It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The three aspects of "God"

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Aspect 1:

Outer light - The physical universe and the light that shines on everything, the light given off by the stars that reveals everything in the physical realm. It can be considered the "Mother" or feminine aspect of existence, it is the "womb" and "water" that we all traverse and gain experience from. It is the facilitator of wisdom and is called "Sophia" in several religious contexts including Hellenism, Gnosticism, Platonism, and Christianity.

Aspect 2:

Inner light - The immaterial world that lies within the body and perceives and deciphers the outer light into an image that can be seen. It can be considered the "Father" or masculine aspect of existence, it is the facilitator of the outer world and that which allows the outer to be animated and have movement. It is sometimes called "Father Time" because it is what creates the illusion of time and is what gives us the ability to experience the outer world. It is your immaterial thoughts, dreams, emotions, intellect, and self-awareness. It is what regulates your breathing and heartbeat.

Aspect 3:

The image - The image of light that is created when both the Inner and Outer lights come together. It is the prism through which the Inner and Outer lights are reflected upon. Lewis Carroll calls this aspect the "Looking Glass" and it is also represented by the prism on the cover of one of Pink Floyd's albums. It can be considered the "Son" or androgynous aspect of existence. It is the marriage of the physical and non-physical aspects, it is life itself. It is the mind of existence, it is like the lens on a camera. Everything holds together within the image, and we are that image of light that lights the world.

All three aspects form one existence. The Father is not the Mother is not the Son, but they are all "God" in motion.

Sound familiar? All good lies have a foundation of truth and that truth has been in front of us all along. We are experiencing eternal life as we speak, only from a unique vantage point for the time being. The body is impermanent and dies, but the Spirit is permanent and never dies.

Just as the leaves on a tree grow in the Spring and die in the Fall then regenerate after winter, so too will we. Just as the high tide comes in then recedes during low tide only to return again the next day, so too will we. Our bodies will die, but after winter and low tide (death), we will regenerate into a new body and start the process all over again. It is the cycle of life, we are the ebb and flow of existence and eternity lies within all of us.



We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.


As above, so below, as within so without, as the universe, so the soul...

Thanks for reading.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Great read but why does this cohesion of universal life have to be attributed to god or even collectively called god - father, mother or androgynous son? (its just my thinking that the natural and supernatural are as they say normal - there are an awful lot of universes outside of our own, are they created by the same entity separately? Its a big question and needs a bigger answer surely?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

It doesn't have to be called anything, I'm only explaining what religions call "God" in natural terms. God is not supernatural in my opinion, it is what allows for what we experience every second of every day. It's not something that is separate from us, it is integral to ourselves in every way.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name".

It has no name, I'm only explaining it through our very limited language as best I can. This is why I put "God" in quotations.


I think these "other" universes are us experiencing this one existence from different viewpoints. Each viewpoint contains the entire universe within it which is why we can each perceive the universe. Parallel universes are our parallel experiences. I could be wrong though, that's just my current personal understanding.
edit on 4/1/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I'm not trying to sound patronising, but, what was the postulated theory meant to conclude?

These were the points that I was able to gather, and I'll just touch on these quickly as I've only managed to get around 5 hours sleep or less today. The points were: (i) There is a physical universe which we transverse (?) and gain experience from, (ii) In contrast, there is an immaterial world which the agent experience within the body that is responsible for visual processing, (iii) The image emerges from an interdependence between physical and non-physical existences (the immaterial world), it is life and existence, the image is responsible for holding all phenomena together, we are also this image, and (iv) human beings are eternal spirits which experience reality through a process of reincarnation.

I take no issues with premiss (i), the other premisses are the one's which I take issue with. What I got from (ii) was that some immaterial world is responsible for "deciphering outer light into an image that can be seen", I take this to refer to visual processing, this is plainly wrong, the occipital lobe is responsible for visual processing and not an immaterial world within a human being. It also propounds the existence of a substance dualism between body and mind, even though this is highly disregarded within neuroscience. With point (iii), I can't manage to understand what exactly it's trying to establish, since there is no immaterial world which we have experienced. Of course, if (iv) was meant to be the conclusion, then it is not consequent upon the premisses and thus is invalid. If it was just another point, then I mean, what else can I say apart from I have no evidence for believing that I am an eternal spirit, when there is evidence to the contrary.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
A few quotes to think about it.

The Savior said: "He Who Is is ineffable. No principle knew him, no authority, no subjection, nor any creature from the foundation of the world until now, except he alone, and anyone to whom he wants to make revelation through him who is from First Light. From now on, I am the Great Savior. For he is immortal and eternal. Now he is eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end. Since no one rules over him, he has no name; for whoever has a name is the creation of another."
"And he has a semblance of his own - not like what you have seen and received, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the universe. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. Since it is infinite, he is ever incomprehensible. He is imperishable and has no likeness (to anything). He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is eternal. He is blessed. While he is not known, he ever knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishability blessed. He is called 'Father of the Universe'".


"The Lord of the Universe is not called 'Father', but 'Forefather', the beginning of those that will appear, but he (the Lord) is the beginningless Forefather. Seeing himself within himself in a mirror, he appeared resembling himself, but his likeness appeared as Divine Self-Father, and Confronter over the Confronted ones, First Existent Unbegotten Father. He is indeed of equal age the Light that is before him, but he is not equal to him in power.

Enjoy.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: logical1ty

It was meant to conclude that "God" is here right now, not waiting on the other side of death.

As far as the immaterial world inside of us, it is not the brain I am speaking of, it is what the brain produces. Thoughts are not physical, dreams are not physical, emotions are not physical, love is not physical, memories are not physical, etc.

Yes, those things have physical mechanisms associated with them but how can a certain mix of chemicals in the brain produce an image of a red balloon within the mind of the observer? Is there an actual red balloon inside the brain when it is thought of? Of course not, yet it is there for the observer to "see". Where is that balloon? In the immaterial world that the material brain taps into. The same goes for any of your invisible qualities such as feeling, smell, hearing, taste, etc. Can you see those things? No, but they are there being experienced nonetheless.
edit on 4/1/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

This thread is going to get very interesting.
SnF



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Thanks Randy.


So far it hasn't gotten very much attention but maybe it'll gain some legs here soon.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
The Human problem with God is his (the human) imperfection or his lost nature as Buddhist say or the fall as Semitic lore says.

There is no other way around our condition of being separated from God, or Lost nature, or fallen.

These are different metaphors for the same thing that describes our condition.

So get union with God, go find your true nature, and return to and heal the Garden of Eden then you’ll have no need of "God."

Certainly God is ever present but the problem is not God but the human being whose perceptive capacity is impaired by the corruption

cleanse the mirror



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
God is a dynamic principle not a being of some sort like a magical Jesus, superman or Santa Clause, the western exoteric understanding of God.

He can be that but that God is useless and dead

That’s the God Buddha rejected

The biblical “Ye are Gods” applies from a Christian mystical standpoint.


Remember the numero Uno motif of esoteric Christianity is:


“The Kingdom of God is within YOU”


In reality God is EVERYTHING

BUT

A big but


It boils down to the metaphysical science of the involution of God (MANS IMPERFECTION THROUGH CORRUPTION, LOST NATURE, OR FALL) and the evolution of man through the path of love and return to God

Conceptually God is that perfection we seek

God is everywhere and everything minus the involution of man and plus the evolution of man to God (conceptual perfection attained)

It’s an exact mathematical equation



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes I take your points but if I were to (be able to even) line up humans from the mildest and most gentle personality all the way through to the most volcanic, murderously insane personality - bearing in mind we are all made in God's image does that not make you wonder about humanities concept of a single God. Why religion wants to stick to one single god is beyond me because no one thing can possible incorporate everything humanity can throw at that single concept.

The Hindi idea of different aspects of the gods is far more viable as was the old religion's perspective. That is probably why Christianity grabbed the archetypical Christ image because that one people can actually relate to, though why mysogynistic priests introduced a ghost instead of honouring the feminine is sheer madness to me.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes I take your points but if I were to (be able to even) line up humans from the mildest and most gentle personality all the way through to the most volcanic, murderously insane personality - bearing in mind we are all made in God's image does that not make you wonder about humanities concept of a single God. Why religion wants to stick to one single god is beyond me because no one thing can possible incorporate everything humanity can throw at that single concept.

The Hindi idea of different aspects of the gods is far more viable as was the old religion's perspective. That is probably why Christianity grabbed the archetypical Christ image because that one people can actually relate to, though why mysogynistic priests introduced a ghost instead of honouring the feminine is sheer madness to me.

You need to read about the 10 Sephirots (Kabbalah, Jewish tradition).
They are the 10 emanations or aspects of God.

The ten sephirot represent ten aspects of the divine will in Kabbalah. They are commonly depicted in a diagram known as the Tree of Life. (Looks more like the Hindi idea now)
edit on 2-4-2015 by Abednego because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join