originally posted by: glend
It seems you can look at the statement two ways, either we are in Gods image (or dream) or are we Godlike?
But from our perspective being Godlike sounds ridiculous. So what is God. If God has a threefold nature (Father, Son & Holy Ghost) are the scriptures
saying that we the son are like the father, or to put it differently, our singular mind is part of a greater universal mind.
I would like to hear thoughts from those from all religions or even those that aren't religious.
Are we like God. If so what is God.
There is a 3rd way to look at it beyond distinctions. Gods image is really moot or non sequitur. Whatever the first cause was no matter what one wants
to call it or attribute it too, that gave rise to the chain of existence or life as we know it; has absolutely no bearing on release from the fetters
binding one to the seemingly infinite process of causation. So god or not, you and only you are responsible for your release from bondage to the cycle
Lets say god does not exist. OK what else gave rise to this? So we say hey evolution! Then evolution becomes god and human behavior and habit becomes
the new devil... instead of the personifications. It's same nonsense, we just traded names and removed faces from the first cause. Those believing in
a god as a cause or evolution as a reason, are who give their reason for being here; arms, legs, a mouth... this creates a very real effect in the
world; even if the chosen god or creator they choose to be arms, legs, and a mouth for... isn't real. Many over countess eons have lived fought and
died over an unknown first cause simply out of taking a belief for reality. Even those saying they have an experience of god and know for a fact there
is one; it is still just a conceptual belief for them to fight and argue over, the same as any other tangible or intangible object in conscious
experience, found or invented.
The first cause is moot in reality except when we make belief a reality, it's the same as when you die... the world will keep going and only those
that know you, will be affected by your passing. We erroneously think; maybe if we know our first cause, it will give us some meaning or reason for
being and know what direction to take. In early recorded history, many cultures said it was nature; we came out of the earth, interestingly that
belief is sort of the same as evolution without magical pixie dust just space dust instead. So for thousands of years some believed in nature as the
reason, then a some point personified it into gods, spirits or heroes to pass on stories of how to survive here and how best to use their time to do
that in the most uncomplicated way possible. Well, some figured out how to control and profit off of this information... make others work for them and
truly win the game of living as uncomplicated as possible.
Sure that took care of physical comfort well enough for those exploiting experience tales of how to live and survive... it's still the largest human
market in the world, with many countless vendors and products for you to live an "ideal" life.
So, knowing or desiring to know our first cause doesn't really do a damn thing other than keep whatever the current markets are in business and
whatever ones arise in the future in business.
They of course don't say, the first cause means nothing to right now beyond the market and control it can bring over people. The first cause does not
give you a purpose unless you are taught or choose it to be your purpose. If you don't choose a first cause as a purpose or reason for being? The
government or someone else is very happy to try and give you a reason for being or purpose.
The reality is; there isn't a purpose or reason for being in and of itself... it's a human creation due to a side effect of developing a conscience
of being. If we removed conscience, then we would be left with just survival instincts the same as animals. Conscience naturally arose out of ideation
from us communicating in groups to survive because our concepts expanded beyond communicating a need for food, shelter, etc. we noticed some external
things were good or bad for survival and we avoided those things, eventually they became known as good or bad. This expanded from the external concept
of good/bad while BS-ing around a campfire, to internal concepts of good/bad, right/wrong etc. the dawn of logical and rational thought started to
arise, developing into what we know it as today.
Our concepts are really not very different from back then, they all are either positive/negative or neutral in ones personal experience. Outside of
personal experience or societal obligations of adherence to concepts, they are just as moot as the first cause is in reality. If people were to quit
looking to a first cause or others for a reason for being, and give themselves one the world would become a very different place. Many people already
have done this, and will do this in the future, it is a direction the world should take, if we wish to avoid extinction.
If we look at the world and it's problems now, we have many large heavily armed groups arguing over the same two basic ideologies
good/evil, right/wrong) those listed are exactly the same concept, and are extremes of being because of differing ideologies of what is pos/neg,
good/evil, right/wrong is. In an ideological word, there is a line drawn in the dirt and whomever is on the other side? Is an enemy, terrorist,
heretic, rebel, a-hole, liberal, conservative, or whatever nonsense people want to call someone that doesn't agree with them on the other side of the
line. Avoiding those extremes, doesn't mean removing the line; but having tolerance and understanding for those that choose that side. The
intolerance, bias and hate we have in the world at large, is just a lot of finger, gun, and rocket pointing, It's not good for any actual problem
We see each other as the issue, instead of looking at the issue itself; hate cannot cease by hate just for that reason. If person A has a problem and
person B has a problem, either A or B saying A or B is at fault, both are just avoiding the actual problem and saying each other is the problem. One
side says global warming, one side says no global warming; so they waste time arguing it, Instead of saying we have this effect occurring and data is
pointing to this as the cause; here is how it is going to impact humanity if it continues; and this is how it is going to effect humanity if it
doesn't continue. Lets present this information to humanity and ask what they want to do about it. Well, it doesn't work that way; it is either
stalled due to hate for each other or complicated by greed if it affects the lively hood of one and not the other. The delusion is that we are
actually moving forward at any speed other than a crawl as a species under this extremist ideological pos/neg, good/evil, right/wrong existence, that
does nothing but grow larger and larger and angrier and angrier as time goes on.
Logic and rationality must be balanced for a healthy world, the logical can fall into the extreme of being irrational, and the rational can fall into
the extreme of being illogical. If we want to avoid harm to humanity, abandoning or tolerating ideological concepts that give rise to extremes of
belief taken for reality and truth, is the best we've got going.