Let's talk about GOD!!

[attofishpi]

...do you believe it was a MAN?

I can only invite you to read the other thread, and comment there, if you wish. You'll see what I believe there, at some length. And if there's anything left unsaid, I'm happy to address it.

But I'm being respectful to DAM's purposes here. The gender issue is for there.

You must be a politician - please tell me you are a politician the way you squirm and divert from the obvious points being made...u r wasted otherwise.

You know I am not asking regarding gender - rather HOW you think you are rational to believe that a WOMAN or MAN CREATED a UNIVERSE.

'God' generates this reality BENEATH that (planck) scale - yes?

"Beneath" can be a misunderstood word. I wouldn't put it that way. God is not "beneath" the physical laws of the universe, in the sense of being lower than or liable to them. He might be said to be "beneath" in the sense of founding, undergirding or sustaining. But you haven't said which you mean.

STOP DIVERTING. U R becoming pathetic - It was you that used "BENEATH" when I asked you what you meant here:

Where has this 'triune' been observed in physics?

You are imagining a God who is beneath the physical laws He Himself invented?

What do you mean by 'He'?

What do you mean by 'beneath'?

This time ADDRESS the questions rather than being a pathetic pansy.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't even begin to understand why it would be an issue at all even if God is a HE..

Well, and this: that we can't say "God is a he" (referring to the male conception of humanness), because the predication ("he") did not exist until God assigned it to man. As I said earlier: God is the prototype, and human maleness is merely a pallid derivative of that.

So God isn't "a type of he," but rather, all "he"s, (i.e. all our human conceptions of maleness) are in some important respect merely dimly reflective of an aspect of God. Perhaps his Fatherhood, perhaps his role as Creator or Initiator, perhaps his sovereign power, perhaps his authority...and perhaps all of those things and more, all rolled together.

The one thing it obviously emphasizes is God's priority as the Uncreated Creator. He is "the Father of All," as is said Biblically.

[Immanuel Can]

This time ADDRESS the questions rather than being a pathetic pansy.

Actually, having read DAM's latest message, I had just written and sent the response above. So I did answer your question. But if you had bothered to read the other thread, you would already know that.

You didn't.

But in light of your last response, I think we've got as far as I care to go in your company -- at least in your present mood. I have no use for ad hominems and that sort of nonsense. My life's too short.

So I'l be happy to let you continue with someone else.

[attofishpi]

I can't even begin to understand why it would be an issue at all even if God is a HE..

Well, and this: that we can't say "God is a he" (referring to the male conception of humanness), because the predication ("he") did not exist until God assigned it to man. As I said earlier: God is the prototype, and human maleness is merely a pallid derivative of that.

So God isn't "a type of he," but rather, all "he"s, (i.e. all our human conceptions of maleness) are in some important respect merely dimly reflective of an aspect of God. Perhaps his Fatherhood, perhaps his role as Creator or Initiator, perhaps his sovereign power, perhaps his authority...and perhaps all of those things and more, all rolled together.

The one thing it obviously emphasizes is God's priority as the Uncreated Creator. He is "the Father of All," as is said Biblically.

So many perhapses indicates you truly are clueless.

Why did God create Bible as a homophone to Buy Bull?

[attofishpi]

This time ADDRESS the questions rather than being a pathetic pansy.

Actually, having read DAM's latest message, I had just written and sent the response above. So I did answer your question. But if you had bothered to read the other thread, you would already know that.

You didn't.

But in light of your last response, I think we've got as far as I care to go in your company -- at least in your present mood. I have no use for ad hominems and that sort of nonsense. My life's too short.

So I'l be happy to let you continue with someone else.

Hey - its ok you can capitulate when you have no ACTUAL ANSWERS.

[attofishpi]

Ok. So me and Satan are going to chill for a moment or two, give you a moment to collect your fraughts.

[Dontaskme]

I can't even begin to understand why it would be an issue at all even if God is a HE..

Well, and this: that we can't say "God is a he" (referring to the male conception of humanness), because the predication ("he") did not exist until God assigned it to man. As I said earlier: God is the prototype, and human maleness is merely a pallid derivative of that.

Lovely, - well said, and spot on.

So God isn't "a type of he," but rather, all "he"s, (i.e. all our human conceptions of maleness) are in some important respect merely dimly reflective of an aspect of God. Perhaps his Fatherhood, perhaps his role as Creator or Initiator, perhaps his sovereign power, perhaps his authority...and perhaps all of those things and more, all rolled together.

The one thing it obviously emphasizes is God's priority as the Uncreated Creator. He is "the Father of All," as is said Biblically.

Lovely, and well said.

He who knows himself sees his whole existence to be His existence, and does not see any change take place in his own essence or attributes, seeing that he was not the existence of his essence, but was merely ignorant of the knowledge of himself. For when you 'know yourself', your egoism is taken away and you know that you are not other than God. For, if you had had an independent existence, so that you did not require to cease to be or to 'know yourself', then you would be a Lord. God forbid that He should have created a Lord beside Himself.

~ Ibn 'Arabi - Mystic, philosopher, poet, sage, Muhammad Ibn 'Arabi is one of the world's great spiritual teachers. 1165 AD -1240

[Sculptor]

But this ineffable reality is no God at all, but I'll call it Nature.
You got your head caught in the tigers mouth.

''Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.''

.

God is the name of a person. I think Nature does not have to bear that burden of proof.

Then prove who is naming ? show who is doing the naming - and then answer: does that ''who'' have a name?
You'll see there is no thing and nothing that can be proven or shown to be naming anything here except what is KNOWN via the conception/ word. All you can do is ask a word for proof, there is nothing else to ask.

I know you are trying to get at something, but your question is pretty easy to answer.
And I don't think you are going to be happy with the answer.
Humans are doing the naming, obviously.

So there's no burden of proof for a person, because a person is just a concept known, it's a word.

While concepts are ''known'' ] The ''known'' know nothing of their apparent known-ness because the 'known'' exist only as knowledge which informs the illusory of their nature.

Why illusory? because, Nature never tells itself it is nature. God never tell itself it's God. The sky never tells itself it is blue or grey or black with shiny silver dots scattered around.Babies in the womb never tell themselves they are babies.


Again, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

.

You seem to pretend to know a lot about this god fellow, but seem to have zero evidence and no argument to back up ANYTHING you are saying.

[Sculptor]

But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

This ineffable reality is KNOWN

So, what is knowing the ineffable?

Ineffable is not known. Ineffable cannot be uttered.
QED you are still talking nonsense.

[Nick_A]

You won't like this, but...

I never know what the things you say actually are intended to mean, Nick. On a surface level, I'm inclined to think I have some agreement with you. But as you say, you rightly sense that I'm not party to the esoteric readings. I can never be sure how far we're able to agree.

That kind of kills any desire to discuss, actually. There's something deeply deceptive about using language in such a way that it becomes no more than a springboard for one's "secret" meanings, meanings one's discussion partners had, perhaps, no belief in at all. When one can't tell what one's interlocutor is trying to commit one to, it's tempting not even to try.

You might get more traction if you stopped that and just spoke plainly -- more like Scripture does. But if you did, it would take people some time to know that your manner had changed. You don't seem a bad sort...but right now, you're not exactly easy to talk with.

So I can't even tell you what I do nor do not "like" about your claims. I no longer am sure I know what you mean by them.

If I were to acquire more traction it would require being considered normal. Consider this thread. Is there any communication? No. It is only because it is the normal for what we call communication. Perhaps that is why those like Origin and Augustine gravitated to Plotinus and Platonic Christianity. They needed the means to reconcile the absurd which is of a greater quality than is normally considered to be normal. I've furthered two ideas necessary to make sense of Christianity. The first is that we live as if in a cave described by Plato in the cave analogy. The second is that we are the wretched man as described by Paul in Romans 7. Both must be hated since they get in the way of striving for normalcy.

"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines" Meister Eckhart

These people are abnormal so have an energy about them and ideas which must be hated. They disturb the peace when they become influential.

A person has to ask themselves if they prefer being normal or risk becoming real. Is it worth becoming real for the sake of knowing and experiencing God by sacrificing ones illusions that keep us normal in the eyes of the world. Once we become real we can easily appear to be normal for the sake of actualizing our goals but we are not a slave to normalcy.

[Immanuel Can]

A person has to ask themselves if they prefer being normal or risk becoming real.

I have found that the truth gravitates to its simplest form.

Not simplistic. But simple.

And the most profound ideas can be conveyed in the most direct way. Truth just has that way of hitting home instantly. Truth rings clear as a silver diner bell -- errors clang together, like a thousand dustbin lids.

To use words that are more complicated than necessary to convey the idea is often merely to be obscurantist. Verbosity does not create profundity. And an idea doesn't become wiser merely if people can't understand it -- it may well be incoherently wrong; and if it's right, it will only benefit from being put in plain terms. But if it's stated in convoluted language, nobody will ever know, will they?

That's my beef with esoteric language. Most of it, I have discovered, is nothing but a colossal bluff. I don't admire it, as a style, and wherever possible I make a concerted effort to make myself plain...not to throw up unnecessary walls between people and meaning.

Orwell taught me that. I think he was quite right.

[Nick_A]

IC

And the most profound ideas can be conveyed in the most direct way. Truth just has that way of hitting home instantly. Truth rings clear as a silver diner bell -- errors clang together, like a thousand dustbin lids.

Does it? Looking at what goes on in the world reveals errors clanging together. Opinion vs opinion. Why is there such a resistance to the experience of truth as you’ve described?

To use words that are more complicated than necessary to convey the idea is often merely to be obscurantist. Verbosity does not create profundity. And an idea doesn't become wiser merely if people can't understand it -- it may well be incoherently wrong; and if it's right, it will only benefit from being put in plain terms. But if it's stated in convoluted language, nobody will ever know, will they?

That's my beef with esoteric language. Most of it, I have discovered, is nothing but a colossal bluff. I don't admire it, as a style, and wherever possible I make a concerted effort to make myself plain...not to throw up unnecessary walls between people and meaning.

The word esoteric refers to the growth of the inner man. The outer man grows through family, education, and cultural influences. Society doesn’t recognize the inner man or how it can develop so it often remains stunted or even dies prematurely which is why Jesus said to let the dead bury their dead.

How to serve the needs of the inner man? Society knows how to serve the needs of the outer man or the personality through the use of literal thought or reason. The inner man responds to a quality of psychology literal understanding has no use for so blocks.

In Christianity the parable serves the needs of the inner man by confusing the outer man in a way that invites the open mind of conscious contemplation. It enables literal understanding to evolve into the psychological understanding of higher knowledge. This is a difficult idea to express in a way that does it justice so I invite anyone interested in why parables are necessary in Christianity to read Chapter One THE LANGUAGE OF PARABLES PART ONE in the book

THE NEW MAN

AN INTERPRETATION OF SOME PARABLES AND MIRACLES OF CHRIST

by MAURICE NICOLL

http://www.cassiopaea.pl/mnewmen.pdf

[henry quirk]

"Does it? Looking at what goes on in the world reveals errors clanging together. Opinion vs opinion. Why is there such a resistance to the experience of truth as you’ve described?"

Denial of fact is common, and an old event (as old as mankind, I reckon). I think folks -- as Mannie asserts -- hear and recognize that bell. They just don't like the tune (or what's on the menu).

In other words (and for example): the commie knows damn well communism doesn't work, can't work (cuz it opposes the essence of what it means to be 'one', to be 'individual'), but he chooses to reject what he knows is true. It's insanity, pure & simple. Another example: the determinist who argues rabidly that free will is an illusion knows damn well he has, or is, a free will. Sumthin' about the notion unsettles him, so he makes the big show of rejectin' what's true.

Of course: some commies & determinsts are just friggin' stupid.

So: why the resistance? Insanity & dumbness. The lack is in the listener, not the ringing.

-----

Naïveté too plays a roll. A lack of experience is a big door in the head for 'authority' to traipse on in through.

Stubborness can be a stumbling block, and not always in a bad way (one facin' a conflict with many might benefit from stubbornly refusin' to accept that his keister is about to be handed to him. He'll fight better and longer if he believes he has a chance).

And sometimes a body just isn't ready for facts.

[Immanuel Can]

"Does it? Looking at what goes on in the world reveals errors clanging together. Opinion vs opinion. Why is there such a resistance to the experience of truth as you’ve described?"

Because we've already denied the Truth.

We've come to love lies, spin and "opinions." In fact, all that it takes for an "opinion" to be given dignity these days is for someone, especially someone on the side of political correctness, to hold it. Like Oprah, we speak of people having "your truth" and "my truth," not THE Truth, because THE Truth is the last thing we ever want to face.

But then we find that departing Truth is like getting off the main road a thick forest. Once you abandon it, there's a good chance you'll never find your way back there again.

And we've all had that experience, at one time or another: you lie in desperation, in order to cover up something you've done, or to save face; but then it takes two more lies to cover the first one, and an ongoing pretence to make it seem the truth. Then it starts to taint all your relationships, because everybody is operating under the illusions you've been generating. And then you're invested too deeply to go back, and you just pray for the whole mess to play out in your favour. One lie turns out to be the poison that creates a chain of unreality too long and complex to be undone.

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," said Jesus. In so many, many ways, those words ring that silver bell.

[Dontaskme]

Then prove who is naming ? show who is doing the naming - and then answer: does that ''who'' have a name?
You'll see there is no thing and nothing that can be proven or shown to be naming anything here except what is KNOWN via the conception/ word. All you can do is ask a word for proof, there is nothing else to ask.

I know you are trying to get at something, but your question is pretty easy to answer.
And I don't think you are going to be happy with the answer.
Humans are doing the naming, obviously.

''Humans are doing the naming, obviously''.. maybe right from your perception there, from how you see. But it's not the right ( I ) from the perception that is here in DAM.

The one "thing" to which we give the greatest value, out of all proportion, is the "thing" we see when we look in the mirror. The body in the mirror is not our Identity, any more than ''Homer Simpson'' is the identity of the cartoon character playing that role.
What is naming is the consciousness that perceives the body in the mirror. The name is a concept KNOWN when empty unborn awareness becomes aware it is aware. Only the 'thought of you' is born in association with the image in the mirror. The image is born, but the perceiver of the image is unborn. And I don't think you are going to be happy with that answer.

Consciousness walks without feet, yet knows every step, sees without eyes, yet knows every image, hears without ears, yet knows every sound, and speaks without a mouth, yet knows every concept.

You seem to pretend to know a lot about this god fellow, but seem to have zero evidence and no argument to back up ANYTHING you are saying.

The evidence for empty space is pervading the object. The evidence for an object is within the empty space. Both are needed to define the other. Objects come and go in empty space. Empty space does not come and go in an object.
In other words, the patch of blue sky does not appear within the clouds. The clouds appear within the blue sky.
The evidence will be revealed to man when man is ready to see, and hear.



''No created light can touch this ground and illumine it, for it is truly God's home and dwelling-place. The whole of creation would not fill or plumb this void, nothing created could ever penetrate it or fulfil its yearnings. God alone can fill it with His divine immensity. This abyss of the soul belongs to the divine abyss, to nothing else.'' Tauler

.