GOD (Real Gnosis)

reply to post by IAmD1


The only thing with that is, since love and 'anti-love' are defined in terms of each other, and everything is relative, someone could say the exact same thing you just posted except emphasizing the 'anti-love' aspect of it over the love aspect, and say love is just relative to anti-love and etc. Love is just a lack of ignorance, lack of separation, lack of fear, etc., basically the shadow of all things "bad."

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_

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.

You are simply expressing a common misunderstanding.

The Judeo/Christian view embraces both unity and separation...
...expressed as a dialectic.

Various analogies are used in the New Testament letters...

a vessel and its contents - 2 Cor. 4:7
a branch and a vine - John 15:3-5
a house and its occupant - 2 Cor. 5:1
a wife/husband analogy - Eph. 5:24,25,32

I have been married for more than thirty years, so I especially relate to this last analogy...
...we are 'one flesh' and one in mind and spirit...
...we have the same goals...
...and even on occasion when one of us is in another country and are clearly functioning as physically distinct and separate independant entities...
...we remain legally and spiritually one unit...
...and because we both know the Spirit we are never separate from Him or each other.

In a sense you believe this dialectic too...
...you say that 'all is only one' and 'all is love'...
...but you make a clear distinction between me and yourself...
...you address me as a separate entity yet believe we are actually one.

Yet while believeing all is one and all is love...
...you have to admit that some people seem not to be a part of the 'one' or express love.

Judeo/Christianity accounts for this anomaly in your thesis...
...by accepting that we are dinstinct beings that in an ideal state are united by One Great Spirit...
...and that this God (Theos) is a distinct entity in relationship with us...
...and while all should be 'one', all obviously are not 'one'...
...and the explanation is that at some time in the past there was a disconnect...
...and that this disruption is the reason for the current human condition...
...and that steps have been taken to repair the breach.

For some this breach has already been repaired...
...I am one spirit/Spirit with this Great Spirit...
...and He is one spirit/Spirit with all who hear His voice.

Your understanding of this is a belief or ideal...
...that does not fit the reality you live in...
...but I am saying that I dynamically know and live in this ontological union.



[edit on 10/1/10 by troubleshooter]

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


I think you have confused things a bit - I haven't used any dogmas and you haven't used logic. If you find my belief of God having a distinct personality as dogmatic then your belief that the universe and God are the same thing is equally dogmatic. Furthermore, there is no way to prove what you believe, therefore logic is certainly not the tool you use to write these posts. It is fine to believe in something, but it is wrong to assume that what you believe is also the absolute truth.

Originally posted by Mr Green

God, whose love and joy
are present everywhere,
Can't come and visit you
unless you aren't there.

oh, very droll minister, er- i mean mr. green. seriously, i loved those few lines and really cracked up.

someone mentioned "personality of god". this cannot be. the word comes from the latin "persona" meaning mask. ------over what? you cannot apply human attributes to a god who must be at least infinite.
IMHO, love, in its truest and noblest sense, is the utter feeling of the oneness of pure existence. its reflected in the following example; someone "captures" your heart, you are lost without their company. you crave their presence. we all crave this connectedness to something we adore. for most of us feel separation from the nameless.
oneness or unity or non-separation is the true basis for ethics and morality. hence the instruction to love the other as oneself.
there is no evolution without a complete plan for how it will turn out eventually. this complete plan is involution. you cant unfold what has not already been folded in.
all the apparent space, time, power, presence, knowledge, what can happen, galaxies and their occupants and their behaviors, all peace and war and struggles and genocides, all gods, messiahs and evil devils; all of this is contained in the "isness". it appears to grind on and have its favourable and un-favourable (from a human standpoint) cycles. it all seems rather pointless and yet marvelous. and no thought is our own or even new. freewill, which word is an oxymoron and has no translation in hindu, is an illusion.
we have only one choice, identify with mind and body--------or not.

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
GOD exists BY NECESSITY.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

...except that god is not necessary for the Universe (which is neither love nor hate) to exist.

reply to post by orangutang


I am not using the world personality in the way you described (that would be character for me). Although, I cannot properly explain it you can think of someone's personality as his unique identity which has a subtle influence on everything that has to do with one's existence. I believe that personality is not a human attribute, but a divine one endowed to us from God which along with our soul which is nurtured and grows through the mind activity and interaction of it with God's divine spirit presence, which "inhabits" us, synthesise a unique free will being. God's personality being infinite is of course beyond description and understanding, at least at our current level of spiritual development.

Anyway, just my belief...

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by IAmD1

 

The only thing with that is, since love and 'anti-love' are defined in terms of each other, and everything is relative, someone could say the exact same thing you just posted except emphasizing the 'anti-love' aspect of it over the love aspect, and say love is just relative to anti-love and etc. Love is just a lack of ignorance, lack of separation, lack of fear, etc., basically the shadow of all things "bad."

I think you are missing the point I was making. There is love that's it! What we chose to see as the opposite to love is infact love but in a state that we chose to see as negative to that which we feel is possitive. To you love is a lack of ignorance, fear etc...to me love just is. All encompassing and there isn't really any anti-love or opposite to love as it is either love or it doesn't exist. But again just IMO.

But to be able to have free will we have to be able to 'experience' opposites so that there is something to make a choice about. Hence the perceptive duality etc. I believe that's the programming 'behind' the matrix. But even so I think the only way to live in the matrix is to live by the laws of the matrix. A perceived choice will have a perceived effect. Hence the 'positive' and 'negative' aspects. To be honest you can call this 'source' god or what ever you like but IMO love is the word and the feeling and the experience that explain this the best.

Originally posted by IAmD1
I think you are missing the point I was making. There is love that's it! What we chose to see as the opposite to love is infact love but in a state that we chose to see as negative to that which we feel is possitive.

I am in full agreement that you can choose to see the world either in a positive or a negative light. That you can see everything as love and make everything out to be a presence or lack of love, or you can see everything as darkness and describe everything as a presence or lack of darkness.

To you love is a lack of ignorance, fear etc...to me love just is. All encompassing and there isn't really any anti-love or opposite to love as it is either love or it doesn't exist. But again just IMO.

And I could say, playing the Devil's advocate, there isn't really any love, only the absence of this darkness gives the appearance of love. And since whether or not there is love and how much of it depends ONLY on the level of ignorance/darkness/separation present, the concept of love is a slave to darker forces which it obviously cannot or will not completely eradicate from existence.

While saying that I realize it is only a point of view. I am simply playing Devil's advocate, again, against the equally arbitrary view that is its opposite.

What is the use of entertaining opposite view points? I entertain all possible viewpoints, and even exercise completely different and contradictory viewpoints in different situations. Just like I would use a hammer in some situations, and a screwdriver in others, I would use an attitude of love and bringing together and compassion in some cases, and negativity and destruction and chaos in others. In that respect, you can not make an argument as to this being "good" or "bad" as those are also arbitrary ideas that define each other, but you can't deny that reality, creation, the universe itself does exactly this: embodies love in some places and times, and destruction and negativity in others. It is all about form and function.

But to be able to have free will we have to be able to 'experience' opposites so that there is something to make a choice about. Hence the perceptive duality etc. I believe that's the programming 'behind' the matrix.

I agree about the programming, but I would say that programming manifests itself as a bias towards some ideas over others, or more specifically an inability to make use of opposing viewpoints when they would in fact be most efficient at achieving a desired result.

To be even more clear about my attitude here, I don't simply categorize my attitudes as either loving or destructive, which is classic dualism, but sometimes my attitude is like the Sun, sometimes it is like Lucifer (which I consider an antagonistic light-bringer), Satan (a flat-out devil), Aquarius (a very peaceful and compassionate light-bringer), Poseidon (god of sea/waters/emotional/subconscious realms), Saturn (god of forms and structures, of technical knowledge), Prometheus/Uranus (revolutionary, bringer of new ideas), etc.

All of these "deities" are like clothes to me that I can put on and take off, or like filing cabinets for related sets of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, picked from the collective unconscious of recorded human experience and history.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

I am in full agreement that you can choose to see the world either in a positive or a negative light. That you can see everything as love and make everything out to be a presence or lack of love, or you can see everything as darkness and describe everything as a presence or lack of darkness.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by bsbray11]

I like discussing with you and I'm glad you're taking on the role of 'devils' advocate. That's the only way we will learn anything. By questioning and taking on opposing roles to any argument. But I still maintain that you are missing 'my' point. I am saying that you can not create something out of nothing. Either it is or it isn't. If it isn't then well that's the end of discussion. (because there is nothing to discuss) if it is then IMO it is love. What I am saying is that love encompasses all other feelings, chaos and calm, attraction and repulsion you name it it is love. The conclusion I've come to is that it's all love seen from different angles. I can not see how any other state of being, feeling, seeing, sensing can and will encompase and explain all. I just don't believe it does. Anything that is lacking can not be the source. IMO love lacks nothing hence my belief. So no matter which way you turn it in the end the answer to the equation is love. I also belive that is the meaning of 'I Am'.

But I am interested in your argument. How would you come to the conclusion that everything is an aspect of darkness? How does darkness create anything?

Originally posted by IAmD1
But I am interested in your argument. How would you come to the conclusion that everything is an aspect of darkness? How does darkness create anything?

Because imo arguing that everything is either love or "not-love" is like arguing whether the glass is half empty or half full. I can see it both ways, but I like to look at it as being half full too.

Negative things are related to just about every physical thing and many immaterial things I can think of that either man or the rest of nature has created. Think of any modern convenience. They all come with various costs, to the people who made them, to the environment, etc, that has caused some form of burden or loss. Even unwitting trees fall on people and kill them, avalanches kill people, floods, storms, boulders coming loose and rolling onto roads and things like that. So if not even simple trees, rocks, snow, water, storms are exempt from demonstrating destruction and chaotic forces, what else in creation is there that doesn't have some "bad karma" associated with it? Unless you are considering all of these things as demonstrations of forces of love.

Originally posted by bsbray11
...Even unwitting trees fall on people and kill them, avalanches kill people, floods, storms, boulders coming loose and rolling onto roads and things like that. So if not even simple trees, rocks, snow, water, storms are exempt from demonstrating destruction and chaotic forces, what else in creation is there that doesn't have some "bad karma" associated with it? Unless you are considering all of these things as demonstrations of forces of love.

That's exactly what I am saying.

Good or bad is just our interpretation of that expression.

Look at it this way avalanches happen, trees fall, storms rage, boulders roll etc but the action is not bad in it self. It is our free will to be there or not at the time. Even if we weren't expecting the thing that happened to us it wasn't done to us in bad. And like energy we are not destroyed by the happening just moved elsewhere. But yes it does hurt regardless.

reply to post by Alexander1111


That belief is the forced dogma of the GOD EXTRA UNIVERSAL LOGOS, in order to cut-off the beings cells of Gaia from the organic relationship with the Universal Organism that we are all parts of.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
I'm just going to keep this simple ok.
Because I'm tired of reading threads about this.

The Universe and God is the same and we are all parts of a Cosmic Organism.

I'm going to keep this quite simple as well.

The creation CANNOT BE THE CREATOR.

The CREATOR IS WITHOUT CREATION, not WITHIN.

The Creation is in the LIKENESS of the Creator and His Surroundings, but IT IS NOT THE SAME.

Use some LOGIC.

use logic, why not?

the creator has every right to be the creation. self manifestation. who else but the creator has this ability?

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


put the pieces together. they are a reference to the same drama from different points of view. both offer different parts of the truth and parts of both are the same compounding the truth between.