How to truly Love God

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I described a dystopic vision, in the style of Orwell, to indicate potential political and social ramifications of an uprooting or a severing process from what I would describe as 'the wellsprings of Being'. You are mistaken to see it purely as prediction. And it has nothing to do with hate. But it does have to do with current events, and it does have to do with what is happening within a scientific-bureaucratic and technological world which has no ways or means to define higher purpose, nor even right and wrong.

To label it 'mindless hatred' indicates I think more about your stance than about mine. And it has nothing to do with a plural-you. I am making reference to things that you have likely not ever considered. Because you have no historical or political consciousness. For example the Stalinist state, the Stasi, the Maoist state: these were in fact atheistic states, and they created horrors. And they declared themselves atheistic states.

I see China now as having no value-system that is able or interested in defending the rights of the individual and thus untrustworthy. It already works in the ways I outlined, exaggeratingly and nightmarishly, but consciously and with humour. It is our own Greco-Christian civilisation that has defined the rights of persons. It did not happen anywhere else, that I am aware of at least. It is unwise not to consider the sources, the wellsprings.

It looks to me to be a form of ignorance - wilful? - on your end to see and describe what I am referring to as 'lack of broad-mindedness'. The 'disgusting poison I have spewed out' is in fact a way of describing what has already come about as a result of an atheistic platform and aspects of ideology it carries along with it. Your descriptions are emotionally-based. They have little effect.

I suggest that I am more 'broad-minded' than you insofar as I can consider, and take seriously, the possibility of darker turns in human control-systems.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I described a dystopic vision, in the style of Orwell, to indicate potential political and social ramifications of an uprooting or a severing process from what I would describe as 'the wellsprings of Being'. You are mistaken to see it purely as prediction. And it has nothing to do with hate. But it does have to do with current events, and it does have to do with what is happening within a scientific-bureaucratic and technological world which has no ways or means to define higher purpose, nor even right and wrong.

To label it 'mindless hatred' indicates I think more about your stance than about mine. And it has nothing to do with a plural-you. I am making reference to things that you have likely not ever considered. Because you have no historical or political consciousness. For example the Stalinist state, the Stasi, the Maoist state: these were in fact atheistic states, and they created horrors. And they declared themselves atheistic states.
.

And here is where you obsession with defining 'atheism' utterly breaks down.

Whilst it is apt for a Theist to define these states as 'atheistic" you are also forced to define the USA in the same way.

The paradox is also, though that Stalin's Russia, and Maoist China share more in common with any other Theocracy than the USA which demands the separation of church and state.

As an atheist or otherwise I see nothing of merit in Stalin's Russia, nor Maoist China, as I share nothing in common with their moral stance nor their aims. Furthermore, I'll also say, as a socialist - exactly the same thing. All I see about these states is a sort of Theocratic mimickry, which has much in common with the medieval forms of church related authoritarianism, and the authoritarianism of post -Confucianist pseudo-buddhist Feudalism from which they emerged. The only difference being that the myth of god was transferred to their leadership.

This post like all your other posts betray a pathological and misunderstood hatred of a myth you conceive and "atheism" for which you have no basis or understanding , and frankly make you look like a childish idiot. Were it not for the smokescreen of your verbosity, then I'd think you were a complete retard.
Sadly what I see is a waste of a potentially good brain.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I commend you on a largely lucid post in which, stutteringly perhaps, you barked forth a somewhat coherent statement. I only fail to understand 40% of it. Congratulations!

A couple of brief comments:

The 'establishment clause' was not intended as you think it was. The Federal government was to be limited from establishing a national church of some sort, or favouring one church or sect over another. But it was understood from the beginning that the republic was to be in many different ways a republic of religious (Christian) people. This is a straight fact.

• The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another; which tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, still it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

No comparison is possible between the Soviet state, the Chinese Maoist state, and the American Republic. None. Thus, your argument falls flat. When this happens time and time again do you begin to feel frustrated?

As an atheist or otherwise I see nothing of merit in Stalin's Russia, nor Maoist China, as I share nothing in common with their moral stance nor their aims. Furthermore, I'll also say, as a socialist - exactly the same thing.

That is what they all say. But as a socialist you have to come to terms with the clear links that exist 'in reality'. Despite your own desires.

My point is larger, and wider, than you are able to register or assimilate, much less to understand.

Sadly what I see is a waste of a potentially good brain.

I lament the sad waste of your high-speed Internet connection.

[The Inglorious One]

An interesting thought flashed across my mind. The thought was how to truly love God. And the first thought that came to my mind was that the only way to love God was to stop loving everything else. Many spiritual leaders do that. They renounce everything else; they renounce all people, they renounce all relationships, they renounce food, they renounce fun, they even renounce sunrises and sunsets, but what happens when you renounce everything beautiful that is manifested by God? You become cynical, you become negative, you become bored of life. How can a cynical, negative, bored person love God? Therefore the answer itself came from God, the super conscious flashed. The only way to truly love God is not to stop loving everybody and everything, but to love the manifester in everybody and the manifester in everything. Therefore, if I love that person as that person is, that is not loving God, but if I love that person as a creation of God, that is loving God. When I love somebody, if the thought behind my love is the glory of God, when I love somebody, if the thought behind is not physical, but spiritual, that love is absolutely, absolutely the right thing to do. If I love the sunset but love just the physical attributes of the sunset, that’s not loving God, but if I love the sunset and feel amazed at the creation of the Creator, that is absolutely loving God. Therefore, “don’t stop loving” is the thought that comes to me; rather, increase your love, but love as if you are loving God.

AiR

The most important truths are subjective truths, a product of experience rather than consensus based on empirical evidence and/or abstract logic.

In a certain sense, it's all God. There are no objects whatsoever, only relations, and then these dynamic relations stabilize into what we perceive as objects that have relations between them. Some of the perceived objects are personal, others are not. A divine personality is characterized by the quality of its unifying and co-ordinating activities.

And let's face it: in the hierarchy of quality-relations, human beings are at the bottom. We wouldn't know real quality if it were staring us right in the face. And it is. But we cannot see what we do not acknowledge.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What happens if it turns out there is no God? The possibility is infinitesimal in your mind but what if there is no God? Do we then stop loving everyone and start hating them? Is there then no purpose of life at all? Does the sunset suddenly become not beautiful? Does the person you love suddenly become unworthy of love? Basically, what is plan B?

What we shall do is to create systems of deep-control of people - biologically, chemically - as they are mere biological mechanisms and nothing more: robots of the mindless creation, self-created for no purpose. We develop systems whereby each 'unit' is programmed to see reality in a certain way and to have a function within a mechanistic organism overseen by vast computer-systems and a bureaucratic class of overlords who work for the rulers of the mechanism.

Controlled through a centralised system, the Authority will keep and maintain biological units, train them up as biological units, and keep them in service to the Mechanism of production and distribution. The notion of 'love' will have, can have, no meaning, and will fall away. Even the use of that antiquated, provincial term - connected as it is to a spiritual sense of connection to another human being - must be replaced and will be replaced by pure utilitarianism. What is your function? What do you do? And what can you do for me?

'Love' will go out the window and I think desire will require establishment at the centre. Love?! A vat of poisonous murk. Love is an illusion. Defining 'love' is as hard as defining 'god'. A biological entity, in a mechanistic universe, in the grip of the social/economic machine that holds it, should not think and much less feel in terms of love. Where do you come up with these silly terms? Love. Ha!

There is no purpose in nature, no purpose in evolution. Has someone spiked your cola? There is simply exchange of energy and material. If I have the strength to get it, I take it. You do not have any 'right' to complain about it, nor even to think about it. In fact, your 'thinking' is a problem since your 'mind' is filled with such ancient and false stuff about 'rights'. You will agree to submit to brain-washing therefor. Come, come, don't dilly-dally. We will clear out of your cellular structure all this ridiculous historical trash such as 'love', 'connection', 'value', and 'meaning'. You say you can define meaning? I say you are deluded and drunk on historical stupefactants. You must agree to be reprogrammed by the System itself that owns your biological rights, just as it owns everything else. You HAVE NO RIGHTS!
____________________________

You might say: In a world dominated by a non-theistic philosophy it does not necessarily have to turn out that way. Theoretically, of course, this is true. But when one severs the connection to the metaphysical life-line, so to speak, (and if one considers the metaphysical life-line as real and one that conveys the ideas of value of persons, of rights, of meaning, and much else, the severing of the link to *it* has real effect. Consequences. Naturally, you don't accept this. Yet it appears to be true, at least from where I sit.

The issue is of course how the notion of divinity is defined, and how one defines metaphysic. The atheistic platform, of course, can do (nor does it attempt to do) any part of this. It simply disassembles what has been constructed, imperfectly, even at times ridiculously. It links most obviously with the large, destructive state enterprises and it is foolish to imagine that it does not function as I have darkly indicated, above. That IS where it tends, in fact.

'Atheism' isn't anything you moron. All it means is not believing in the same childish, offensive shit that you believe. Does it embarrass you religious nut-jobs that you are supposedly all grown up, yet you still believe in the fantasies your parents fed you as a child? Does it make you feel like an idiot? Shame about that.

[sthitapragya]

I described a dystopic vision, in the style of Orwell, to indicate potential political and social ramifications of an uprooting or a severing process from what I would describe as 'the wellsprings of Being'. You are mistaken to see it purely as prediction. And it has nothing to do with hate. But it does have to do with current events, and it does have to do with what is happening within a scientific-bureaucratic and technological world which has no ways or means to define higher purpose, nor even right and wrong.

To label it 'mindless hatred' indicates I think more about your stance than about mine. And it has nothing to do with a plural-you. I am making reference to things that you have likely not ever considered. Because you have no historical or political consciousness. For example the Stalinist state, the Stasi, the Maoist state: these were in fact atheistic states, and they created horrors. And they declared themselves atheistic states.

I see China now as having no value-system that is able or interested in defending the rights of the individual and thus untrustworthy. It already works in the ways I outlined, exaggeratingly and nightmarishly, but consciously and with humour. It is our own Greco-Christian civilisation that has defined the rights of persons. It did not happen anywhere else, that I am aware of at least. It is unwise not to consider the sources, the wellsprings.

It looks to me to be a form of ignorance - wilful? - on your end to see and describe what I am referring to as 'lack of broad-mindedness'. The 'disgusting poison I have spewed out' is in fact a way of describing what has already come about as a result of an atheistic platform and aspects of ideology it carries along with it. Your descriptions are emotionally-based. They have little effect.

I suggest that I am more 'broad-minded' than you insofar as I can consider, and take seriously, the possibility of darker turns in human control-systems.

But for every atheist state, there is an ISIS. Why do you ignore that? These are believers in God too. Your biased way of looking for bad only in atheists is what makes me call you discriminatory. Your failure to see that is sad. People are people. Belief in God has nothing to do with it. But to your mind it does. You are, sadly, a bigot. Otherwise, you would not consistently ignore all the points I am making. I am not even saying atheists are better. I am simply saying belief in God does not make any difference to the behaviour of people. I have given you examples when you have not been able to come up with one, but instead of gracefully accepting or at least considering my point as any person with integrity would do,you have simply chosen to ignore it because of your hatred for atheism.

Your problem with me is my atheism. My problem with you is not your theism but your hatred for atheism. Do you see the difference? I disagree with the concept of theism. But I understand that people are people. You don't. That makes you discriminatory which is a small minded thought process.

[sthitapragya]

In a certain sense, it's all God. A divine personality is characterized by the quality of its unifying and co-ordinating activities.

And let's face it: in the hierarchy of quality-relations, human beings are at the bottom. We wouldn't know real quality if it were staring us right in the face. And it is. But we cannot see what we do not acknowledge.

If it is all God, should not everything be a divine personality? If it is all God, why are some things qualitatively better than others? Shouldn't everything have the same "quality of its unifying and co-ordinating activities? After all it is all God. So everything should be the same quality should it not? Yet you say " in the hierarchy of quality-relations, human beings are at the bottom. " If we are the ones made in the image of God, why are we at the bottom? And why is something else at the top? Remember, it is all God. God. The most powerful entity in and outside the universe. Its radiance and magnificent should have the ability to elevate even the most base mind with its sheer power, beauty and intelligence. So how come everything has different degrees of quality?

Do people and objects have the ability to over come God's power, subdue it and let their own low quality force itself through? Is God's power reduced in some of us by our ability to overpower God? How does that work?

[Dubious]

I am simply saying belief in God does not make any difference to the behaviour of people.

This is true except in the case of those who have already assassinated their humanity by their belief in God.

If the ramparts of morality and correct behavior are obliterated due to expunging god from our mental horizon it would denote the human as a wasteland, a mercenary and parasitical creature whose character is best defined by late developments in The Picture of Dorian Gray, a truly ugly scene.

Requiring God to confer all the qualities we profess to admire only proves we never had them in the first place and proclaims a fundamental deficiency in ourselves which no belief in God can heal.

[The Inglorious One]

If it is all God, should not everything be a divine personality? If it is all God, why are some things qualitatively better than others? Shouldn't everything have the same "quality of its unifying and co-ordinating activities? After all it is all God. So everything should be the same quality should it not? Yet you say " in the hierarchy of quality-relations, human beings are at the bottom. " If we are the ones made in the image of God, why are we at the bottom? And why is something else at the top? Remember, it is all God. God. The most powerful entity in and outside the universe. Its radiance and magnificent should have the ability to elevate even the most base mind with its sheer power, beauty and intelligence. So how come everything has different degrees of quality?

Do people and objects have the ability to over come God's power, subdue it and let their own low quality force itself through? Is God's power reduced in some of us by our ability to overpower God? How does that work?

Hope springs eternal, except, perhaps, for those who made it their choice to be a dimwit. But since I have nothing better to do at the moment, I'll reply. Here's your answer: String Theory and Symmetry for Dummies. Here's an excerpt:

Physicists believe that the laws of the universe used to be even more symmetric, but have gone through a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking, where the symmetry falls apart in the universe we observe.

If everything were perfectly symmetric, the universe would be a very boring place. The slight differences in the universe — the broken symmetries — are what make the natural world so interesting, but when physicists look at the physical laws, they tend to find that the differences are fairly small in comparison to the similarities.

You'll have to do your own extrapolations.

In return, I expect you answer this: ask what part of “in a certain sense” don't you understand? Is there a reason you feel compelled to take things out of context? Why do you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive?

[sthitapragya]

Requiring God to confer all the qualities we profess to admire only proves we never had them in the first place and proclaims a fundamental deficiency in ourselves which no belief in God can heal.

Or they are giving credit where it is not due. It always puzzles me when people credit their good behaviour to a belief in God and then ignore the reasons for the bad behaviour of other people who believe in God. If belief in God were a criteria for being good, every believer would behave consistently the same. That is the reason I keep throwing the example of a pedophile priest at Gustav. A priest is a representative of God. So how can his behaviour be explained in the light of the fact that he is closer to God than most other believers?

[sthitapragya]

If it is all God, should not everything be a divine personality? If it is all God, why are some things qualitatively better than others? Shouldn't everything have the same "quality of its unifying and co-ordinating activities? After all it is all God. So everything should be the same quality should it not? Yet you say " in the hierarchy of quality-relations, human beings are at the bottom. " If we are the ones made in the image of God, why are we at the bottom? And why is something else at the top? Remember, it is all God. God. The most powerful entity in and outside the universe. Its radiance and magnificent should have the ability to elevate even the most base mind with its sheer power, beauty and intelligence. So how come everything has different degrees of quality?

Do people and objects have the ability to over come God's power, subdue it and let their own low quality force itself through? Is God's power reduced in some of us by our ability to overpower God? How does that work?

Hope springs eternal, except, perhaps, for those who made it their choice to be a dimwit. But since I have nothing better to do at the moment, I'll reply. Here's your answer: String Theory and Symmetry for Dummies. You'll have to do your own extrapolations.

In return, I expect you answer this: ask what part of “in a certain sense” don't you understand? Is there a reason you feel compelled to take things out of context? Why do you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive?

Okay so what you are saying is that God is everywhere and we are all similar but the slight differences make all the variations. Great. But the point is essentially it is all God, right? Every atom in my body is pervaded by God more or less similar to every atom in your body is pervaded by God. The slight variations make me a dimwit and you enlightened.

Now, I am a non believer so I don't believe that. But you are a believer, and you believe that every atom in my body is pervaded by God. It is an illusion which makes me think I am a separate entity. It is also my horrible thought process which makes me less intelligent and dumber than you. That classifies me as a dimwit. But when you call me a dimwit, aren't you calling every atom in my body pervaded by God a dimwit? You believe that God is everywhere. That includes me. So why would you call God a dimwit? I thought as a believer you would have more respect for God.

[sthitapragya]

In return, I expect you answer this: ask what part of “in a certain sense” don't you understand?

No, I think here you have misunderstood the meaning of "in a certain sense". We are not talking about normal things here. We are talking about God. And God is transcendent. Therefore, when you say, "in a certain sense, it is all God", it means it is all God. God cannot not be everywhere. God is everywhere. Unless you think God is not everywhere. Not in a certain sense. In every sense. If in any particular sense God is not everywhere, then we would have to go back to the drawing board with respect to the omnipotence thingie.

So you cannot have it both ways. Either God is everywhere or he is not. Which is it? If he is not, then this becomes significant and you would have to explain in what sense you believe God is NOT there.

[The Inglorious One]

Okay so what you are saying is that God is everywhere and we are all similar but the slight differences make all the variations. Great. But the point is essentially it is all God, right? Every atom in my body is pervaded by God more or less similar to every atom in your body is pervaded by God. The slight variations make me a dimwit and you enlightened.

Now, I am a non believer so I don't believe that. But you are a believer, and you believe that every atom in my body is pervaded by God. It is an illusion which makes me think I am a separate entity. It is also my horrible thought process which makes me less intelligent and dumber than you. That classifies me as a dimwit. But when you call me a dimwit, aren't you calling every atom in my body pervaded by God a dimwit? You believe that God is everywhere. That includes me. So why would you call God a dimwit? I thought as a believer you would have more respect for God.

I asked you some questions and I deserve an answer for answering yours: what part of “in a certain sense” don't you understand? Is there a reason you feel compelled to take things out of context? Why do you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

– William Blake

[sthitapragya]

I asked you some questions and I deserve an answer for answering yours: what part of “in a certain sense” don't you understand? Is there a reason you feel compelled to take things out of context? Why do you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

– William Blake

I think you missed my second post which I have reproduced below.

No, I think here you have misunderstood the meaning of "in a certain sense". We are not talking about normal things here. We are talking about God. And God is transcendent. Therefore, when you say, "in a certain sense, it is all God", it means it is all God. God cannot not be everywhere. God is everywhere. Unless you think God is not everywhere. Not in a certain sense. In every sense. If in any particular sense God is not everywhere, then we would have to go back to the drawing board with respect to the omnipotence thingie.

So you cannot have it both ways. Either God is everywhere or he is not. Which is it? If he is not, then this becomes significant and you would have to explain in what sense you believe God is NOT there.

[The Inglorious One]

Why do you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive? As Neils Bohr said to Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do." But you are not satisfied telling God what to do; you want also to tell God how to be. Only a dimwit would have the audacity to do that.

P.S.

Read the article, and if you did, it is clearly over your head.