What does God look like?

[Age]

What 'God' looks like, in the visible and physical sense, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO SEE and/or BEAR WITNESS TO.

But, to SEE, and UNDERSTAND, 'God', in the invisible sense, just takes some a bit more time to LEARN HOW TO DO, properly AND correctly.

You have not seen God, then.

SO, I WRITE,
'What 'God' looks like, in the visible and physical sense, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO SEE and/or BEAR WITNESS TO'.

And what you 'take' from 'this' is,
'You have not seen God, then'.

1. I have, OBVIOUSLY, SEEN 'God', as I just POINTED OUT by SAYING, and STATING, 'What God looks like is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO SEE.

2. you write in a way that portrays there is some kind of curiosity existing within, but actually you ALREADY BELIEVE you KNOW, for sure, what the answer or truth is here.

your sentence is attempting to come across as a question, but as can be clearly seen it expresses, CLEARLY, but very subtly to some, that you ALREADY BELIEVE you KNOW the answer here.

I will STATE my CLAIM in ANOTHER WAY,
God, in the visible sense, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, with the physical eyes. Which can also MEAN, God, in the physical sense, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, or SENSE, with ANY of the physical senses.

PLUS,
God, in the invisible sense, is, ACTUALLY, ALSO VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, in the UNDERSTANDING sense of the 'see' word.

SEE, when you 'see' some 'thing', this can MEAN, ALSO, that you SEE that 'thing' NOT necessarily with ANY of the physical senses but WITH in the UNDERSTANDING sense.

Do you SEE what I MEAN, now? In other words, do you UNDERSTAND what I MEAN here, now?

SEE, how to make SENSE of the world, comes in the 'sense' of UNDERSTANDING, which ARRIVES from ,and with, the help of the OTHER five senses.

UNDERSTANDING comes from the Mind, the sixth sense, and the Mind's Eye, which is ABLE to, literally, SEE and UNDERSTAND, and thus KNOW ALL.

Thee 'Mind', of which there is ONLY One, by the way, IS 'God', in the invisible sense.

Just like 'you', human beings, can be SEEN, in the visible, and physical, sense, with the physical eyes, in the form of the human body, and SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, with, and by, the invisible 'thoughts', 'God', Itself, is SEEN, in the visible, and physical, sense, with the physical eyes, in the form of the Universe, Itself, AND SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, with, and by, the invisible 'Mind', Itself.

See,

'God', in the visible sense, IS thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, AND, in the invisible sense, IS thee One and ONLY Mind, Itself.

While,

'you', (the human being), in the visible sense, IS the human body, itself, AND, in the invisible sense, ARE the thoughts and emotions.

When,

The word 'human' means or refers to the physical part, and, the word 'being' means or refers to the invisible part, of the human being.

Just like,

The word 'Universe' means or refers to the physical part, and, the word 'Spiritual Being' means or refers to the invisible part, of the One WHOLE.

Which, just like 'God' can mean or be referred to with, and by, different words like; Spirit, Being, Lord, Creator, et cetera, so to 'humans' can mean or be referred to with, and by, different words like; 'person/people', 'individual/', 'human being/s', 'soul/s', 'character/s', 'actor/s', et cetera, EACH word has a PARTICULAR MEANING and/or REFERS TO a PARTICULAR 'thing'. Like the word 'person', for example. If one was to cut an arm or a leg off a human body, then that 'one' does NOT then become 'less of a person'. The word 'person' therefore can mean, or refer to, the invisible part of the 'human being', that is; the invisible 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within the visible human body part.

With the word 'person' being made up from the two different words 'per'; through, and, 'son', child of. (The word 'son' was USED, previously, a lot because 'back in the days' when it was the 'men' who wrote books it was the DISTORTED BELIEF that 'men/males' were the superior, and thus WHY the Wrong MISINTERPRETATIONS of words like 'him' and 'he' were given when referencing 'Things' like 'God', Itself.) Anyway 'stories' like about how a human being was 'the son of God' AND 'the son of man' were just in relation to the 'being' part of 'human beings' and how 'they' CAN BE LIKE 'the child of/or God' OR 'the child of/or adults'. That is; EACH of 'you' CAN BE God-like, or human-like. It ALL depends on how one is 'thinking' AND 'feeling' at ANY time. Obviously, WHEN 'one' is 'thinking' AND 'feeling' or just being/behaving 'True, Right, and GOOD', then they are Being God-like, and conversely when 'one' is 'thinking' and/or 'feeling', or just being/behaving 'Falsely, Wrongly, BADLY', then they are being, what is referred to as, human-like. As we all know most adults when CONFRONTED WITH a MISTAKE that they HAVE MADE they WILL 'try to' "justify" this as being 'I am only human'.

Now, I could go on for pages and pages and pages, while introducing more and more words, and introducing NEW ways to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' here, which, in turn, WILL ALL SHOW, and REVEAL, FAR MORE, which, EVENTUALLY, PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, what THE ANSWERS ARE, EXACTLY, that 'you', adult human beings, have been LOOKING FOR, for thousands of years now, hitherto, when this is being written, BUT this will suffice here, for now.

ONCE MORE, those who are Truly INTERESTED WILL SEEK OUT, MORE.

[Greatest I am]

He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him.

I like your spirit and some of your views buddy, but your loose language, not so much.

Who says no one can see into the supernatural realm you seem to posit?

Who is setting so many limits on God?

Who has peer reviewed your foolish unapproachable light?

Light, by it's very nature is demonstrably approachable.

Turn on a lamp and move your hand closer.

See?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

What does God look like is the ONE question to all our answers. In the absence of the question what does God look like, he wouldn't have the foggiest idea what he looks like. No 'Seer' has ever seen it's own face.

I have. Seems I am not of this world and cannot identify myself. No guff.

No one believes in theosis or apotheosis but good luck in perhaps getting some to it.

Regards
DL

[Age]

imma tell u how the anthropomorphic henotheistic monotheisms screwed up when they were working out and designing their doctrines.

Just out of CURIOSITY did 'they' ALL set out to DESIGN 'their OWN doctrines'?

Could it be A POSSIBILITY that all of the people who have written, or said, words have had some sort of 'thinking' and/or 'feeling' WITHIN, which has led to these VERY DIFFERENT so-called 'doctrines', but ultimately which are based upon the EXACT SAME 'things', that is; love, peace, kindness, et cetera, solely because they have all just MISINTERPRETED 'things', which has ultimately come from them all just having DIFFERENT 'past experiences', which led them to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from VERY DIFFERENT perspectives?

Or, is this NOT POSSIBLE, and ALL so-called 'doctrines' where WORKED OUT and FORMULATED by VERY SPECIFIC people, with, maybe, VERY 'devilish' ways and plans INTENDED?

by stipulating the existence of evil forces (Zoroastrianism is a good'un), they made it impossible for disciples to discern with any certainty the real nature of any entity that might be experienced in the revelatory sense.

BUT the REAL NATURE of ANY and EVERY 'entity' is EXTREMELY EASY and SIMPLE to DISCERN, and WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY I will add. That is; once one LEARNS, and/or DISCOVERS, and thus KNOWS HOW-TO.

religions that describe the universe as a field of battle between good and evil agents - gods, devils, angels, demons, etc. - that are able to be experienced in corporeal form... appear to the disciple either in waking, dreaming or hallucinating... create the problem literally of the disciple knowing who's who. it's an ambiguity that makes revelatory knowledge incredible.

BUT ALL-OF-THIS IS ALREADY KNOWN, and IRREFUTABLY KNOWN, I will add.

One just needs to LEARN HOW TO DISTINGUISH 'things' here.

how would u know that the divine thing u claim to have experienced was THE god? like the main one.

As I have been REPEATEDLY SAYING, through AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. That is; WHEN ALL are IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, THEN this IS WHEN 'objectivity' IS ACHIEVED, and WHEN what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge is FOUND, and thus becomes IRREFUTABLY KNOWN.

What IS God, EXACTLY, IS ALREADY KNOWN, IRREFUTABLY, which is DISCUSSED above here.

To KNOW that one has experienced what you call here the 'divine thing' is WHEN absolutely EVERY one IS IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

There is NO 'main one' and there IS ONLY One, and, OBVIOUSLY, that One can ONLY Truly exist IN and WITH the AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of EVERY one.

remember there's bad gods and demigods and spirits and all that shit too.

So, now you want to BELIEVE what "others" write and tell you. That is; 'they' TELL you that there are 'bad gods' and 'demigods', SO you BELIEVE 'this', but do NOT BELIEVE there is ONLY One God, right?

take for instance your homeboys Moses and Muhammad. now why would Gabriel appear to Muhammad and tell him one thing while the main god wuz out somewhere revealing shit to Moses that didn't match what Gabriel wuz telling Muhammad? see'um sayin?

Is it AT ALL POSSIBLE that there IS 'A KNOWING' WITHIN EVERY one about what IS GOOD and Right, in Life, BUT BECAUSE OF previous 'past experiences' 'these experiences' have A WAY of TWISTING and DISTORTING the ACTUAL Truth INTO MANY DIFFERENT, apparent, 'truths'?

Like, for example, EVERY human being KNOWS that money is NOT needed, in Life, BUT just about EVERY adult, in the days when this is being written anyway, has, and thus lives by, the ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that money IS NEEDED, to live and survive. This IS AN EXAMPLE of HOW there EXITS 'A KNOWING' WITHIN but which got, and gets, TOTALLY DISTORTED, solely because of one's OWN 'past experiences'. Which, by the way, are ALL VERY DIFFERENT indeed.

What one has 'grown up' IN and WITH, then they PASS 'that' ON, all the time BELIEVING and/or ASSUMING 'that' IS 'the truth', but, VERY RARELY, EVER QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING 'that'.

This forum I have USED as LIVING PROOF of this Fact.

The 'posters' here in this forum VERY RARELY QUESTION or CHALLENGE "other's" BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, let alone EVER QUESTIONING or CHALLENGING their OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

our possible outcomes:

1) only one wuz the real deal and the other wuz an imposter.

Or, the REAL God IS the One and ONLY, invisible, 'Mind', which exists, while it IS the False, Wrong, and Incorrect 'thinking', within human beings, which IS what the words 'devil' and/or 'evil' IS meaning and/or referring to, EXACTLY?

We WILL just HAVE TO WAIT, to FIND OUT, and SEE.

SEE, BOTH CAN EXIST. Just NOT WHERE one WAS, previously, EXPECTING.

2) neither were real and both Moses and Muhammad were trippin.

OR, BOTH "moses" AND "muhammad" were just CONFLATING, CONFUSING, TWISTING, DISTORTING, MISINTERPRETING 'things', based upon and because their OWN individual 'past experiences'.

But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, BOTH had the EXACT SAME ULTIMATE GOAL or INTENTION.

3) both were real but also right becuz god changed his mind and rewrote the script.

SAYING and WRITING words like 'changed his mind', just SHOWS and PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, how people CAN and DO CONFLATE, CONFUSE, TWIST, DISTORT, AND MISINTERPRET 'things', based upon AND because of their OWN 'past experiences'.

OBVIOUSLY, God is NOT and could NEVER BE a 'male gendered thing', and so is, and was, NEVER a 'him', with or without 'his mind'.

But not AS OBVIOUS, well not in the days when this is being written anyway, was the Fact of what 'the Mind' IS, WAS, and WILL ALWAYS BE. BUT, 'the Mind' is NOT some 'thing' that is owned or possessed by a 'him', a 'her', of AN ANY 'thing'. The Mind is ALSO NOT some 'thing' that CHANGES.

we eliminate 3 becuz only a god that wuz an asshole would do such a thing. but god can't be an asshole, therefore 3 couldn't be true.

A GREAT DEAL of what you SAY and THINK here could NOT be true, NOT be real, NOT be right, and NOT be correct.

it's 1 that's the problem, the fatal design flaw in revelatory monotheism.

Here we have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how it is NEVER the way 'one', itself, LOOKS AT and SEES 'things', that is the so-called 'fatal flaw', and the 'fatal flaw' ALWAYS IS WITH "the other".

This forum, and human history itself, is LITTERED with examples of this type.

this feature either makes the disciple a kind of functional schizo or forces him out of the game becuz he ain't tryna play that.

And here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of 'this disciple's' BELIEVES and ASSUMPTIONS. Which, to "others", might call ' a feature that makes 'this disciple', a kind of functional schizophrenic or forces "promethean75" out of the game because "promethean75" is not trying to play 'that' '.

See, HOLDING and/or HAVING BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS ANY WAY makes 'that one' A DISCIPLE in ONE WAY. "promethean75" is just ANOTHER DISCIPLE, in this game played, called Life.

in the latter case one becomes an atheist not on account of the unlikeliness of a god but becuz of the ambiguity of any possible revelatory knowledge of this god.

Here we have A GREAT EXAMPLE of just HOW the BELIEFS of 'this disciple' BLOCK and PREVENT 'this disciple' from RECOGNIZING and SEEING what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

'This disciple' is just like ALL of the "other disciples". This one though just BELIEVES (in) DIFFERENT 'things'. But what ALL of 'these disciples" HAVE, IN COMMON, is that they are ALL 'BELIEVERS'. They, unfortunately, just ALL BELIEVE (in) 'things' that are NOT ACTUALLY True and Correct.

Aristotle recognized this, the deists recognize this, the pantheists recognize this, but not the christians, jews or muslims. oh no. not them.

It is Truly HUMOROUS to WATCH and OBSERVE how absolutely EVERY one of "these believers" can FIND and POINT TO someone of some 'notoriety' to USE as, laughably, 'evidence' that 'their side" is the, just as funny, "right side", and "the side" EVERY one SHOULD BELIEVE (in).

u can have design and order in a quantum transhaptic bi-discursive hypo-ontological sense without needing to stipulate the existence of good or evil and an assortment  of holy entities, divine beings, spirits and shit. or u can keep the latter but get rid of the former; the universe could be loaded with all kinds of life forms, corporeal or not, but there would be no good or evil.

So, if there is NO 'good' NOR 'evil', then there is absolutely NOTHING Wrong with FUCKING and/or KILLING children, right, "promethean75"?

the grand economy of the universe call it. one giant Darwinian game of thrones or something. And if that's the case u wanna go with House Prom.

Aristotle's prime mover, the watch maker, Spinoza's natura naturata, these would work for that model. but the monotheistic religions are just absurd on their face for so many reasons man, not the least of which is this doctrinal flaw and the ambiguity suffered of it.

Here we have A GREAT EXAMPLE of being able to see ONLY SOME 'things' and NOT 'other things' because of one's ALREADY HELD ONTO BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. Or, in other words, here we have ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and IN PLAY.

[socrat44]

What does God look like?
" Persian Letters."
" Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit.
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides."
/1721. by Charles de Montesquieu/

[Dontaskme]

What does God look like?
" Persian Letters."
" Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit.
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides."
/1721. by Charles de Montesquieu/

Very good description as scripted! kudos to you.

Humans are in the dream to be the eyes of manifestation.The world is not round, it is a triangle.

[Dontaskme]

I like your spirit and some of your views buddy, but your loose language, not so much.

Oh well, words are crap, but hey, divine crap.

[Dontaskme]

Light, by it's very nature is demonstrably approachable.

Turn on a lamp and move your hand closer.

See?

But what about the light that sees the lamp and it's light? can that be seen, and by what?

Isn't that light that sees the lamp and it's light closer than your very own skin? who approaches this realisation it is one with the light?

How can the nondual one talk about duality without turning itself in to an object known? namely the seer that cannot be seen by the object known as the seer?

What is being pointed to here, is the seer cannot, can never experience itself as an object. Although, an object is known to the seer, the object is never seen to exist independently outside of seeing.

[Greatest I am]

I like your spirit and some of your views buddy, but your loose language, not so much.

Oh well, words are crap, but hey, divine crap.

Divine is a quality that cannot be self assigned or taken as you seem to be doing.

Again, piss poor language on your part.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Light, by it's very nature is demonstrably approachable.

Turn on a lamp and move your hand closer.

See?

But what about the light that sees the lamp and it's light? can that be seen, and by what?

Isn't that light that sees the lamp and it's light closer than your very own skin? who approaches this realisation it is one with the light?

How can the nondual one talk about duality without turning itself in to an object known? namely the seer that cannot be seen by the object known as the seer?

What is being pointed to here, is the seer cannot, can never experience itself as an object. Although, an object is known to the seer, the object is never seen to exist independently outside of seeing.

???

You think light has eyes to see and a mind to process what it sees?

I cannot agree.

You go ahead and seek the light. I seek what was before God in the darkness, as I lave plenty of light.

God is best defined as a mystery.

To say otherwise as a fact, without proof, is to lie.

Regards
DL

[Gary Childress]

What 'God' looks like, in the visible and physical sense, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO SEE and/or BEAR WITNESS TO.

But, to SEE, and UNDERSTAND, 'God', in the invisible sense, just takes some a bit more time to LEARN HOW TO DO, properly AND correctly.

You have not seen God, then.

If you've seen God, then you are quite the special one. I have not. When God presents God's self to me, then I will admit that I have seen God. God made all that is. Therefore God ought to be available to ALL THAT IS. If God is not available to all that is, then I don't want to see God. There is nothing special to me about a God who only presents himself (herself/itself, whatever) to some but not others. I don't need such a God for anything at the moment. If there is no God then what I have done will have been to just bounce around aimlessly from one experience to the other. If there is a God, then what I have done and what I will do is the right thing to do. I can only do what I am able to do at this point. If it's the will of God that I should do that, then I will do it. If it is not the will of God that I should do that, then I'm bending to the will of something that is malicious to me and simply wants to destroy me. If something malicious wants to destroy me, then there's nothing I can do about that, except stand here and be destroyed. I will not destroy anything to the best of my ability. I wish to preserve.

WE MUST END THE WAR IN UKRAINE AND BRING ABOUT PEACE AND COOPERATION AMONG HUMANS IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE LIFE ON EARTH.

[Dontaskme]

Light, by it's very nature is demonstrably approachable.

Turn on a lamp and move your hand closer.

See?

But what about the light that sees the lamp and it's light? can that be seen, and by what?

Isn't that light that sees the lamp and it's light closer than your very own skin? who approaches this realisation it is one with the light?

How can the nondual one talk about duality without turning itself in to an object known? namely the seer that cannot be seen by the object known as the seer?

What is being pointed to here, is the seer cannot, can never experience itself as an object. Although, an object is known to the seer, the object is never seen to exist independently outside of seeing.

???

You think light has eyes to see and a mind to process what it sees?

I cannot agree.

You go ahead and seek the light. I seek what was before God in the darkness, as I lave plenty of light.

God is best defined as a mystery.

To say otherwise as a fact, without proof, is to lie.

Regards
DL

I’ve no idea what you are talking about.

[Dontaskme]

I like your spirit and some of your views buddy, but your loose language, not so much.

Oh well, words are crap, but hey, divine crap.

Divine is a quality that cannot be self assigned or taken as you seem to be doing.

Again, piss poor language on your part.

Regards
DL

Whatever..if that’s how it’s perceived by you then I’ll gladly let you own that. But will not make a piss pot of difference to the way I see truth.

[Age]

You have not seen God, then.

If you've seen God, then you are quite the special one.

Was the one who SAW/UNDERSTOOD that the earth is NOT flat, before "others", a so-called 'special one'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Was the one who SAW/UNDERSTOOD that the sun does NOT circle the earth, before "others", a so-called 'special one'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Was the one who SAW/UNDERSTOOD that Universe NEVER began and is NOT expanding, before "others", a so-called 'special one'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Now, if your answer is the same in those three examples, then if it would NOT be the same answer that would apply to ANY one who just SAW/UNDERSTOOD 'God', before "others", then WHY, or WHY NOT?

I have not. When God presents God's self to me, then I will admit that I have seen God. God made all that is. Therefore God ought to be available to ALL THAT IS.

Could it be the case that God IS, and HAS BEEN, PRE-SENTING Itself to you ALL THE TIME but you just became CLOSED to SEEING 'this' God?

And could it even be the case that you became CLOSED OFF due to NO ACTUAL.FAULT of your own?

If God is not available to all that is, then I don't want to see God. There is nothing special to me about a God who only presents himself (herself/itself, whatever) to some but not others.

WHY is what is happening here ALWAYS God's FAULT, to you?

I don't need such a God for anything at the moment. If there is no God then what I have done will have been to just bounce around aimlessly from one experience to the other. If there is a God, then what I have done and what I will do is the right thing to do.

Are you suggesting here that 'you', as an adult human being, NEVER do ANY wrong AT ALL and thus are perfect?

If no, then what are you suggesting here?

But is yes, then REALLY?

I can only do what I am able to do at this point. If it's the will of God that I should do that, then I will do it. If it is not the will of God that I should do that, then I'm bending to the will of something that is malicious to me and simply wants to destroy me.

WOW that is quite the PRESUMPTION.

If something malicious wants to destroy me, then there's nothing I can do about that, except stand here and be destroyed. I will not destroy anything to the best of my ability. I wish to preserve.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you do that is destroying, harming, nor damaging "others"?

WE MUST END THE WAR IN UKRAINE AND BRING ABOUT PEACE AND COOPERATION AMONG HUMANS IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE LIFE ON EARTH.

Who does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

[Gary Childress]

If you've seen God, then you are quite the special one.

Was the one who SAW/UNDERSTOOD that the earth is NOT flat, before "others", a so-called 'special one'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Was the one who SAW/UNDERSTOOD that the sun does NOT circle the earth, before "others", a so-called 'special one'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Was the one who SAW/UNDERSTOOD that Universe NEVER began and is NOT expanding, before "others", a so-called 'special one'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Now, if your answer is the same in those three examples, then if it would NOT be the same answer that would apply to ANY one who just SAW/UNDERSTOOD 'God', before "others", then WHY, or WHY NOT?

I have not. When God presents God's self to me, then I will admit that I have seen God. God made all that is. Therefore God ought to be available to ALL THAT IS.

Could it be the case that God IS, and HAS BEEN, PRE-SENTING Itself to you ALL THE TIME but you just became CLOSED to SEEING 'this' God?

And could it even be the case that you became CLOSED OFF due to NO ACTUAL.FAULT of your own?

If God is not available to all that is, then I don't want to see God. There is nothing special to me about a God who only presents himself (herself/itself, whatever) to some but not others.

WHY is what is happening here ALWAYS God's FAULT, to you?

I don't need such a God for anything at the moment. If there is no God then what I have done will have been to just bounce around aimlessly from one experience to the other. If there is a God, then what I have done and what I will do is the right thing to do.

Are you suggesting here that 'you', as an adult human being, NEVER do ANY wrong AT ALL and thus are perfect?

If no, then what are you suggesting here?

But is yes, then REALLY?

I can only do what I am able to do at this point. If it's the will of God that I should do that, then I will do it. If it is not the will of God that I should do that, then I'm bending to the will of something that is malicious to me and simply wants to destroy me.

WOW that is quite the PRESUMPTION.

If something malicious wants to destroy me, then there's nothing I can do about that, except stand here and be destroyed. I will not destroy anything to the best of my ability. I wish to preserve.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you do that is destroying, harming, nor damaging "others"?

WE MUST END THE WAR IN UKRAINE AND BRING ABOUT PEACE AND COOPERATION AMONG HUMANS IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE LIFE ON EARTH.

Who does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

Age. I can't stop the war in Ukraine all by myself. Believe me, I'd love to. However, if you don't want to stop the war in Ukraine, then "we" slowly erodes into just "me". I"m not God. Are you God?