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.

 

GOD (Real Gnosis)

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
A lot of you seem to know what you are talking about.

But in reality you know nothing, but talk like it's the truth.

How could you people possibly know this stuff?

You don't, most of it is not provable.

A lot of these posts are missing IMO's, they are just opinions, nothing more.

You read stuff in books and believe it, but alas, it is someone else's opinion, some of you may meditate and glean info from your mind, but it may only be the product of your own mind, you would like to believe what you think is the truth, but it's only what you think.

None of us know the truth, that's the only thing that is fact.

that's my 3 cents. (adjusted for inflation)




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund

LOVE to describe the Universe creating what it does by interacting with everything else is a bit of a corny spaced out nut job term to use.

Sorry, I just think that(s)...how others would think of that term.
How would we know if the planet Uranus expresses love? Love is a human word.



Originally posted by Toadmund
You just need a new word, that's all.



Well, actually, words themselves are dualistic of necessity. So, in truth, any word we would choose is flawed. I personally like the word, "acceptance=love" but it too is inherently flawed. Anything that can be said with words to describe God is inherently untrue, because God is something that is utterly indivisible, (also flawed) and all of our words are ways of distinguishing one thing from another. (naturally divisive, in other words)

There is a reason many mystics choose not to elaborate upon the "truth" and those that do tend to use imagery and poetry, or other methods of getting the mind of the listener to "snap to" the realization on its own. Its because the truth cannot really be "thought" or "spoken" it must be realized or "known" in an intuitive sort of way.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Using words to describe anything which may or may not be true, is
MOOT!
ie, A unicorns eyes are stunning, the bluest that I have ever seen.
Sasquatch loves spaghetti with hot sauce on it!

How can anyone ascribe a word to something they know nothing about, who determines the right adjective to describe the undescribable?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
How could you people possibly know this stuff?

You don't, most of it is not provable.


I'm not sure what you're talking about in particular but it seems nothing less than purely logical to say the "source of everything" has to be the common source of both everything people consider "good" and everything people consider "bad," or else it wouldn't really be the source of everything in existence. Unless someone is claiming that there really is no such thing as "bad" in the universe, or "good" things either, in which case I would also have to agree because those are just human constructs.


You read stuff in books and believe it, but alas, it is someone else's opinion, some of you may meditate and glean info from your mind, but it may only be the product of your own mind, you would like to believe what you think is the truth, but it's only what you think.


And realizing that we are just all approximating the truth is important, and that we never really KNOW anything for sure. Because then we will always make it a point to better our awareness and refine our understanding. But to make it a point to be uncertain of everything, how can you know that is the correct mentality either? You can't.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund

How can anyone ascribe a word to something they know nothing about, who determines the right adjective to describe the undescribable?


First, there is no "right" adjective to describe the indescribable, you are absolutely correct. Which was my point, any words anyone ever chooses are not the absolute truth.

However, though you may be technically correct that we dont "know," in that our minds cannot think about perfectly, and elaborate perfectly upon some possible experience, how can you be so certain that there are not those who have had some experience of something unknowable and unspeakable?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


and for those of you who don't like the 'Hippy' peace love and unity take on that could you perhaps say that at least one part of LOVE is attraction?
And isn't it attraction that keeps the universe going *think molecular chemistry here* ?


Yeah, sure but do you even embrace cancer tumors in your body?

Change is necessary and would be impossible without separations, destruction, etc. If LOVE is a big uncarved block of wood, then ANTI-LOVE is what carves out a beautiful sculpture from that block. Love itself is not so beautiful, and the opposite of love is not so beautiful, but their fatal interplay with each other, as if the entire universe hangs in the balance (which it does), IS beautiful.



I don't understand where you are getting with the tumor reference? Why would you have to embrace the tumor for it to be a thing of love? I guess I am missing your point here.

I disagree with you love (at least the one I'm talking about) is always beautiful. And yes I believe it to be source. If love is a bright white light containing all the energy of the creation then anti-love is a great big nothing containing no energy or light. It is not the thing that makes a sculpture out of a block. It is where all creative processes are not. The only thing that can create something is creation. IMO

Duality is right in that if you have something in the possitive you have an equal amount of something in the negative to keep the balance. It does not say that for every something there is a nothing. Or am I wrong again??



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmD1
I disagree with you love (at least the one I'm talking about) is always beautiful. And yes I believe it to be source. If love is a bright white light containing all the energy of the creation then anti-love is a great big nothing containing no energy or light.


Fine, anti-love can be that, but

1) It still exists.

2) It still shapes reality just as much as love itself does.



It is not the thing that makes a sculpture out of a block. It is where all creative processes are not. The only thing that can create something is creation. IMO


All you are doing is arguing semantics.

Come up with one good technical definition of "love" or the source energy. When you are settled on this definition, and sure that it explains everything in itself by itself alone and with the addition of nothing else (including the perceptions of emptiness or void), then we can talk about it in a technical sense and not have to keep tunneling through semantics.


So what, in the most objective and independently verifiable terminology you are capable of, is love?

I would personally define love as the exact opposite of entropy in physics, and entropy as technically defined in physics as the opposite of love, but you already see that in my definition love itself is not the sole creator of everything in the entirety of existence, but only half of the equation. But it's still a good working technical definition as soon as we consider what "entropy" is in the sciences.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmD1

Duality is right in that if you have something in the possitive you have an equal amount of something in the negative to keep the balance. It does not say that for every something there is a nothing. Or am I wrong again??


Is it day or night on Earth right now?

Or is it both and neither?

Seeing things or describing things as dualistic says more about our minds, and the way we as physical beings are wired to think and perceive than it says about "absolute truth." A thing can be whole and well rounded, and non-dualistic, but our limitations may force us to look at one side, then the other. We assume that the logic that works for us practically actually says something about reality fundamentally.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


So, basically, you're a deist. You think that God made the universe and just left it to operate on its own accord. Bah!! I don't buy it.

I am a Theist not a Deist.

I believe God made the universe outside of Himself...
...and has always been involved with the universe like a man who plants a garden and loves it and maintains it and destroys the weeds.

That He is intimately involved with the 'world of men'...
...at least with all who 'hear His voice'.



[edit on 10/1/10 by troubleshooter]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
God comes from the Indo-European word "Gott" which means BULL.

Brahman means God and also Bull.

The tree of life is the life force emotional energy.

The tree of knowledge is the electromagnetic Solar energy.

God is what separates heaven (tree of knowledge) from earth (tree of life)

while the Snake is the Kundalini and the Apple is the sex energy.

When we consciously use the snake knowledge then we can break through God to get to the heart as the universe, harmony of heaven and earth.

Practice this to find out how

springforestqigong.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


GOD is Endo-Universal (same-space time Universal) and not Extra-Universal as you claim.
ALL is only One.
We are just like cells in a human body, in this case the infinite Supreme Being or Cosmos.
If you keep putting Dogma in your logic, the discussion cannot go any further.
Not to sound rude or anything like that.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


GOD is Endo-Universal (same-space time Universal) and not Extra-Universal as you claim.
ALL is only One.
We are just like cells in a human body, in this case the infinite Supreme Being or Cosmos.
If you keep putting Dogma in your logic, the discussion cannot go any further.
Not to sound rude or anything like that.

On one extreme there is Deism and on the other Pantheism (your view)...
...my view is Theism.

So why is my view dogma and you view not dogma?




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 





Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.
You are conceiving God has an independent deity.
Much more like Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
That implies separation and Dogma.
No one is separated.
Love is all.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


TarzanBeta, I agree with everything you say. Are you by any chance a reader of the Urantia book? Your ideas/beliefs are very alike with it...

Silentassassin, not everyone shares your pantheistic beliefs. When you worship the universe, you are worshiping God's material expression. I believe his personality is very much a distinctive and separate reality.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by Alexander1111]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Alexander1111
 


We do not worship, for we would be only worshiping ourselves.
You are the ones who feel the need to indoctrinate people with that system of beliefs.
How are we suppose to learn about the universe and ourselves, if you keep using religion has a system of observation?
Religion is an illusion and It makes no sense.
Nothing invalidates spirituality or divinity.
We are trying to expand our consciousness and you are separating yourself from source.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
 


I am not following a specific religion, SA. Your perception of my lack of understanding could in reality be a lack of understanding of your own. As TarzanBeta laconically said in his first post, I believe as well that you fail to see how limiting your pantheistic belief is for both the creator and the creature. Please, don't present it as if it were the absolute truth, because it's just your personal truth.

Anyway, I regret making a post in the first place here, because beliefs are beliefs and there is no point in arguing about them...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Come up with one good technical definition of "love" or the source energy. When you are settled on this definition, and sure that it explains everything in itself by itself alone and with the addition of nothing else (including the perceptions of emptiness or void), then we can talk about it in a technical sense and not have to keep tunneling through semantics.


So what, in the most objective and independently verifiable terminology you are capable of, is love?

I would personally define love as the exact opposite of entropy in physics, and entropy as technically defined in physics as the opposite of love, but you already see that in my definition love itself is not the sole creator of everything in the entirety of existence, but only half of the equation. But it's still a good working technical definition as soon as we consider what "entropy" is in the sciences.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by bsbray11]


Ok here goes. And I'm not trying to argue semantics I'm just trying to understand how you see it and the flaws in what I see but to answer you in the best way that I can...(this may be somewhat difficult for a right brained 0% verbal person but here goes)

Love in my definition is the be all and end all of everything in so much that it is the source and the origin of all creation. As far as i understand there is nothing that is not part of creation be it void or otherwise. In my view even void is something thus making it part of creation and part of love. The varying degrees let's call them frequency or energy of said love is what causes what we perceive as duality. I.e in the end when there is nothing else there is Love pure and simple. No more no less just love. Everything is relative to something. The void is only a void because something else is less void that it. If there was nothing else than the void then the void would not be empty but full. In my opinion full of love.

I might sound like I am contradicting my previoius statements but i think I am not. Chaos and love is the same thing. Anti-love is also love.

I do not believe in 'nothing' as a state of existence. If it exists it IS. If it is it is of love. Things that do not exist do not create anything. Creation does not make anything of or from it because it simply does not exist and can not interact with creation.

(Sorry if that was a very confusing way and not so scientific way of describing it but that is the only way i know how to)


[edit on 10/1/2010 by IAmD1]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.
You are conceiving God has an independent deity.
Much more like Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
That implies separation and Dogma.
No one is separated.
Love is all.


'Amen' - I have come to the same conclusion as you but my explanation wasn't as good and concise as yours



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alexander1111
 


I'm not being aggressive, but I'm not insecure either.
I just defending my point of view.
I'm trying to learn here as well , you want to argue support it with logic and not dogma.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Moments are but a fraction of time, time but an illusion for life, and all life is connected through the vastness of eternity, and love is the force that binds us and flows throughout and within, and without love we are but a shell.

In a sense, we are all creators of our own reality. We create our reality through our actions. Everything at this level of human existence is a microcosm of creation at its highest level.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join