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.

 

Is Yahweh really the prime creator?

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Memyself.

Thanks for your answer.

If Heisenberg was right, causality is not valid in micro-cosmic context. This means, that the strict deductive reasoning of science isn't the single, undisputed master of 'reality' models any more.

The causality observed in macro-cosmos could be said to represent the inter-connectedness of all the cosmic fragments.

Cosmos has 'routines' in its introspective, fragment-reciprocial self-observation. 'Things' seem to be what they are, because it fits the pattern of what cosmos believes itself to be, and changes will fall back to co-sensus form from sheer inertia.

The groundrules for this being made by a demi-urge or others aspects of the Sophia-myth. But the 'beyond' nature of (possible) ultimate reality, which is the original awareness 'raw' material, can never be twisted completely. It will always seek from almost-equilibrium to the equilibrium of symmetry.

This much isn't outside the scope of present speculative science (apart from naming the intent in cosmos as a 'demiurge').

To the nameless. You wrote:

"I understand your reluctance. But inspiration from beyond the three-dimensional will need to be expressed (in a way translated) in concepts our three-dimensional mind can deal with, since we cannot perceive what is beyond and deal with it like (just as an example) a five-dimensional mind could."

Why will it 'need' to be expressed? Such an expression will only demonstrate a psychological need in mankind, not 'reality' itself. Personally I prefer to let experience be a step in front of model-making.

So I'd rather try to enhance my 'dimensional' perception, than making 'maps' of the unknown.

Take the average transcendental experience. On the way, the experiencee will meet beings/entities, which will manifest according to his/her local mythology, often also having bhakti-like rapture. If passing this stage (many stop, believing this is ultimate, and we have the multitude of 'gods' etc), silence/'nothingness'/equilibrium will be experienced.

So much is common experience.

I'm not saying, that there's nothing more beyond such a 'standard' transcendent experience. It's just that the gnostics* seem to be the only group going further identifying 'Identity' beyond silence. John Lash refers to a specific jewish sect, which used epinoia. You have any other information on this? It's quite fascinating.

* I believe Blavatsky also mentioned 'multi-leveled nirvanas'




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Thanks bogomil. Just some quick comments:

“Why will it 'need' to be expressed? Such an expression will only demonstrate a psychological need in mankind, not 'reality' itself. Personally I prefer to let experience be a step in front of model-making.”

I suppose that it would need to so that we in some manner can deal with it in our 3-dim. minds and make something out of it.

“So I'd rather try to enhance my 'dimensional' perception...”

No doubt a good idea but a difficult task.

“Take the average transcendental experience. On the way, the experiencee will meet beings/entities, which will manifest according to his/her local mythology, often also having bhakti-like rapture. If passing this stage (many stop, believing this is ultimate, and we have the multitude of 'gods' etc), silence/'nothingness'/equilibrium will be experienced.”

That will be so. We know from near-death out-of-body experiences that we meet entities that appear in shapes that fit our religious background – a Christian may see Jesus while a Jew may see Moses, a Buddhist Buddha and so on. And yet it is most probably the same kind of entity. Either we ourselves “filter” the experience according to what we expect, or the entity chooses to appear to us as it knows we would expect (or like) to see it.

“John Lash refers to a specific Jewish sect, which used Epinoia. You have any other information on this? It's quite fascinating.”

Sorry, I don’t know about this.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by memyself
 


I've looked a little in the Internet and it seems that John Lash refers to the Gnostics (gnostic Christians) rather then a Jewish sect, but also mentions earlier Jewish sources about Sophia. He especially mentions the same gnostic text "Apokryphon of John" that have reviewed above.

His website www.metahistory.org... seems much worth reading.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Thanks.

I'm quite familiar with John Lash's writings (this not meant to reduce your courtesy of searching for it), and while I don't share all his conclusions, I certainly respect his competence, both as a scholar and in his 'practical' applications.

A question: You consider this thread finished, or have the sidetrackings just become too much?

Personally I believe, that taking up your original direction could give more of value. There's a lot of stuff in the area of your specialized competence I for one could benefit from.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Thanks for your post.
If you go to Jon Lash’s website www.metahistory.org... and enter “demiurge” as a search word and then search the site that appears for the word “Jehovah” (or maybe the other way around) you will find several statements by the Gnostics which are in agreement with what I started this thread with.

“A question: You consider this thread finished, or have the side-trackings just become too much?”
I regret that there have been so many side-trackings deviating the discussion from the main topic it started with.

“Personally I believe, that taking up your original direction could give more of value.”
So do I … so let’s see what will now become of it and hope that it will not be finished too soon.

By the way, dear bogomil, I like your user name. You will no doubt know that the Bogomils were an important Gnostic movement that later lead to the famous society of the Cathars, who I regard to be one of the most truly Christian movements there ever were. One of the major sins of the Church, and a really bad one, was to completely eradicate the latter during the 13th century and slaughter them in a horrible holocaust!

Kind regards
memyself



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Hi Memyself

just a short side issue (though not completely irrelevant).

I choose the name Bogomil mostly in a spirit of self-irony (my humour is rather weird). The Bogomils were said to be rather ascetic, and I must admit to some moderate libertarianism. Old whiskey, pretty women and my overdimensioned and overadorned motorbike.

On the other hand, I was busy as a bee until my retirement, and the Bogomils avoided hard physical work if possible.

The avoidance of hard physical work is an attitude I find very fascinating, as Bogomilism this way seems to be the only ideology making an active protest against the cosmic dynamics created by the demiurge: Out of the treadmill.

PS Not as a point of contention, but my involvement in gnosticism is intellectual. Not ritualistic, practical or doctrinal, and I would give e.g. the Nag Hammadi scriptures the same critical scrutiny as any other texts.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Is anybody in this thread talking about people?

(Or other creatures)


edit on 11-9-2010 by metalore because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Re: Metalore

cats, archons and ourselves have been mentioned. The thread started out at a rather abstract metaphysical level. I don't think anybody has been fooled here on a pretext of analyses of social interaction being the subject.

Why?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by metalore
 


Oh yes, we are! About us, the humanity of people, being manipulated, mislead and cheated by false religions and by an impostor entity or a few who for that reason to us pretend(s) to be the highest God and want(s) us to believe that there is no other reality above him(them), and about earthly institutions playing their game for power, indoctrinating us with false ideas.

Don't misunderstand: this doesn't mean that there would be no Highest God, a prime creator, and there could not be a true religion, but the latter is either lost or we have not been able to establish it yet.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
If the proliferation and industrial evangelization of the false church fills you with indignation, because since Cain, their precursor, they have continually made a merchandise of the Truth. If you are astonished by the way an innocent soul is evaluated and manipulated like a mere product for high financial gain, finishing as a trivial statistic exploited by the politic-economic-financial predators of this world.

This is part of the full text available at www.missionarieswithoutborders.com. Go to this site and you will find your way out of this necessary evil inflicted on the world.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by memyself
 


What do you mean when you say impostor entity. Do you mean a human? Same for the Highest God.

Also you've named various other "entities" in your other posts. What sort of beings are you talking about?

I know you are taking much of your stories from apocryphal texts, but I don't know what you are interpreting the characters in these texts to be.

You said you want to talk about who God really is, but you appear to be jumping back and forth between abstract forces and things with personalities, so I don't know which ones are supposed to be people and which ones are supposed to be something else.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by metalore
 



As for the discussion you will get nowhere with these two. Its like they just want to prove that they have read a lot of books about the myth. And wants us to say WoW.

Right now they are comparing notes to see who has read the most and has the best opinion. I dont think they want to be disturbed by anyone.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by memyself
reply to post by metalore
 


Oh yes, we are! About us, the humanity of people, being manipulated, mislead and cheated by false religions and by an impostor entity or a few who for that reason to us pretend(s) to be the highest God and want(s) us to believe that there is no other reality above him(them), and about earthly institutions playing their game for power, indoctrinating us with false ideas.

Don't misunderstand: this doesn't mean that there would be no Highest God, a prime creator, and there could not be a true religion, but the latter is either lost or we have not been able to establish it yet.


I think its important to understand though....all of the paths that are a part of human history be it a fact or myth, is a part of humanities evolving, as a whole. You may find them to be lies and false, but they have a purpose for us. The paths that are not have just as much purpose as the path that is. Things like the gnostic explanations of 'emanations' allows us to understand there are levels...and the lower the level is from the highest source, the more its distorted from perfection. Things like the OT god image later allows us to discern what a Holy Spirit would NOT be...what natures a Spirit of a most high god would not be. To find what the nature what the Holy Spirit would be...we will have to go through many images of what Thee is NOT...and its likely that we wont find out that Thee is NOT those natures till later, maybe thousands of years later. Alot of the myths even, have meaning for us. It shows us how man in the past made understanding of things they could not explain in logical terms.

Things like 'what is god, who is god' are not things another man can explain to another man. The design of the 'word' is set up in places that it cant be tainted nor destroyed, its within the blueprint of the Universe, the cycles and orders of how nature works. Its in a place that forces each person to seek on their own path. If man is seeking for 'god' through other men and through manmade objects like books, they will only find a limited understanding of what the possibilities are. This still offers them something, for it offers them wisdom of things of Earth, things of flesh. Man cant understand things beyond Earth, things of Spirit....until they understand and can discern 'what is of Earth'. The design is set up perfect in the sense that man will learn things of flesh before learning things of Spirit.

Most of the teachings past down through man are simple analogies that hold a deeper meaning.

Like the tree of knowledge and the idea of adam and eve...its a much deeper analogies that holds a deeper understanding then a real man and a real woman. Most of the gnostic explanations of our world is analogies as well.

As time goes by, mankind will make new understandings and new analogies. We see how alot of old beliefs are coming to light again with a new spin on them and being called 'new age' beliefs. We are seeing how the return of 'christ' is understood by some to be a return that will occur in many beings, as a united consciousness event.

Man kinds understandings evolve with time and mankinds past understandings are just as important to us now for it helps us see how mankind personified things, like the stars and planets.

It is ironic to me that man has been trying to make a 'man' god for a very long time, in many different cultures. Its also neat how the names of beings, people, deities....have meanings within the name.

One of the most interesting words I find of interests that evolved from one culture to the next is the word Ra. In Egypt...Ra was the sun, the giver of life....and in Hebrew, the ones that came out of Egypt, Ra meant 'evil'. We see mankinds understandings evolve with time for each cultures own agenda.

Point being, many people get upset feeling they have been lied to and cheated out of truth. I dont think that back then when lets say the people were coming out of Egypt and trying to make their own understanding of things, that its a 'lie' of what they found god to be and the image of god to be...I think it makes sense that their idea of 'god' was very human like in nature, acted out of anger, acted with jealousy, and did not seem 'all knowing, just like we humans are.

I think all of the past is very important to us now, for it all gives us markers to discern from paths that are not so we may begin to understand, paths that are.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Also, every path is valid. Each path offers a person something to learn from. In the after life, after leaving the body complex, the mind complex will have understanding of why they believed what they did and what it offered them, be it truth or not. They will learn after leaving the body complex and will then be offered with what they are in need of. If they still need to learn of things of Earth and flesh, they will. If they are ready to learn things of Spirit, they will.

While in the body complex, man will only learn what that soul is ready for. If the soul is still needing to learn from the path of 'self' that soul will likely follow things like religions that fulfill their desire for 'rewards' in the after life for the 'self'. If that soul is ready to learn things of Spirit....that soul will likely find a deeper core nature of themselves, being able to discern a deeper purpose in life here, and live a path more for others then the self. These souls are usually more of a offering nature, willing to live a life for others then the 'self'.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by metalore
 


Do you believe in spiritual entities, invisible to us? Entities who have no "physical" bodies? Entities who exist in realms and dimensions we cannot perceive? Do you believe that when we die we ourselves become such entities, called "souls"? And that before we (for whatever reason) entered a "physical" body the first time (to later reincarnate in further "physical" bodies) already were such entities?

Or do you believe that the "material" is all there is and that we have no souls that survive the death of the body?
That there is nothing more in creation but men and their 3-dimensional "material" world?



edit on 11-9-2010 by memyself because: Grammar



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


Dear LeoVirgo,
what are we supposed to learn from holocausts, massacres and bloodshed? What are we supposed to learn from cruel ruthless "leaders" who make people do such things?

Are we, maybe, supposed to learn to finally open our eyes and try to see who is a proper and loving leader, and who is a selfish and fake one who only abuses us? So that we become able to finally say NO!!! to such things? To say: "I will not do that! I refuse!", even if we would have to die for it - knowing that our souls are immortal?

Does a real evolution and development of US not have to reach and go beyond that point? Unless it will continue for eons to revolve in similar circles...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by memyself
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


Dear LeoVirgo,
what are we supposed to learn from holocausts, massacres and bloodshed? What are we supposed to learn from cruel ruthless "leaders" who make people do such things?

Are we, maybe, supposed to learn to finally open our eyes and try to see who is a proper and loving leader, and who is a selfish and fake one who only abuses us? So that we become able to finally say NO!!! to such things? To say: "I will not do that! I refuse!", even if we would have to die for it - knowing that our souls are immortal?

Does a real evolution and development of US not have to reach and go beyond that point? Unless it will continue for eons to revolve in similar circles...


We learn from trial and error. Often, we learn from others paths that were tried, with failure or success. Yes, from the bloodshed's and massacres, we in the future will learn the paths that are not. Ruthless leaders show us that pride and greed are paths that are not.

To see the light that shines through the forest of trees, there has to be the forest to discern the light through. We have to have the dualities to decide and learn what is right.

We have to have the harshness of many experiences to discern the worth of offering, love, sharing, giving, understanding and empathy for others, ect....

We have to have duality in all ways to discern the path that is from the paths that are not. We learn from the past what we want to strive for.

We have to experience hate on the deepest levels to understand the worth of striving for love on the deepest levels.

We have to have darkness, to appriciate and see the worth, of the sunlight. We hve to have sorrow in its deepest levels, to understand the worth of joy in its true form.

We are not only here to learn things as individuals, we are here as a unit, to learn things as a species. Our past is very vital to our discerning in our future. It is a very slow process...learning. Watching and observing those that have lived and still live for things of Earth (pride, greed, lust ect) creates feelings and responses within us of what we believe is moral and sound ethics to live by as individuals and as a sphere, a species.

We will have to test the ways of division in the world many times, to see the worth of uniting.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


"We learn from trial and error." Is that what you would tell the one starving to death? To the rape victim? To yourself when someone stabs you in the back? Or when the nuclear bomb is falling down on your town?

Seems quite simplistic to me...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by memyself
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


"We learn from trial and error." Is that what you would tell the one starving to death? To the rape victim? To yourself when someone stabs you in the back? Or when the nuclear bomb is falling down on your town?

Seems quite simplistic to me...


I understand that people can not yet place themselves in others shoes, its very easy to get caught up in the victim scenarios.

We are one in Spirit....people harming other people will learn after leaving the body complex that they only harmed their own self.

It goes much deeper then just reacting to the hurt and sorrow. We all face eachother outside the body complex, we all stand up for or against eachother and then help eachother face what we need to still learn.

Many that are in a role of suffering have offered themselves to be in such a role....they offer themselves to be the mirror for other 'selves' to look into when ready to face truths. Its easy to get caught up with the perspective that we are all separate and individuals. The things that happen here are markers that will help us sift, weigh, and meassure our vibration, our nature. Through the Divine Eye we all learn what we are still in need of, like overcoming pride of being a 'self' or greed of being in a world of material gains ect....

The truth is so humbling once leaving the body complex and learning that all other selves, are a part of your....that only the love of the Spirit will help them stand in extreme cases. Even then, some take a path of 'creating' their own hell to deal with and accept the things they did while in the body complex.

I dont offer this as something for you to accept....for you should not accept it unless you understand it.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Hi LeoVirgo

I enjoyed your comments as a refreshing change from the common pie-throwing. Not that I mind pie-throwing, it's entertaining and a good substitute for open violence; but as a reality-seeking tool it's low on my list.

While not being an intrinsic part of the original subject of this thread, I feel, that abstract metaphysics without some epistemological considerations easily can end up as another set of 'absolutes', where sermons and preachings play an upgraded role of pies.

So I welcome your observations on manmade conclusions and 'trial and error' (which I interpretate as a form of pragmatism).

From my attempted a-doctrinal platform, I find manmade conclusions a great help. While I often disregard the conclusions per se, they present various ideological positions or perspectives, saving me much work. From an assortment of perspectives I can formulate better questions. And I've found, that better questions are a major part of finding better answers.

In my opinion, you presented some 'conclusions' yourself (though in a pleasant way, not making me look for pies to throw). If I understand you correctly, you refer to dualism as a necessary tool for achieving a 'higher' aim (i.e. this aim originates from ultimate reality or an alleged 'real God').

Whereas I feel more on safe ground when staying with observations of cosmos, from where I can make a qualified hypothesis on cosmogony. The gnostic cosmogony on a creator playing as a fake 'God' appeals to me, as it fits well in a more inclusive pattern, where both transcendent epinoia and science can have their say. And in gnostic cosmogony (or at least in some versions), dualism is a consequence of 'error' on the creator's (the demiurge's) part. And in this context dualism doesn't have any intrinsic 'higher' value. It's just a prison to break out of with the help of 'trial and error'.

In all respect, I consider speculations on a trans-cosmogonic ultimate reality or an ultimate 'God' as just that: Speculations. They can still have value, but I fear it's premature to promote them to 'truth'.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join