You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If I defined God as...
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
I am not attributing any particular anthropromophic characteristic to God. Nor am I saying that within God there are not expressions of an anthropomorphic nature.
Since God is not limited in any manner, I would say that God is both impersonal and personal simultaneously.
I tried to explain this before, but it went over most people's heads.
I'll try again.
Say you have only one thing. Nothing else exists anywhere, at any place, at any time.
Only one thing. A singularity.
What is the nature of that singularity.
It has but one nature. Awareness. Pure awareness.
What is it aware of? Nothing.
Think of it like a flat mirror. It only reflects, does nothing else. It is aware, and it reflects, but when flat and collapsed, there is nothing but awareness and nothing to be aware of, extending in all directions.
Then due to its own nature, the "flat mirror" begins to curve. It begins to curve back on itself.
What happens? It begins to reflect itself into itself.
What is created through this process?
Three things are created out of one.
First you have an observed. Secondly you have the observer. Third you have the process of observation.
(However, do note that these happen simultaneously, not sequentially, though for the sake of understanding we start with one, then two, then three...)
Totality observes itself, and creates 3 things. All of this is happening only by totality expressing its nature to be aware and have movement.
Simultaneously it remains only a totality, yet it is also now three.
It is aware, of itself, and creates the reality and illusion of totality becoming three aspects where there really is only totality.
The Taoists say something like:
"Tao becomes one, one becomes two, two becomes three and three becomes ten thousand things..."
Before Tao was one, what was it? It was nothing but awareness. When it became two (aware of itself) it then became three (the process of awareness) and that leads to everything else, which are all just happenings withing the original Tao.
It is movement and non movement simultaneously. It is singular and multiplicity simultaneously.
God is totality of everything, and whole simultaneously...
If a person identifies with the parts, then they don't know the whole.
Since God is not limited in any manner, I would say that God is both impersonal and personal simultaneously.
I tried to explain this before, but it went over most people's heads.
I'll try again.
Say you have only one thing. Nothing else exists anywhere, at any place, at any time.
Only one thing. A singularity.
What is the nature of that singularity.
It has but one nature. Awareness. Pure awareness.
What is it aware of? Nothing.
Think of it like a flat mirror. It only reflects, does nothing else. It is aware, and it reflects, but when flat and collapsed, there is nothing but awareness and nothing to be aware of, extending in all directions.
Then due to its own nature, the "flat mirror" begins to curve. It begins to curve back on itself.
What happens? It begins to reflect itself into itself.
What is created through this process?
Three things are created out of one.
First you have an observed. Secondly you have the observer. Third you have the process of observation.
(However, do note that these happen simultaneously, not sequentially, though for the sake of understanding we start with one, then two, then three...)
Totality observes itself, and creates 3 things. All of this is happening only by totality expressing its nature to be aware and have movement.
Simultaneously it remains only a totality, yet it is also now three.
It is aware, of itself, and creates the reality and illusion of totality becoming three aspects where there really is only totality.
The Taoists say something like:
"Tao becomes one, one becomes two, two becomes three and three becomes ten thousand things..."
Before Tao was one, what was it? It was nothing but awareness. When it became two (aware of itself) it then became three (the process of awareness) and that leads to everything else, which are all just happenings withing the original Tao.
It is movement and non movement simultaneously. It is singular and multiplicity simultaneously.
God is totality of everything, and whole simultaneously...
If a person identifies with the parts, then they don't know the whole.
Quote from WaveStrider:
Interesting. So you are not attributing any anthropomorphic characteristics to the word "God" - merely using the word as a placeholder, like "X"?
The emotional charge in the word "God" is usually in the context of religion, which has an entity with independent consciousness. It sounds like "Totality" does not address this aspect and is therefore neutral.
God can do both simultaneously because God is not limited by space or time.
God can be creating a rock that God cannot lift, and simultaneously God can be lifting the very same rock that God could not lift.
It is not going to be logical if you limit yourself to logic based on relativity, time, space, and other partial values...
Partial values have their rules, whole values have a different set of rules, and whole values are not ruled or governed by partial value rules...
God can be creating a rock that God cannot lift, and simultaneously God can be lifting the very same rock that God could not lift.
It is not going to be logical if you limit yourself to logic based on relativity, time, space, and other partial values...
Partial values have their rules, whole values have a different set of rules, and whole values are not ruled or governed by partial value rules...
Quote from Wallet:
God is present at every place He chooses to be.
A simple answer.
Try,.... if God can do anything can he make a rock he can't pick up
The funny thing is that the western ideology rejects the eastern, but the eastern accepts the western as just telling part of the story...
Telling part of the story is not wrong, it is just not complete.
Going to first grade is an education, but it is not a full education....
People seek whatever level they like...
Grade school, primary school, secondary school, college, masters, Phd, teacher of PhD, etc.
So the eastern view is that western ideology is not wrong by itself, it is simply not telling the whole story...
Some people only like to read one chapter of a book...
Telling part of the story is not wrong, it is just not complete.
Going to first grade is an education, but it is not a full education....
People seek whatever level they like...
Grade school, primary school, secondary school, college, masters, Phd, teacher of PhD, etc.
So the eastern view is that western ideology is not wrong by itself, it is simply not telling the whole story...
Some people only like to read one chapter of a book...
Quote from Wallet:
The Hebrew word translated "created" is "bara". It should be translated "created out of nothing".
No matter how far back you want to take scientific theory, you come to a singular creation point. No agnostic or atheist can go past that point, creation event = creator caused.
But I have to disagree on the point that creation is a part of, "or" God.
These roots are based in eastern religious ideologies.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I am not attributing any particular anthropromophic characteristic to God. Nor am I saying that within God there are not expressions of an anthropomorphic nature.
Since God is not limited in any manner, I would say that God is both impersonal and personal simultaneously.
I tried to explain this before, but it went over most people's heads.
I'll try again.
Say you have only one thing. Nothing else exists anywhere, at any place, at any time.
Only one thing. A singularity.
What is the nature of that singularity.
It has but one nature. Awareness. Pure awareness.
What is it aware of? Nothing.
Think of it like a flat mirror. It only reflects, does nothing else. It is aware, and it reflects, but when flat and collapsed, there is nothing but awareness and nothing to be aware of, extending in all directions.
Then due to its own nature, the "flat mirror" begins to curve. It begins to curve back on itself.
What happens? It begins to reflect itself into itself.
What is created through this process?
Three things are created out of one.
First you have an observed. Secondly you have the observer. Third you have the process of observation.
(However, do note that these happen simultaneously, not sequentially, though for the sake of understanding we start with one, then two, then three...)
Totality observes itself, and creates 3 things. All of this is happening only by totality expressing its nature to be aware and have movement.
Simultaneously it remains only a totality, yet it is also now three.
It is aware, of itself, and creates the reality and illusion of totality becoming three aspects where there really is only totality.
The Taoists say something like:
"Tao becomes one, one becomes two, two becomes three and three becomes ten thousand things..."
Before Tao was one, what was it? It was nothing but awareness. When it became two (aware of itself) it then became three (the process of awareness) and that leads to everything else, which are all just happenings withing the original Tao.
It is movement and non movement simultaneously. It is singular and multiplicity simultaneously.
God is totality of everything, and whole simultaneously...
If a person identifies with the parts, then they don't know the whole.
What you are describing is a shift in dimensionality. But why does this require awareness (consciousness)?
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
The funny thing is that the western ideology rejects the eastern, but the eastern accepts the western as just telling part of the story...
Telling part of the story is not wrong, it is just not complete.
Going to first grade is an education, but it is not a full education....
People seek whatever level they like...
Grade school, primary school, secondary school, college, masters, Phd, teacher of PhD, etc.
So the eastern view is that western ideology is not wrong by itself, it is simply not telling the whole story...
Some people only like to read one chapter of a book...
As I thought,
While one accepts the other as part of the whole, the other sees the differences between the two as irreconcilable.
Thanks for the dialogue.
No shift in dimensionality at all.
It all happens within the totality, by the totality, remains in the totality.
It is simultaneously a creation of 3 from nothing but awareness, while the pure awareness remains despite the activity of the 3 aspects that are generated when awareness becomes aware of itself...
It is all happening within the totality, so the totality remains as a totality and at the same time (and time was created when the awareness became aware of itself) these 3 are generated.
I know, it is hard to grasp how nothing but awareness can become three, but think about it. Think of the flat mirror curving back onto itself and generating a viewer, the viewed and the process of observation.
It is an illusion, and also real simultaneously.
It is awareness of wholeness and totality and partial values at the same time...
Consciousness is not required, consciousness is the very nature of totality...
From one nature comes everything which is contained within the one nature...
It all happens within the totality, by the totality, remains in the totality.
It is simultaneously a creation of 3 from nothing but awareness, while the pure awareness remains despite the activity of the 3 aspects that are generated when awareness becomes aware of itself...
It is all happening within the totality, so the totality remains as a totality and at the same time (and time was created when the awareness became aware of itself) these 3 are generated.
I know, it is hard to grasp how nothing but awareness can become three, but think about it. Think of the flat mirror curving back onto itself and generating a viewer, the viewed and the process of observation.
It is an illusion, and also real simultaneously.
It is awareness of wholeness and totality and partial values at the same time...
Consciousness is not required, consciousness is the very nature of totality...
From one nature comes everything which is contained within the one nature...
Quote from WaveStrider:
What you are describing is a shift in dimensionality. But why does this require awareness (consciousness)?
Yes, exactly. Which is why we have seen so many wars started by Judeo Christian Muslim thought, and so few wars started by those who practice eastern thought...
One sees the parts only and tries to dominate the other parts, one sees wholeness and accepts the various parts as a necessary aspects of the whole...
Jesus Christ tried to teach acceptance and wholeness of God, but of course the people in that region were tribal and didn't take it to heart...
One sees the parts only and tries to dominate the other parts, one sees wholeness and accepts the various parts as a necessary aspects of the whole...
Jesus Christ tried to teach acceptance and wholeness of God, but of course the people in that region were tribal and didn't take it to heart...
Quote from Wallet:
As I thought,
While one accepts the other as part of the whole, the other sees the differences between the two as irreconcilable.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Yes, exactly. Which is why we have seen so many wars started by Judeo Christian Muslim thought, and so few wars started by those who practice eastern thought...
One sees the parts only and tries to dominate the other parts, one sees wholeness and accepts the various parts as a necessary aspects of the whole...
Jesus Christ tried to teach acceptance and wholeness of God, but of course the people in that region were tribal and didn't take it to heart...
I think it was the part that Jesus taught that He was God, that the townsfolk took offense. It's this fact that divides Christianity between the rest of the world.
But if a perfect sacrifice was needed to reconcile the debt of sin owed by man, then it seems fitting that only God (the only perfect candidate) could fill the bill.
Christianity, either Jesus is who he says he is or he a liar.
Just my opinion, but I don't think Jesus taught that he was God, but rather he was one with God.
A wave on the ocean is not the ocean, but is one with the ocean if the wave accepts that it is a whole part of the wholeness of the ocean...
I doubt Jesus was a liar. I think those who followed Jesus found that lying was a more attractive method to gain mass acceptance...which became the goal of Christianity.
A wave on the ocean is not the ocean, but is one with the ocean if the wave accepts that it is a whole part of the wholeness of the ocean...
I doubt Jesus was a liar. I think those who followed Jesus found that lying was a more attractive method to gain mass acceptance...which became the goal of Christianity.
Quote from Wallet:
I think it was the part that Jesus taught that He was God, that the townsfolk took offense. It's this fact that divides Christianity between the rest of the world.
But if a perfect sacrifice was needed to reconcile the debt of sin owed by man, then it seems fitting that only God (the only perfect candidate) could fill the bill.
Christianity, either Jesus is who he says he is or he a liar.