, through surrender, of what already is.

vicente
:)

[shifu]

Back to the topic, god the greatest myth? If and only if you are referring the judeo-christian God (Yahweh, Allah, Ect.), I challenge you to check your logic. I presume you are generalizing. Can you please define myth? It might help you to introspect, hence gradually, realize that indeed your believer. :lol: :D :rolleyes:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 31 2003, 11:12 PM
It seems to me Rich, that you may not be in your right Mind.
For what it may be worth to you or anyone else, vicente, methinks that richie's mind-function is excellent. My guess is that the only one here who doesn't 'see through' your 'sophistry' is you. Example of your up-is-down·ing 'sophistry':

> only those who cling to the belief in Oneness would say Zero is nothing,... what if Zero is Everything?

Yeah, then "Everything" would be "Zero". I must say, you have a fundamentally meaning-trashing proposition going here.

By the way, I know many who 'deny' or are 'agnostic' in relation to the proposition of Singularity, who nevertheless think there are relatively 'positive' thangs and relatively 'negative' thangs and that Zero is merely a demarcation 'point' between them. How you can think you can make sweeping, categorical statements like "only those who cling to the belief in Oneness would say Zero is nothing" which have no correspondence with actuality and imagine they actually 'support' or 'bolster' the validity of your propositions is beats me!

- David

[vicente]

DavidS,...your defense of Rich is not very admirable, especially altering the subject from 'Mind' to Rich's 'mind-function', that is, from his inherent sapiential Self, to his belief ladened intellectual self.

I did however notice, how you used Rich to totally evade my previous response to your own 'not-in-his-right-Mindness', ie:

DavidS,...the last post highlites the flaw in your thinking,...yes, duality, god, the Dream, are all "one thang" as you say,...however, that "one thang" is not synonymous with Source, Love, Peace, nor the Stillness of Light.

As for Shifu's what is the "myth" of the judeo-christian God (Yahweh, Allah, Ect.) Can you please define myth?

Certainly!

myth n.
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
A fictitious story, person, or thing

Uncovering Myth:
Mount Sinai was volcano in Saudi Arabia
By Roger Highfield Science Editor
13/06/2003)

Mount Sinai, where Scripture says Moses received God's Law, is located in Saudi Arabia, not Egypt's Sinai Peninsula - moving a key site for Judaism into the nation where Islam was founded, according to a Cambridge professor.

Science also backs traditional beliefs that the Israelites' exodus from Egypt was led by Moses, roughly the way that the Bible tells it, according to Prof Colin Humphreys of Cambridge University.

Prof Humphreys, outlines his findings in his forthcoming book: The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories.

While other scholars have proposed that Sinai was in Arabia, Prof Humphreys argues that the holy mount must have been an active volcano, since it shook and emitted fire and smoke (Exodus 19:18). And he has carefully examined records ancient and modern to fix the site.

His candidate: present-day Mount Bedr in north-western Saudi Arabia, since there were no ancient volcanoes in what was later named the Sinai Peninsula.

Prof Humphreys also thinks that near Mount Bedr, Moses experienced God's call at the "burning bush". He suggests that this was caused by flammable natural gas or volcanic gas escaping from the ground.

The Book of Exodus obviously underwent later editing, he said, but the evidence strongly suggests witness material that might well come from Moses himself. The book is "amazingly accurate and coherent", he said.

Prof Humphreys also offers other "naturalistic" explanations for wondrous events. For instance, he thinks that escalating natural disasters explain each of the 10 "plagues" that forced Pharaoh to let the Israelite slaves depart. The Nile "turned to blood" meant that toxic red algae killed fish, the dead fish forced frogs ashore, gnats and flies were drawn to the dead fish and frogs and the insects transmitted a virus that killed livestock.

vicente
:)

[rich]

David,
Thank you for your comment, re; my mind function.
</span>
QUOTE (vicente @ Aug 31 2003, 11:12 PM)
It seems to me Rich, that you may not be in your right Mind.

For what it may be worth to you or anyone else, vicente, methinks that richie's mind-function is excellent. My guess is that the only one here who doesn't 'see through' your 'sophistry' is you. Example of your up-is-down·ing 'sophistry':

> only those who cling to the belief in Oneness would say Zero is nothing,... what if Zero is Everything?

Yeah, then "Everything" would be "Zero". I must say, you have a fundamentally meaning-trashing proposition going here.

By the way, I know many who 'deny' or are 'agnostic' in relation to the proposition of Singularity, who nevertheless think there are relatively 'positive' thangs and relatively 'negative' thangs and that Zero is merely a demarcation 'point' between them. How you can think you can make sweeping, categorical statements like "only those who cling to the belief in Oneness would say Zero is nothing" which have no correspondence with actuality and imagine they actually 'support' or 'bolster' the validity of your propositions is beats me!

- David
______________________________

Let's say, MIND is the 'container' (and thus the 'shaper'), SPIRIT is the mover and the shaker, and LIFE's the martini ... then 'Namaste' would become 'Skoal'! Bottom's up, y'all! :-)


[color=gray] BTW, Your other comments are very noteworty too. I would like to add a comment vicente made to you.
I did however notice, how you used Rich to totally evade my previous response to your own 'not-in-his-right-Mindness', ie:

Vicente, I did however notice how you used David to evade my question, (essentially asking) if you were thankful to the intelligence which made you, for the capability to see, hear, speak, etc. be alive? Wonder if you will evade it HERE and NOW?

[vicente]

After a few years here at Bigview, I'm surprised to hear Rich suggest that Vicente evades questions. Regarding evade it HERE and NOW? Sounds like you still haven't a clue as to what the NOW is.

No,...I am not especially, nor essentially, thankful to any intellegence.

As for your own "mind-function" Rich, I'm sure you have a great one, just like DavidS said. However, as per the ACIM quote, it seems to me Rich, that you may not be in your right Mind

Vicente
:)

[rich]

vicente posted:
No,...I am not especially, nor essentially, thankful to any intellegence.


Vicente, aren't you happy that you are here? :unsure:

Think that you are not, though ICBW.

I'll admit, I am not always happy, but when aware of this,
I'll admit, it is my fault. Am still thankful for being invited
to go on the ride. Whatever its cause or who/what is
responsible for the idea, will say/think, thank you.
Maybe vicente is too proud to say thanks, even though the ride is free. B)

[vicente]

What would you like me to be thankful for Rich,...the God of the Abrahamic religions?

I am neither happy nor sadden by my activities here. Happy or sad do not exist except as people see them as such.

Beyond Belief
by Vicente Marco

Such complete unity of separation
enfolded within a simple belief
a dissymphonic continuum
whose reflections of preference
serially esculate unremitting anguish.

Belief obscures reality
entwines lifes learned patterns
a stupifying absurdity
manufactured from artificiality
exploitively seeking diversions.

Yet in a moment of unfeigned surrender
between com-pression and ex-pression
a reciprocal tremendum
resplendently springs its metanoia
dissolving repeated cycles of confusion.

Metamorphesized winged inner sense
true Compassion arising in the tranquility
as flow-ing fractal waves delight
the blissful birthing of Beingness
in softly ecstatic nourishing Life.

vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Those who think that there is any difference between God, Buddha nature, clear light, Tao, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva do not understand much. These differences are created by culture and concepts. For neutrality one might call it the "nameless". It's one and many. Emptiness and form. Beings, names, forms, and stories are used to point to it. They are not what is being referred to.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Thomas,...I've never seen an instance where Buddha nature, clear light, points to anything even resembling God, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva

To me you are attempting to harmonize things that cannot be harmonized. What does "clear Light" have to do with any scriptural aspect of the God's of the Abrahamic religions? Why did Siddhartha denounce Brahma if there was light in that belief?

One and Many, Here and There, This and That, have nothing to do with Clear Light. Clear Light points to Reality, not the oneness of the Dream.

Before Clear Light can be realized, it is essence to let go of the attachment to oneness.

vicente
:)

[rich]

vicente,
Beyond Belief, certainly expresses your point of view, regarding religion. Lots of thought went into the words you chose to rhyme, besides the entire poem. Good job, even though I do not agree. ;)

Vicente asked this question:
What would you like me to be thankful for Rich,...the God of the Abrahamic religions?

To answer your question, vicente:

There is but One God which includes the beliefs of many religions. :mellow:

Conflicts arise from misinterpretations of religious leaders, when
their POV becomes egomanic. These men/women, place themselves
in a position over God. :angry:

God reveals Its Self, in the thoughts and minds of human- beings. :)

Be thankful to whatever intelligence or even state of mind you can arrive at, to make you humble. :(

Be not boastful or too proud to sit and meditate.

Whoever and whatever turns you on, and brings you to a realization of who and what you really are., and that you, vicente, are not THE SUPREME CREATORbut rather, what turned you on. the IS

[sylph]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Sep 1 2003, 06:30 PM
Those who think that there is any difference between God, Buddha nature, clear light, Tao, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva do not understand much. These differences are created by culture and concepts. For neutrality one might call it the "nameless". It's one and many. Emptiness and form. Beings, names, forms, and stories are used to point to it. They are not what is being referred to.
I really like that POV. :) Like how pointers are not really pointing to the variable name, but are actually pointing to the address of an object, etc. Plus, it makes sense, and explains a lot of things while being consistent across religions.

On a separate note, God = Infinite Intelligence?

[shifu]

[As for Shifu's what is the "myth" of the judeo-christian God (Yahweh, Allah, Ect.) Can you please define myth?

Certainly!

myth n.
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
A fictitious story, person, or thing

Uncovering Myth:
Mount Sinai was volcano in Saudi Arabia
By Roger Highfield Science Editor
13/06/2003)

Mount Sinai, where Scripture says Moses received God's Law, is located in Saudi Arabia, not Egypt's Sinai Peninsula - moving a key site for Judaism into the nation where Islam was founded, according to a Cambridge professor.

Science also backs traditional beliefs that the Israelites' exodus from Egypt was led by Moses, roughly the way that the Bible tells it, according to Prof Colin Humphreys of Cambridge University.

Prof Humphreys, outlines his findings in his forthcoming book: The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories.

While other scholars have proposed that Sinai was in Arabia, Prof Humphreys argues that the holy mount must have been an active volcano, since it shook and emitted fire and smoke (Exodus 19:18). And he has carefully examined records ancient and modern to fix the site.

His candidate: present-day Mount Bedr in north-western Saudi Arabia, since there were no ancient volcanoes in what was later named the Sinai Peninsula.

Prof Humphreys also thinks that near Mount Bedr, Moses experienced God's call at the "burning bush". He suggests that this was caused by flammable natural gas or volcanic gas escaping from the ground.

The Book of Exodus obviously underwent later editing, he said, but the evidence strongly suggests witness material that might well come from Moses himself. The book is "amazingly accurate and coherent", he said.

Prof Humphreys also offers other "naturalistic" explanations for wondrous events. For instance, he thinks that escalating natural disasters explain each of the 10 "plagues" that forced Pharaoh to let the Israelite slaves depart. The Nile "turned to blood" meant that toxic red algae killed fish, the dead fish forced frogs ashore, gnats and flies were drawn to the dead fish and frogs and the insects transmitted a virus that killed livestock.

vicente
]


Well, taken Sir Vincent, myth n. [A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. A fictitious story, person, or thing]. I want to limit my exploration on this few lines, so as not to cloud so much my ever-confused mind/brain. So, either it is ¼ or 1/8 or 1/16, myth have had, at least some light or element of truth. Therefore it cannot be rendered as absolute FALSE. Should we say, myths are stories for baby or newbies like me and scientific-to-the-fact stories are for adults who are capable of understanding and analyzing complex data. The two are different in a way, yet they can be synthesized. But before adjoining the two we must take or treat in accordance to its own entity. As I have noticed you can be a good chief, I felt and assume that you are treating this two equally important vehicle-of-truth inferior to the other thus, making it like preparing a fruit or vegetable salad. One can not just mixed up everything and say eureka. For me, I believe, that every (H)holy book or (S)scripture should be taken and treated with dignity, for they tell stories and truth (not only in the Judeo-Christian Sacred scripture but Others as well). They are records of faith not facts. The Bible and the likes are not made for us to have a fixed fundamental mathematical and scientific truth. The Bible and the likes is a record of history of a particular people in a given place and time, who happen to have its own worldview not same us ours today. It is a great fallacy to use the Bible and the likes according to our modern standard. Are we are all seekers and lovers of truth in here? What I think Sir Vincent is that you’re a believer, and it’s just that, you won’t name it. Let say, its like this but not like that…Oh, no! not like that but like this. Well, confusion in is the way to the Path of Great and Intense Understanding. Even the Great Sidharta Gautama, the enlightened One, the Buddha underwent such tremendous confusion before He attained such Paradise. I guess for a newbie like me in this group and with your profound wisdom, it will lead me somewhere… I don’t know where. So, I challenge you, like Moses in the Burning bush; Have the courage ask the name of your God/gods/Lord/lord or whatever you call it, and NAME it and take his/her side. It so confusing if you will just keep on jumping from one camp to the other. With due respect out of morality and universal human goodness, which is propagated by a mythico-judeo-Christian (G)god, I beg your pardon and I stand corrected. Great wars were born because of Dogmatism. :D

Shifu – the Believer

[DavidS]

Whatever one's notions of what 'it' is or how it 'happens', regarding the notion that one either is or isn't "enlightened", I would like to state that, IMO, reducing the concept to being just one of two "quantum" states really begs credibility an, IMO, does great injustice to the panoply of Life.

I mean, it is as foolish IMO as saying that one is either (totally) a 'man' or (totally) a 'woman'. This may be true in a purely technical/mechanical sense pertaining to the outer form of one's genitalia, but the fact is the everyone has both male and female 'characteristics', including both male and female 'hormones', etc. Not only that, the fact is that there are people who have both male and female 'genitalia' even, tho 'doctors' seem to be predisposed to 'forcing' the matter one way or the other.

IMO, the 'belief' expressed by several people here that enlightenment is an "either-or" proposition smacks of 'following' some sort of 'party line' -- very much like the 'party line' that says your destiny is determined by whether you acept JC as your Lord and Savior or not! -- IMO it is a 'transparent' attempt to 'identify' and/or 'identify with' (and thus 'belong to' a group of) 'believers' of a certain variety. Like 'gang' codes and associated behavior everywhere: you either wear 'orange' (indicte you belong to 'this' gang) or 'green' (indicating you belong to 'that' one).

In regards, the following statementm=, for instance:
Enlightenment isn't something acquired, but a realization, through surrender, of what already is.
I would suggest that it is not only possible but rather the general case that 'surrender' and 'realization' take place in stages - with thangs one is personally 'attached' to being 'released' - like cleaning out a room, one piece of furniture at a time.

The notion of instantaneous-total-once-and-for-all-time 'enlightenment', I submit, is a 'myth' that people 'believe' for reasons similar to those that lead kids believe in Santa Claus, or adult Judeo-Christian-Islamic types to 'believe' that one is either 'saved' (i.e., on the way to heaven) or 'damned' (i.e., one the way to 'hell'). It sure does make things 'simple', BUT . . . it flies in the face of how things really are and operate, IMO . . . and thus, by definition, is NOT very 'enlightened'.

I am surprised and embarrassed (for humanity which I am part of) to see people of fairly high intelligence here still 'clinging' to and 'asserting' the notion that 'enlightenment' is a completely either-or proposition. You 'kings' and 'queens' have no clothes on, in my 'view' - and yo ain't all that 'pretty' to look at 'naked' either.

:lol: David

This is not to say the 'peak' experiences, pertaining to enlightenment or anything else, can't be 'total' or absolutely all-encompassing/personality overwhelming in the moment (at any 'given' moment, that is).

[vicente]

I didn't quite get your point DavidS,...are you saying that enlightenment can only be realized through a continuum of awakenings, and yet, enlightenment can also be realized in totality in a moment of Self-Actualization?

I recall a philosopher once saying "there is no absolute truth". His face shifted to red when I replied that if it was absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, than the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, thus an absolute truth. College education, from my observations, generally encourages more mediocracy than advancement.

Personally, I rather discuss what enlightenment is not (neti-neti). For through a such a dialogue, we eventually uncover the Light of us.

As for "reducing the concept to being just one of two "quantum" statesis an injustice to the panopoly of life" I would say what has that to do with enlightenment? I would suggest that mathematics is purely a concept of phenomenon,...there is no math, nor quantum mechanics in enlightenment. Enlightenment is about the Transcendant Dimension,...a reality before time births space; before the conditional traditions of 'One based' solutions became the status quo of the Collective.

The realization of Enlightenment is when we are conscious of Love, when we no longer cling to the Laws of Myths which arise through the traditions of fear of the past and hope of the future. Of course those with continuing fantasies that the past is real and that anticipation is honest, will fight dearly to sustain the barriers built against Love and Enlightenment,...even claiming that the fight is for there attainment.


Vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Vicente: Thomas,...I've never seen an instance where Buddha nature, clear light, points to anything even resembling God, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

It may be less than obvious, but the Christian trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the Indian trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) have startling parallels to the "three bodies" of the Buddha, Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya. Of course, there are myriads of differences which exist on the surface of these traditions. However, if one ventures deeply into them, the cultural paint and plaster begins to fall off, miraculously exposing similarities.

Outlining these similarities would be a fairly involving intellectual undertaking. The topic interests me, so I might do this future and write a small article about it to be posted on thebigview.com (when I have more free time).

To me you are attempting to harmonize things that cannot be harmonized. What does "clear Light" have to do with any scriptural aspect of the God's of the Abrahamic religions?

I apologize. My previous comment must have sounded like a 'sweeping generalization' sort of statement to you. In fact, it is exactly that kind of statement; I made it intentionally. The Arabic mythology/religions, out of which the Christian tradition grew, make use of graphic personifications and allegories, which appear stark, inelastic, and reduced. 'Clear light', on the other hand is almost the opposite; it is infinitely airy, abstract, and all-embracing.

My personal preference is towards the 'Clear Light' understanding. I like to think that the Buddhist teaching is more suitable to the intellectual mind, but this is just a personal preference which may well be based on vanity and prejudice. However, it is important to see that the Judeo-Christian and Islamic Gods and the Vajrayana Clear Light -although very different- present and teach the same reality/values to humans which are love, egolessness, compassion, generosity, truthfulness, wisdom, equanimity, in other words, the marks of enlightenment.

Why did Siddhartha denounce Brahma if there was light in that belief?

How did Siddhartha denounce Brahma?

Cheers, Thomas

[a random hack]

College education, from my observations, generally encourages more mediocracy than advancement.
Yes, in my experience it offered the feeling of certainty, confirmation of beliefs. Quite ironic, for a scientist. :)
Not saying I was imune :lol:

I mean, it is as foolish IMO as saying that one is either (totally) a 'man' or (totally) a 'woman'. This may be true in a purely technical/mechanical sense pertaining to the outer form of one's genitalia, but the fact is the everyone has both male and female 'characteristics', including both male and female 'hormones', etc. Not only that, the fact is that there are people who have both male and female 'genitalia' even, tho 'doctors' seem to be predisposed to 'forcing' the matter one way or the other.

Good, so you can see that maybe 'enlightened' may also have more than one meaning? Personally, I think that it is often incorrectly used as an adjective, rather than a verb, meaning 'full of light', or 'lightened (less heavy)' Clumsy word anyway, let's agree on a usage, or ban it :lol:.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 3 2003, 12:14 AM
Good, so you can see that maybe 'enlightened' may also have more than one meaning?
Yes, indeedy - IMO, all 'concepts' are multidimensional - that is, each can have a multiplicity of meanings pertinent to a variety of 'dimensions' or 'lines' of 'thinking'.

Clumsy word anyway, let's agree on a usage, or ban it :lol:.
That looks like it may be a 'solution' - but, IMO, such an attempt will only lead to more 'wrangling', with those who care the most about their particular 'definition' lobbying to get their 'flag' to be accepted as the 'official' one.

My suggestion is for people to make nonexclusive statements aimed at elucidating their particular 'view' of (in this case) 'enlightenment' in contrast with the 'views' of others, thereby presenting the reading audience (which includes the conversation's participants) with a 'multidimensional' concept-smorgesbord. This may be a stimulus for some to broaden their 'views' (by forming a 'synthesis', maybe) or at least to learn to 'harmonize' their views with those of others -- the latter meaning to 'listen' in such a way as to understand and 'speak' in such a way as to be understood -- to use a strictly 'dualistic' analogy :), some will prefer 'chocolate' and some will prefer 'vanilla' but this way everyone will have a 'taste' of both.

vicente: I didn't quite get your point DavidS,...are you saying that enlightenment can only be realized through a continuum of awakenings, and yet, enlightenment can also be realized in totality in a moment of Self-Actualization?

Your statement comes close to what I am trying to get across. I think, any 'eureka' kind of enlightenment 'happens' as a kind of 'totality' in a 'moment'. And, in my view, both 'small' and 'big' ones, as well as (especially in the case of, IMO!) any postulated "Mother of all Eurekas", take a looong time to fully 'sink in' such that their 'implications' become 'shining light' parts of the operational framework of the Eureka·ed individual. So my answer, adapting your words, would read: "enlightenment can only be more and more fully realized through a series of 'awakenings'."

In my observation and experience, there is no 'end' (or 'final' platform point) to this process. IMO, to 'believe' that is just about as delusional as imagining and believing there is an 'end'-state called 'heaven' where the purview of 'awareness' of and extent of 'aliveness' and 'joy' just stay the same forever and ever (hanging out with angels to listening to the same ol' harpsongs always struck me as a 'doofy' notion of 'paradise'!).

vicente: Personally, I rather discuss what enlightenment is not (neti-neti).
You've done so and you are of course free to continue to do so. However, I'd rather share a variety of perspectives pertianing to what it is, because I personally find that a more meaningfully enjoyable exercise. For instance, telling me a dog ain't a cat leaves something to be desired when it comes to discussing and exploring 'dogness'. I also find the 'nett neti' approach tends to be 'conveniently' used by unscrupulous 'sophists' to sweep what someone else perceives and experiences to be 'significant' under the rug - the nett-neti rug, that is. :D

vicente: Enlightenment is about the Transcendant Dimension,...a reality before time births space; before the conditional traditions of 'One based' solutions became the status quo of the Collective.
I 'get' that that's what you think 'enlightenment' is about. I hope you 'get' that I think 'enlightenment' is both about that (or what I think you mean by that) and about the kinds of "Imminent" things we encounter in the context of time and space, where 'One Based' 'solutions' have the greatest potential to be Creative. That the 'banner' of 'enlightenment' of both kinds (but as you know I think they're part of the same 'coin' -- a leftfoot-rightfoot combo) may be carried by fools in no way diminishes the potential utility value of either 'line' of concept-interpretation to persons who learn to 'use' them well, however.

vicente: The realization of Enlightenment is when we are conscious of Love, when we no longer cling to the Laws of Myths which arise through the traditions of fear of the past and hope of the future.
That's OK with me. See if you can try to get OK with my thinking about and discussing Enlightenment in other terms. I find your 'definition' too formulaicly simple - your arguments in this regard have 'struck' me as a kind of 'fundamentalist' attempt to 'take over' the meaning of the word to suit your particular 'passions'.

Of course those with continuing fantasies that the past is real and that anticipation is honest, will fight dearly to sustain the barriers built against Love and Enlightenment,...even claiming that the fight is for there attainment.
This is 'really' :) not 'worthy' of comment, vicente -- being free to play with delusion, however, let me say that in my view it is little more than an attempt to 'associate' others' views and derivative values with 'ugly smears' which have no connection with actual facts. It says more about you than anyone else, IMO.

- David

[vicente]

DavidS,...your thinking has sure got me pegged. If you could only peg your thinking a tenth as well, we'd be having quite a dialogue.

Have you ever attempted to think in the Now? Of course some actually 'think' it's possible. But it's something one should verify for themselves.

Vicente
:)

[cuckoobird]

To my dear knowledgeable and well learned discussion board members. A big Hi to all of you for your thoughts.

One thing I learned and realised a long time ago; is the very fact that God, The Very Existence of God, Religious Beliefs are sources of Differences that threatens to tear the very "FABRIC" of mankind!!

Whilst, all of you could forward some very thought provoking 'concepts'; I am however most disappointed with the very fact that the discussions have degenerated! Each member has a right to express their thoughts, ( It is a public board after all! ) but to show disrespect and voice non-constructive criticisms against each other????

We are not here to convert each other to their respective religious faiths or beliefs! I wanted an opportunity to hear out and understand my fellow human "train of thoughts and beliefs" who could perhaps share their concepts, beliefs and understanding. It is most frustrating to see the lack of respect towards each other beliefs and POV. Is this how we humans convince each other on the existence of GOD?

God - The Greatest Myth?

God - A Cruel Myth?
Sometimes; I really feel so! Many of us have perished because fellow humans out of difference of religious beliefs have seen fit to seek ways to destroy each other in the name of GOD?
Who and Which God subcribes to this idea?
Many will jump and say this is not the fault of GOD! These are the fault of religious zealots who seek personal glory in the name of GOD! STRANGE!!!

But if GOD is Almighty, All Powerful, The Creator and amongst us; why does GOD allow the procreation of these beasts amongst us?

Why does he allow the deaths of innocents to continue? How many more must die? How many more must suffer?

Ask yourself; "Has there ever been a 'window in time' that there was complete and utter peace inthis world?"

Could there be different Gods for each and every religious faiths? I personally feel that if GOD is the CREATOR; then theoretically speaking; there should be only one GOD perhaps WITH DIFFERENT NAMES per se! Ha! Ha! God supposedly exist in all religious beliefs?!

Alas; these are some of my POVs very much subject to criticisms by all, constructive please!ha ha! Take care all and regards,

Cuckoobird :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Sep 3 2003, 09:44 PM
Have you ever attempted to think in the Now? Of course some actually 'think' it's possible. But it's something one should verify for themselves.
Since the 'am' that I 'am' is in the Now, I think it's a fair conclusion to say that I think in the Now as well. Personally, like my breathing, I've never done 'it' any other way. ;)

If you have me 'pegged' as thinking 'out' of the Now, or as thinking that I think that way, I think you have me pegged 'wrong'.

:) David

[DavidS]

cuckoobird,Sep 3 2003, 11:56 PM]: Many will jump and say this is not the fault of GOD! These are the fault of religious zealots who seek personal glory in the name of GOD! STRANGE!!!
At this stage in the herstory :D of the evolution of consciousness, most people are still either 'power hungry' or feel 'threatened' by people who think, feel and act 'differently', or both, to the point where they think, feel and act as though is were a 'good' thing to try to quash or eliminate such (perceived) 'competitors'. The kinds of 'crimes' you lament are not the exclusive province of "religious zealots." The guys and gals in various 'gangs' (or 'mafias') don't slaughter those 'belonging' to other gangs (or mafias) don't slaughter one another in the 'name' of "God". IMO, You have to a 'sophist' of some kind to be able to fool yourself and others into thinking that's why what is done is done. Most gang and mafia members, as well as 'lone' criminals, don't think that way.

But if GOD is Almighty, All Powerful, The Creator and amongst us; why does GOD allow the procreation of these beasts amongst us?
This is an age-old bugaboo question for those who think in terms of a 'personal' Creator, especially if they think of 'Him' or 'Her' as being like a bio·logical 'parent', just totally 'Super-Duper' one -- I mean what father or mother would 'allow' siblings to do 'beastly' things to one another?

Why does he allow the deaths of innocents to continue? How many more must die? How many more must suffer?
Again, cuckoobird, I think your questions stem from the way in which you personally conceptualize "God". The same questions don't arise if one 'sees' "God" differently - more like the way expressed in the following passge from The Bhagavad gita (The Song of God) for instance (please note the "for instance". There are other perspectives of "God" in which such questions simply dissolve into the background):

The Spirit, which pervades all that we see, is imperishable. Nothing can destroy the Spirit.

The material bodies which this Eternal, Indestructible, Immeasurable Spirit inhabits are all finite. . . .

He who thinks that the Spirit kills, and he who thinks of It as killed, are both ignorant. The Spirit kills not, nor is It killed.

It was not born; It will never die, nor once having been, can It cease to be. Unborn, Eternal, Ever-enduring, yet Most Ancient, the Spirit dies not when the body is dead.

He who knows the Spirit as Indestructible, Immortal, Unborn, Always-the-Same, how should he kill or cause to be killed?

As a man discards his threadbare robes and puts on new, so the Spirit throws off Its worn-out bodies and takes fresh ones.
Weapons cleave It not, fire burns It not, water drenches It not, and wind dries It not.

It is impenetrable; It can be neither drowned nor scorched nor dried. It is Eternal, All-pervading, Unchanging, Immovable and Most Ancient.

It is named the Unmanifest, the Unthinkable, the immutable. Wherefore, knowing the Spirit as such, thou hast no cause to grieve.

Even if thou thinkest of It as constantly being born, constantly dying, even then, O Mighty Man, thou still hast no cause to grieve.

Ask yourself; "Has there ever been a 'window in time' that there was complete and utter peace inthis world?"
Same answer as "Has there ever been a 'window in time' that there was no significant 'weather disturbance' on the planet?"
Note, though, that, despite its (sometimes quite violently destructive) storms, etc., there would be no 'flowering' of biological life on the planet. Though you may desire it as the 'greatest good', in my view "utter peace" (pertaining either to human conflict or the weather, IMO) would not be a 'good' things, in terms of ultimate effect that is.

I personally feel that if GOD is the CREATOR; then theoretically speaking; there should be only one GOD perhaps WITH DIFFERENT NAMES per se! Ha! Ha!
Yup! :D

God supposedly exist in all religious beliefs?!
That depends on what is or isn't included under in the concept-category 'Religious'.

Alas; these are some of my POVs very much subject to criticisms by all, constructive please!ha ha! Take care all and regards.
Hang in there, cuckoobird - there are some real ;) lovers here.

:) David

[sahyo]

david'ing :)

See if you can
try to get OK with my thinking about

perhaps looking
which 'desiring' people to
"try to get OK with my thinking about"
as though separatewhichnot

I find your 'definition' too formulaicly simple

thinkingdelusion 'cannot' simple,
though simple not,
which not thoughtdelusion

[sahyo]

cuckoo'ingbird ;)

I wanted an opportunity to hear out and understand my fellow human "train of thoughts and beliefs" who could perhaps share their concepts, beliefs and understanding. It is most frustrating to see the lack of respect towards towards each other beliefs and POV.

which is thinking-wanting to "hear out and understand my fellow humans"-thinkingdelusionwhichnot?

is "beliefs and POV"-delusionwhichnot important?

:)

[dog goddess]

too many seek to name their creator.


too many judge their creator by the words of others.

too few look within themselves.



the spirit is there.

[sahyo]

"their creator"?

[Mullah Mo]

Hello everyone,

I'm new on this forum. I don't know how things are on this forum, so I'm going to ask a question. In the section "religion" are we talking about religion in general or can we pick a religion and have at it??


Thanks...

[rich]

Dear Mullah Mo,

Welcome to thebigview. To answer your question, my answer would
be, whatever. IOW, no restrictions, just be yourself. :) AFAIK, this is thebigview. :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Dec 10 2003, 08:13 PM
Dear Mullah Mo,

Welcome to thebigview. To answer your question, my answer would
be, whatever. IOW, no restrictions, just be yourself. :) AFAIK, this is thebigview. :D
Ditto, Mo!

[DavidS]

Hi Everyone -

I just finished the book I was reading (as mentioned, Journey of Souls by Michael Newton) and wanted to share two pieces I dogeared by way of quoting them. The first is a section of the transcript of a session Dr. Newton had with a client who he identifies as a highly developed soul in what he describes as a hypnotically facilitated 'superconscious' state of awareness and recall, and the second is a kind of summary of Dr. Newton's thoughts and speculations about the 'truth' of the 'matter', that matter being the Nature of 'the source' and the relationship of our Unique Beings in relation to It.

Whatever the actual truth of the matter may be, and then there's always the possibility that Mind may be incabable of 'picturing' It as a 'linear-logic'-related Whole, it strikes me that [t]his 'view' or 'model' gives mind and spirit considerably more to 'play' with than the one which (over'simply', IMO) states: The Source is Complete and Perfect As Is, therefore it make no sense to think and believe that we, as 'persons' with 'personal' souls can, if and as we so choose, generatively add to and thus 'enrich' What Is; and therefore to image·in one and desire to conscientiously do so totally hubristic and foolish deludedness." It also strikes me that issue in question's 'logical' conundrum might just boil down to the question of whether it's 'mathematically' possible to add 'one' (i.e., 'anything' at all) to 'an infinitely inclusive' set, and what happens to the concept of its 'infinite inclusiveness' if one can and does! IOW, though it may be impossible to 'axiomatically' 'code' into 'strictly' 'logical' mathematical framework, it is (intuitively, or non-linear-mathematically) conceivable that All That Is Itself 'changes' with the smallest 'changes' in the least of us. Always the Same, yet Ever-Evolving. Hmmm, Riddle of the Sphinx Solution Time, folks -- What "the Same" references and what "Ever-Evolving" must both be 'true', each in it own way be 'true', that is they must be true 'on different conceptual planes' or 'dimensions' of the One Unified-Whole Truth. :D

============

Dr. N: Thece, I want to close by asking you about the source. You have been a soul for a very long time, so how do you see yourself relating to the oneness of creation you told me about earlier?

S: (long pause) By sensations of movement. In the beginning there is an outward migration of our soul energy from the source. Afterward, our lives are spent moving inward ... toward cohesion and the uniting ...

Dr. N: you make this process seem as though a living organism was expansing and contracting.

S: There is an explosive release ... then a returning ... yes, the source pulsates.

Dr. N: And you are moving toward the center of this energy source?

S: There really is no center. The source is all around us as if we were ... inside a beating heart.

Dr. N: But, you did say your were moving back to a point or origin as your soul advanced in knowledge?

S: Yes, when I was thrust outward I was a child. Now I'm being drawn back as my adolescences fades . . . [my assumption is that S is talking in terms of 'child' and 'adolescence' as metaphorically pertaining to a course of development over multiple lifetimes.]

Dr. N: back where?

S: Further inside the source.

Dr. N: Perhaps you could describe this energy source through the use of colors to explain soul movement and the scope of creation.

S: (sighs) It's as if souls are all part of a massive electrical explosion which produces ... a halo effect. In this ... circular halo is a dark purple light which flares out ... lightening to a whitness at the edges. Our awareness begins at the edges of brilliant light and as we grow ... we become more engulfed in the darker light.

Dr. N: I find it hard to visualize a god of creation as cold, dark light.

S: That's because I am not iclose enough in conjunction to explain it well. The dark light is itself a ... covering, beyond which we feel an intense warmth ... full of a knowing presence which is everywhere for us and ... alive!

Dr. N: What was it like when you were first aware of your identity as a soul after being pushed out to the rim of this halo?

S: To be ... is the same as watching the first flower of spring open and the flower is you. And, as it opens more, you become aware of other flowers in a glorious filed and there is ... unbounded joy.

Dr. N: If this explosive, multi-colored eneergy source collapses in on itself, will all the flowers eventually die?

S: Nothing is collapsing ... the source is endless. As souls we will never die -- we know that, somehow. As we coalesce, our increasing wisdom makes the source stronger.

Dr. N: Is that the reason the source desires to perform this exercise?

S: Yes, to give life to us so we can arrive at a state of perfection.

Dr. N: Why does a source, who is ostensinly perfect already, need to create further intelligence which is less than perfect?

S: To help the creator create. In this way, by self-transformation and rising to higher plateaus of fulfillment, we add to the building blocks of life.

Dr. N: Were souls forced to break away from the source and come to places like Earth becuase of ome sort of original sin or fall from grace in the spirit world?

S: That's nonsense. We came to be ... maginfied ... in the beautiful variety of creation.

Dr. N: These, I want you to listen carefully. If the source needs to be made stronger, or more wise, by using a division of its divine energy to create lesser intelligence which it hopes will magnify -- doesn't this suggest it lacks full perfection itself?

S: (pause) The source creates for fulfillment of itself.

Dr. N: That's my point. How can that which is absolute become more unless something is lacking?

S: (hesitates) That which we see to be ... our source ... is all be can know, and we think what the creator desirs is to express itself through us by ... birthing.

Dr. N: And do you think the source is actually made stronger by our existence as souls?

S: (loong pause) I see the creator's perfection ... maintained and enriched ... by sharing the possibilioty of perfection with us and this is the ultimate expression of itself.

Dr. N: So the source starts out deliberately creating imperfect souls and imperfect life forms for these souls and watches what happens in order to extend itself?

S: Yes, and we have to have faith in this decision and trust the process of returing to the origin of life. One has to be starving to appreciate food, to be cold to understand the blessings of warmth, and to be children to see that value of the parent. The transformation gives us purpose.

Dr. N: Do you want to be a parent of souls?

S: ... Participation in the conception of ourselves is ... a dream of mine.

Dr. N: If our spirits did not experience physical lfe, would we ever know of these things you are telling me?

S: We would know of them, but not about them. It would be as if your spiritual energy were told to play piano scales with only one note.

Dr. N: And do you believe if the source didn;t create souls to nurture and grow, its sublime energy would shrink from a lack of expression?

S: (sigh) Perhaps that is its purpose.

===============
And now Dr. N's own comments, many transcripts and sundry comments later:
===========

All the accounts of life after death in my case files have no scientific foundation to prove the statements of these subjects. To those readers who find the material offered in this book too unprecendented to accept, I would hope for on thing. If you carry away nothing except the idea that you may have a permenent identidy worth finding, I will have accomplished a great deal.

One of the most troublesome concerns of all people who want to believe in something higher than themselves is the causality of so much negativity in the world. Evil is given as the primary example. When I ask my subjects how a loving God would permit suffering, surprisingly there are few variations in their responses. My cases report our souls are born of a creator which places a totally peaceful state deliberately out of reach so wel will strivbe harder.

We learn from wrongdoing. The absence of good traits exposes the ultimate flaws in our nature. That which is not good is testing us, otherwise we would have no motivation to better the world through ourselves, and no way to measure advancement. When I ask my subjects about the alternating merciful and wrathful qualities we perceive to be the self-expression of a teacher-oversoul, some of them say the creator only shows certain attributes to us for specific ends. For instance, if we equate evil with justice and mercy with goodness and if God allowed us to only know mercy, there would be no state of justice.

This book presents a theme of order and wisdom rising from many spiritual energy levels. In a remarkable underlying emssage, particularly from advanced subjects, the possibility is held out that the God-oversoul of our universe is on a less-that-perfect level. Thus, complete infallibility is deferred to an even higher divine source.

From my work I have come to believe that we live in an imperfect world by design. Earth is one of countless worlds with intelligent beings, each with its own set of imperfections to bring into harmony. Extending this thought further, we might exist as one single dimensional universe out of many, each having it own creator governing at a different level of proficiency in levels similar to the progression of souls seen in this book. Under this pantheon, the divine being of our particular house would be allowed to govern is His, Her, or Its own way.

If the souls who go to planets in our universe are the offspring of a perent oversoul who is made wiser by our struggle, then coud we have a more divine grandparent who is the absolute God? The concept that our immediate God is still evolving as we are takes nothing away from an ultimate source of perfpection who spawned our God. To my mind, a supremen, perfect God would not lose omnipotence or total control over all creation by allowing for the maturation of less-than-perfect superior offspring. These lesser gods could be allowed to create their own imperfect worlds as a final means of edification so they might join with the ultimate God.

=========

I hope at least some readers found this stuff as contemplating-stimulating as I did. :)

[vicente]

Appriciate your post DavidS.
S, to me, although still comprehending their experience, expressed some clear understanding of Source. If S fully realized their experience however, Dr N's concept of "energy source", would have been challenged from the start.

"energy source"? That's a prime ego oxymoron. S experienced Source, yet because of their own indoctrinated belief patterns, doesn't yet know how to let go of the conceptual and embrace Source unconditionally. Source is as a Causeless fulcrum. If Dr N wants a scientific (sciential mind) foundation, then he will have to except that the sum of all positives and all negatives equal Zero.

Energy is motion measured in time. When we cross the threshold of the so-called speed of light, energy ceases, time stops, space shrinks, and we are infinite, infinitely Zero, Unconditional Love, Timeless Bliss, Light.

[DavidS]

Hi vicente – I can relate to

Energy is motion measured in time. When we cross the threshold of the so-called speed of light, energy ceases, time stops, space shrinks, and we are infinite, infinitely Zero, Unconditional Love, Timeless Bliss, Light.
as a metaphoric and conceptual de·scipt·ion of the my/our 'supreme' or (hallowed) 'ground' existential (or multiexistential or transexistential :) ) state – IOW, it 'picture'-'fits' what I believe to be the case. The thing about such statement, though, which makes such state as de·scribe·d in·tuition·ally feel 'unsuitable' to/for someone like me, is that it is so barren of any reference to or intimation of vital connection to/with anything that is living, breathing, constantly being born and constantly dying (i.e., constantly 'changing'), ever flowering, fruiting and seeding, etc., which in my 'view' is EXACTLY what such 'supreme' or 'ground' SOURCE is constantly engaged in, to wit, the fecundly creative shenanagins of ALL being and doing (at least that's been 'the case' every time I looked at or imag·in·ed the 'whole' shebang as 'is-was-and-ever-will-be').

There is a great 'difference' between us in terms of 'values', even though I think your de·script·ion of 'the truth' is completely valid and agree with it, as far as it goes. But there's something 'more' in my de·scription, that 'more' being crucially important to 'me', just as important as 'Father Ground' is the 'Son Shine' of the TREE of LIFE -- our multipersonal parade of borning-dying-changing-LIVING-psychospiritual-beings. You might say, my 'God' is a (the?) LIVING 'God' ('LIVING' in the sense of being interactively engaged and 'seeking' and 'act·ualizing' creative 'fulfillment'). It think this reflects the fact that what a person perceives of as and 'reveres' as 'God' is her/his subjective choice (whether s/he recognizes it as being a subjective choice or not). I think what appeals to and strikes individuals as being the most meaningful de·script·ion of 'ultimate' reality or de·sign·ation of 'God', and therefore, of course, what they adopt and honor as 'script·ure' in their own 'personal religion', probably reflects their 'highest' 'value' preference or preferences. The differences in what each of us place at the highest spot on the alters of our respective value hierarchies clearly reflects what each of us respectively regards as the 'crown' of 'God' (God = of 'Supreme' reality-value), I think. As I stand back a bit and look at what I am saying, it looks like 'God' may be the Mother of all Rorschach tests. :lol: We're back to "Chacun a son gout" all over again!

Be that as it may or may not be ;) , here's another bit from Journey of Souls which I discovered was located just prior to the previously quoted material when I thumbed back from the dog-eared section to see what else was there:

Dr. N: Thece, we are coming to the end of our time together and I want you to turn your mind once again to the cource-creator. (pause) Will you do that for me?

S: Yes

Dr. N: You said the ultimate objective of souls was to seek unification with the supreme source of creative energy – do you remember?

S: ... The act of conjunction, yes.

Dr. N: Tell me, does the source dwell in some special central space in the spirit world?

S: The source is the spirit world.

Dr. N: Then why do souls speak of reaching a core of spiritual life?

S: When we are young spirits we sense power around us everywhere and yet we feel we ... are on the edge of it. As we grow older there is an awareness of a concentrated power, but it is the same feeling.

Dr. N: Even though you have called this the place of the Old Ones?

S: Yes, they are part of the concentrated power of the source which sustains us as souls.

Dr. N: Well, lumping this power together as one energy source, can you describe the creator in more human terms?

S: As the ultimate selfless being which we strive to be.

Dr. N: If the source represents all the spirit world, how does this mental place differ from differ from physical universes with stars, planets, and living things?

S: Universes are created – to live and die – for the use of the source. The place of spirits ... is the source.

Dr. N: We seem to live in non-space which is expanding and may contract again and eventually die. Since we live in a space with time limitations, how can the spirit world itself be timeless?

S: Because here we live in non-space which is timeless ... except in certain zones.

Dr. N: Please explain what these zones are.

S: They are ... interconnecting doors ... openings for us to pass through into a physical universe of time.

Dr. N: How can time-doors exist in non-space?

S: The openings exist as thresholds between realities.

Dr. N: Well, if the spirit world is non-dimensional, what kind of reality is that?

S: A constant reality state, as opposed to the shifting realities of dimensional worlds which are material and changing.

Dr. N: Do past, present, and future have any relevance for souls living in the spirit world?

S: Only as a means of understanding succession in physical form. Living here ... there is a ... changelessness .... for those of us not crossing thresholds into a universe of substance and time.

Dr. N: You speak of universes in the plural. Are these other physical universes besides the one which contains Earth?

S: (vaguely) There are ... differing realities to suit the source.

Dr. N: Are you saying souls can enter various rooms of different physical realities from spiritual doorways?

S: (nods) Yes, they can – and do.

========

Imagine what might happen if the scriptwriters of The Matrix Trilogy got a hold of this! :lol:

[vicente]

it is so barren of any reference to or intimation of vital connection to/with anything that is living

Imagine if you were a character in a film at your local theater. That character, if asked, would say anything beyond the screen must be barren of any vital connection. But from the point of view of Reality, that character has not a clue as to what Life is,...it 'thinks' the projection is "living".

Our own four dimensional dream is not much different from the two dimensional film at the theater. Both are fantasy's. Living begins, as the Buddha's have said, when we wake up.

Of course, I see you point about clinging to the illusion. Ego cannot see Wholeness, only what's around it.

Vicente
:)

[Lifebright]

I think this reflects the fact that what a person perceives of as and 'reveres' as 'God' is her/his subjective choice (whether s/he recognizes it as being a subjective choice or not).

Hi David:

Much suffering was experienced by this 'seeker' in believing that there 'was' some objective or absolute reality that could be known, clung to, held close, be merged with...well, you get the drift. It was when I 'gave up' this impossible search (or it 'gave up' on me ;) ) that the search 'ended' and the living 'begins'. :)


Ego cannot see Wholeness, only what's around it.

Hi vincente

That darn old ego. Can't see the forest for the trees. :) .

[sahyo]

That darn old ego. Can't see the forest for the trees.

when that notion ceases

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Lifebright@Dec 24 2003, 07:39 AM
Much suffering was experienced by this 'seeker' in believing that there 'was' some objective or absolute reality that could be known, clung to, held close, be merged with...well, you get the drift. It was when I 'gave up' this impossible search (or it 'gave up' on me ;) ) that the search 'ended' and the living 'begins'. :)
So, the way I would 'interpret' (or hypothesize the dynamics of) this ex·peer·iential sequence in 'light' of the notion that one's 'God' is one's own 'highest-supreme' 'value', what you were doing was something like trying to 'see', 'sense', 'align yourself with', and baby-back-into-mommy's-womb- 'merge' with somethang which had a 'reality' which was somehow 'more' 'valid' that the reality of your 'own' Life-bright subjective being.

This is the 'same' thing as Even and Adam eating the 'apple' so they 'could' become 'as God' (that 'God' being conceived as a something 'other' and 'more' than what they were as is's. :lol: In an of itself, such 'desire' implies one's incompleteness and 'inferiority' as is, which psychospiritdynamically 'ejects' one from the 'state' of being in a 'godly' 'paradise'.

I could play with this some more, but you get the drift. When you cut out all that bullsh*t you backed into the 'inheritance' with was always yours, lady.
:lol:

[vicente]

the notion that one's 'God' is one's own 'highest-supreme' 'value'

This is the crux of our diffences DavidS. In no Dictionary of the English Language that I've seen, includes "the notion that one's 'God' is one's own 'highest-supreme' 'value'", as a valid definition of a God.

If I was to name my "the notion 'highest-supreme' 'value'" as God, I would, in essence, be misleading anyone I spoke to, this being dishonest.

From my point of view, which happens to be the same point of view of Light, Life and Reality, is that the :highest-supreme value" is Causeless, Unconditional Love. A God on the other hand, regardless if it is considered "the one's own 'highest-supreme' 'value'", is also considered a Cause and Effect Creator, which, no matter who one tries to spin it, is a Conditional God, and a Dualist love.

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 25 2003, 12:08 PM
If I was to name my "the notion 'highest-supreme' 'value'" as God, I would, in essence, be misleading anyone I spoke to, this being dishonest.
Strikes me that this is what you actually do, except that you regard your 'knowledge' (i.e., your differential 'valuing') in this regard to be 'objectively' dissociated from your (any) personal 'self'. Misleading though it (or what anyone else, including myself, 'holds to' in this regard) may be, in my view, it is quite 'honest' to so speak your piece and walk it, however.

From my point of view, which happens to be the same point of view of Light, Life and Reality, is that the :highest-supreme value" is Causeless, Unconditional Love. A God on the other hand, regardless if it is considered "the one's own 'highest-supreme' 'value'", is also considered a Cause and Effect Creator, which, no matter who one tries to spin it, is a Conditional God, and a Dualist love.
It is not a question of EITHER-OR in my case, vicente. In my case 'God' is both, the 'former' organically giving 'rise' to and including the 'rise' of the latter, which 'complements', you might even say which 'completes', it by allowing for, you might even say 'precipitating', its 'dynamic fulfillment'.

It's a 'paradox' I know, Apparent Conditionality 'within' a 'Field' of Uncondionality, etc. Impossible for simple 'logic' to wrap itself around. But again, vicente, the 'facts' of Life aren't 'simple', meaning they aren't 'simply' one (kind of) thing OR another (kind). The conceptual integrate·ion of Father (nondualistic) , Son (dualistic) and Holy Ghost (which is AC/DC in those terms as far as I can tell ;) ) is an attempt to 'address' the 'fact' of (all three) such 'thangs' really being facets of the same uni·verse·al, dynamically 'unitary' in ultimate terms, Thang! At least, that's what they strike me as being, and to an extent, 'successfully' logic-serving, in the case of folks capable of juggle-hold them up in the air 'at the same time', that is.
:)

[Lifebright]

Hi David:

Thanks for the response, and yes, I did not feel that I was complete and 'valid' (although I would use the word 'worthy') just being subjective Lifebright, vis a vis God, as I 'saw' 'Him' (then).

Like vincente, I too see God as causeless, effectless, unconditional love, but this did not happen until I gave up the belief in a judging Creator (childhood indoctrination is powerful). Because my childhood God was conditional AS well as unconditional (how's that for fractured thinking :blink:) , I believed I, too, was a conditional/ed creature and fated never to taste the sweet joy of infinite, unbounded love. I bumped heads with this judging God (' the' object to ' my' subject) until finally, the suffering became unbearable/illogical, and I kissed him goodbye and - peace ' descended'.

A poem, in two parts, written just around the time (September of this year) that I found peace:

Dear Love Unconditional

why did I forget you?
when did being get lost in my longing
for more or less, than naked me?

no matter, now.
I know you as you have always known me.
purity is not a prize
no price to pay to win Your Heart
no deed to do to end the two
You Are, that's all
You simply Are
and I shall drink You
until ending comes of 'if' and 'just' and 'but'
each and every maybe-when-and-then thought
Be, I am, 'just' me
In we and
See.

Dear me conditioned:

Each garment you gave me
my friend, my lover
marked my naked skin
with your purpose.

Sometimes silk,
carress-smooth and lift-me
sometimes burlap,
pinch-scratchy and drop me.

Dresses and shoes and baubles
clinging, clacking, glittering
I wore them all,
Tried them on for 'me' size
each night hanging them
in my closet of waiting
for life without dressing
for love without keeping.

And here, here is this moment!
this beautiful, longed for, shining-still moment!
Naked I Am
Inside my closet
with my garments of wanna-be-never-be,
touching them, kissing them,
each dress, each shoe, each bauble
sweetly, dearly, tenderly
I love them all
for seducing me, for marking me
so I could know
REALLY know
They are not
Me at all.

When you cut out all that bullsh*t you backed into the 'inheritance' with was always yours, lady.

Bullseye! B)

[Lifebright]

Hi David

Re: 'Apparent' Conditionality in a Field of Unconditionality, as stated in your response to vincente.

As I mentioned in my post above, I banged my head against this until my skull hurt, and no matter how I tried to see the two together, I could not. Reality can not be two things. Reality cannot have an opposite. God is either unconditional or conditional, 'He/It' cannot be both.

Your quotation marks around 'apparent' ring true to me, however, as what I have come to see is that we 'need' our belief in our condtional/conditioned natures so we can 'learn', 'see', 'comprehend' that this is not 'what' we are at all. In other words, we 'don't' 'see' (remember?) what Reality is, until we first think/feel what it is not. We see heaven (oneness) when hell (duality) is 'seen through' as being false.

Do I still experience this good-evil duality? Yes, but it is fleeting, and I quickly surrender to Unconitional Love.

[sahyo]

I quickly surrender to Unconitional Love.

impossible

[rich]

impossible

which, impossible? surrender, conditional love, or both? :unsure:

[vicente]

Quickly is impossible. Even if you were moving at 185, 999 MPS, light would still appear to moving 186K MPS faster than you. The Unconditional is only in the Now.

Vicente
:)

[Lifebright]

impossible

How 'bout 'awareness of' dualistic thinking surrenders lifebright 'to' love?

:)

[Lifebright]

Quickly is impossible. Even if you were moving at 185, 999 MPS, light would still appear to moving 186K MPS faster than you. The Unconditional is only in the Now.

B)

[sahyo]

Quickly is impossible.

"impossible" wasn't referring "quickly" :)

[sahyo]

How 'bout 'awareness of' dualistic thinking surrenders lifebright 'to' love?

is 'surrendering' "to"?

:)

[Lifebright]

is 'surrendering' "to"?

lifebright infinity newbie

:D

[sahyo]

lifebright infinity newbie

lifebright still wearing garment

:)

[a random hack]

lightbright infinity newbie....less 21 posts :D :lol:

[rich]

Lifebright, heed not their discourse of labelling you as a Newbie, for this was extracted from this forum:

New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 59
Joined: 8-August 03






QUOTE
is 'surrendering' "to"?


lifebright infinity newbie





You are now a new member. Congratulations. :D ;)

[Lifebright]

lifebright still wearing garment

no problem, sometimes very windy inside 'skin' :)

'still?' :D

[Lifebright]

lightbright infinity newbie....less 21 posts

;)

[Lifebright]

[/QUOTE]You are now a new member. Congratulations. :D ;) [QUOTE]

:wub:, rich

[sahyo]

garment "infinity newbie", lifebright ;)

[Lifebright]

garment "infinity newbie", lifebright

lifebright thinks asheera loves being-asheera-mystery ;)

[rich]

:o Is garment wearing, no slip? :unsure:

[Lifebright]

At this point, rich, I'm befuddled myself :blink: ...time to jump off the hamster wheel... ;) :D

[vicente]

Lifebright,...Asheera might reply:

¡no thinks!,...¡no mystery!,...¡no asheera!

Some would call that rectitudinous - LOL

:)

[Lifebright]

Lifebright,...Asheera might reply:* ¡no thinks!,...¡no mystery!,...¡no asheera!
Must be her very intelligent, small-toed cat at the keyboard :)

Some would call that rectitudinous - LOL
I looked up 'rectidinous' on dictionary.com and I can't wait to tell the next 'preachy' person to stop being so darn self-rectidinous :D ) - what an absolutely coool word!

Thanks for the translation... :)

[thirst4sun]

"God".......hmmmmmm.........What or who is "God"? Well
my beleif is... God = Total awareness
God = All that is
God = Source

[NaShema]

I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. Abraham Lincoln

First I must say I can understand the many points of view given by the many replys. Think of everything we consider life to be and what we don't consider life! There are to many consistent variables that meet exactly where they need to for this universe and everything it contains to be chance. I will list a small example of the many consistently perfect combinations that help make us who we are, where we are, and how we are.

Before reading this list ask yourself what made you ask or answer any of the questions listed in this section? What is it you are hoping for? Would you be complete and whole with unbridled happiness if someone proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did not exist? What is it that you scream out when you are writhing in pain? In your deepest convictions do you believe there is not a definite order and plan in the universe? Do you picture God as a wise all in white, sitting on a throne of glory elderly man who has a form?

Do I believe for one second God is the humanistic vindictive hateful God we hear about so often? Never, if there is a God he doesn't act like a human being that makes no sense does it?

Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster." by John Leslie

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example)." information from P. C. W. Davies 1980 (Other Worlds), pp.176-177.

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons-- yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars." Steven Hawking, Physics Bulleting: Cambridge, vol. 32, 1980, pp 9-10.

The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been found to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact, the resulting charge imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, suns--to explode violently. The cosmos would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air." Greenstein's The Symbiotic Universe

It doesn't really matter if you believe in God. It all boils down to a simple self analysis: Does my belief or non-belief in God define me? Is your argument for or against God colored by your own psychological reaction to what life is like for you? Can you prove or disprove God once and for all?

I like to look at God from a scientific point of view and the more I look at it the more I am almost sure God is Math. Factor anything you want from the periodic table of elements to the number of letters and spaces between phrases in the Torah somebody liked Math and took a lot of time playing with the numbers. :P

[sahyo]

It doesn't really matter if you believe in God. It all boils down to a simple self analysis: Does my belief or non-belief in God define me?

does using name nashema believe or non-belief "me" "my" "self"
as though can define?

[JimJames]

Would it matter if someone has seen God and told you they saw him... the question would then be do you believe the person who told you they saw him... there would always be doubt, even if you saw for yourself... it is human nature to doubt.

Personally, I believe he has been seen and can be seen.

[a random hack]

jim :)
hi, why do you choose that belief, rather than another ?

[DrewPollock]

Nasheema,

Could you please explain your thought on the torah, periodic table of elements, a little more in depth? Im a little interested. <_<
Someone did do the math, probably king james when he translated it. I believe the writings of man cannot give us a clue about who or what "god" is. Man will always wonder.

[JimJames]

a random hack, based on research and personal experience...

[zygoat]

to all, :thumbsup:
The professor of a university challenged his students
> with this question. "Did God create everything that
> exists?"
>
> A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did."
>
> The professor then asked, "If God created everything,
> then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by
> our own actions), so God is evil.
>
> The student couldn't respond to that statement causing
> the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that
> "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore
> worthless.
>
> Another student raised his hand and asked the
> professor, "May I pose a question? "
>
> "Of course" answered the professor.
>
> The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does
> Cold exists?"
>
> The professor answered, "What kind of question is
> that?...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever
> been cold?"
>
> The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does
> not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we
> consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat.
> Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits
> energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of
> heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is
> create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have
> body heat or we are not hot."
>
> And, does Dark exist?, he continued.
>
> The professor answered "Of course."
>
> This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong,
> Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in
> fact simply the absence of light. Light can be
> studied, darkness cannot. Darkness cannot be broken
> down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and
> illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes.
> Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe
> what happens when there's lack of light."
>
> Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does
> evil exist?"
>
> The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I
> mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes
> and violence anywhere in the world, and those things
> are evil."
>
> The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just
> as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has
> created to describe the result of the absence of God's
> presence in the hearts of man."
>
> After this, the professor bowed down his head, and
> didn't answer back.
>
> The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN

[todd]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

[zygoat]

Todd,
very informative link!!! :thumbsup:

[DoWalker]

Is the question at hand the existence of God, or is it the nature of God? If the former, the first thing we have to ascertain is "what do you mean by God?"

If you mean the ghostly figure of an old, bearded man sitting in the clouds moving us about like pawns, I hope you'll find thin support for that definition.

At the other end of the spectrum, if you mean something other than the physical cosmos, you'll have many more people agreeing with you.

So please clarify the question -- what do you mean by "God?"