Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:02 am Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Well, these are fictional words John Milton put in the mouth of his least admirable character. I wouldn't make them into any kind of life philosophy.

IC: If God is the creator of everything, then God also created the 'fallen angel' who's intent is to destroy.

Well, you're quoting Milton, so let's quote him again: He was not created "intent to destroy," but "sufficient to have stood [against temptation], but free to fall." So says Milton.

In the dream of opposites creation could not be known without relating it to it's opposite.

This isn't true.

There are things that are, that exist in their own right, and things that are merely negations. The negations are not things that exist in themselves, but only the absence of the real things. For example, light is a thing; but dark is not. You can turn on the light, but you can't turn on the dark. Heat is a thing, but cold is not; it's just absence of heat. And so on.

Creation can be thought of as TO BE ..and destruction can be thought as TO NOT BE

Then your view of destruction is similar; destruction is not in itself a thing, but the damaging or lacking of a thing.

I understand life is about balance

It isn't at all. Balance is only a virtue between two or more good things.

Humans are known to be hybrids of the divine God and is why we are made in God's image

This is not what that phrase implies. We are made "in the image of God," not "out of fragments of God" or "as little gods."

It can also be said that God destroys purposely just to save himself from destruction.

Not sensibly.

For were that so, then the force of destruction would be more powerful than God, which would mean what you're calling "God" would be a less-powerful being, and not God at all. Your "God" would then be "Destruction."

I've got to ask: where did you get these ideas? I can see that they're certainly not obvious or automatic...or, so far as I can tell, even remotely coherent or necessary. Do they exist in any complete form anywhere, or are they your own picking?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:59 pm
I've got to ask: where did you get these ideas? I can see that they're certainly not obvious or automatic...or, so far as I can tell, even remotely coherent or necessary. Do they exist in any complete form anywhere, or are they your own picking?

The only complete form they exist is in my mind, the one I think I have, that's where they exist IC ok.

Thanks for all your above comments IC..I see your comments as correct within the context of how you deliver your message. So I have no arugment with what you choose to say in response to my comments. The context in which you speak is from your own unique understanding, and nothing to do with how I perceive reality, don't forget, no human being has ever been alive before, who on earth is it that knows what we know. I really don't think it is up to anyone alive to know anything really is it? It's not like the human being made itself from scratch or came into the world with an instruction manual informing it how the universe was made or why or for what purpose, seriously IC, everything I say is what I personally make up. I remember when I was quite young having this feeling like there was no ''ME'' and that life was living me, and not that I was not living life or had a life. I remember thinking I have no life. I am life, but it's not my life.

As for where I get my ideas from I have no idea, they just come out of me like an arrow. I know they don't make sense to most people as you so rightly point out, but they make perfect sense to me. I can only see God from my own unique understanding. Whether it's right or wrong I have no idea, it's just what comes out of me. The 'me' I think is 'me'

Is it not true that the nondual writers and speakers are all speaking and writing about the same one principle. Except to say they all express that one principle is many different ways. That's all any of us are doing if we are really honest with ourselves.
The thing is, I totally get what you have said to me in all your responses, so what does that tell you?

I might be crap at putting how I know and see God into words, but I do know God, and that's all that really matters to me. I try to put it into words, but if it comes across as incoherent and unnecessary, then so be it. I'm not about to argue with anyone over who has the best account of the GOD SUBJECT.
I couldn't care less about that. I'm just going to write as I'm seeing it, as I can only report my surround as I'm sensing it to be.



.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:37 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:59 pm
I've got to ask: where did you get these ideas? I can see that they're certainly not obvious or automatic...or, so far as I can tell, even remotely coherent or necessary. Do they exist in any complete form anywhere, or are they your own picking?

The only complete form they exist is in my mind, the one I think I have, that's where they exist IC ok.

Yes, fine.

Thanks.