Originally posted by InnerPeace2012
reply to post by JR MacBeth
I think I see where the problem came to be. The notion of God was given human characteristics, of which boredom was one of them. But who could have
blamed them. Thinking outside the box in those days, was dangerous, hence the establishment of secret societies that still exist to this day, well not
so secret anymore.
But nonetheless, the human characteristics attributed as God I believe is where the problem lies, as with most of our world religions. A
mistranslation, or perhaps and intentional foul up to cover the truth or simply knowledge used against humanity to enslave us.
The secret however being that we as individuals have the potential of being God. For we are offsprings from the same source, of which is all there
This of course brings us back to question TPTB and thier agenda, but that is another matter all together.
edit on 4-8-2011 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)
Thanks for the response, that wasn't quite what I was getting at, but can certainly be a problem of course.
One of the risks I took with my response was mentioning "New Age", and "God". That can be an automatic shut-off switch right there, especially in
a thread like this. One other poster responding to my post may have got caught that way. But, I'm sure I could have made my point clearer.
My point in bringing up "God" in a thread like this is precisely because the definitions of a divine being, start to converge when we begin
imagining things like "One Consciousness", or a "Higher Self", or an "Omega Point", etc.
That being the case, while we may be thinking of "different" things, in fact, upon closer inspection, if the "beings" in question share enough
characteristics, then we need only overcome the labels, to perhaps constructively find pertinent information that illuminates both.
In this case, our ancestors in the West had already spent many years thinking about the matter, at least in their terms. What I thought was
interesting was that they have already encountered the exact same problem the OP speaks of, and then offered their "solutions". If you buy the
notion that the ideas are in fact similar, then it seems that we could stand to learn something.
To recap, the ancients contemplated "divinity", at the time as "apart" from themselves of course, and a pantheon was born. Additional critical
thinking resulted in a "oneness" that was expressed in monotheism. This oneness led to the recognition of potential difficulties, the prime
difficulty being that our experience seems to regard relationship
as very important, and yet, a Oneness seemed to imply that such a thing was
Of course, there were other intuitions besides the idea that such a being might be "lonely", such as boredom, and ultimately, misery, terms the OP
used, and which seem very much to the point.
Are these intuitions automatically of less value, when we realize our anthropomorphic tendencies may have been at work?
Not necessarily, and this might be an important point. While there certainly are very "human" concepts that we might erroneously attribute to
deity, or an Omega Point consciousness, that would be well beyond some of our naive notions, is it possible that there are indeed issues that would
remain, for any
Difficult to imagine of course, with our limitations, but are there perhaps issues that are "of the essence", pointing to existential realities that
are perhaps disturbing at some level?
Enter some "solutions", such as the attempt to re-insert relationship within deity, post monotheism, i.e. the Trinity.
Again, my use of the term "deity" shouldn't be such a stumbling block I would hope. The fact is, if we are all "one" in some greater sense, that
our future selves are in fact "One" at some imagined "Omega" point, that exits time, and therefore could inform it's past, then we are not
dealing with an entity substantially different than what we usually consider "god". For all practical considerations, these entities have
I think this is a more useful approach then creating a false dichotomy, as some seem so apt to do. They imagine that they have put distance between
their modern enlightened notions, and the ignorant past, all the while missing the point that only terminology and labels may have changed. The
fundamental ideas may have been there from a very early stage.
I often find value in what our ancestors had discovered so long ago, and I think others might also. But, we must get to the point where we can make
connections, read what they left us, and see that our "modern" problems, might not be so modern after all.