The Truth Concerning What Humans Worship As God

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ



Possibilities compounded by probabilities makes the mathematical inclusions and exclusions infinite. BTW - observation is an excellent werd to use but what faculties dew you use to observe with? Ribbit
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


Ha! In regards to your first sentence.... No Sh$$ Sherlock. Thanks for expanding my thoughts into your own spin.

Observation is an excellent word isn't it. Why ask about the faculties I use....thought you were all knowing.


All joking aside, I would hate for you to assume so by which faculties I observe is through my being of consciousness.



How dew you think your Being of Consciousness or Consciousnes of Being came about?


Ribbit




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Blue Shift
 





The truth is, God is what people say it is. Even if they're wrong.


True...

Yet you can still admit the effort behind nature is indicative of its Creator.


A smartalic?


Ribbit


If we use you as evidence... The proof is in the pudding!


Pee Pudd'n?


Ribbit


If by pee, you mean spot on... Sure!



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Blue Shift
 





The truth is, God is what people say it is. Even if they're wrong.


True...

Yet you can still admit the effort behind nature is indicative of its Creator.


A smartalic?


Ribbit


If we use you as evidence... The proof is in the pudding!


Pee Pudd'n?


Ribbit


If by pee, you mean spot on... Sure!


Pee on, is Spot on!


You don't want me to expound upon Pee Pudd'n.


Ribbit



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   


How dew you think your Being of Consciousness or Consciousnes of Being came about?
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


Awww.....thanks for asking. I think
((((HUGS))))

To answer your question, my being was first a thought and said thought manifested.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Jesus, who's spiritual genius I certainly admire, seemed to think of God as a living ideal of perfection, wholeness and integrity who's form and function transcends circumstance, and is ultimately worth dying for to uphold, where principals must be proven right by their application. Of note also is his reframe of God to the woman at the well, when they were talking about differing traditions of worship "we Samaritans worship on the mountain, but you Jews in the temple" ie: we have nothing in common re: God, to which JC replied "God is spirit and truth, who seeks worshippers who worship in spirit and in truth. The time is therefore coming, indeed it is already here, when people will not need to worship God either on the mountain or in the temple". We also know of course that at that time, the temple has been corrupted by a variety of influences (Imperialist Empire) and misconceptions (what is righteous?). At the same time, for metaphor and allegory, Jesus borrowed liberally from nature as manifestations of God ie "look to the bird they neither labor nor spin yet the heavenly father feeds them" or "the wind blows where it pleases, but you don't know from where it comes or where it goes. So it is for all who are born from above, by the spirit."
Much of his teachings, in my mind, and understanding, which is reasonable, also seem to point to God as a type of first/last cause, where the will to action, and therefore creation is the will to love, which Jesus described in terms of having spiritual food that no one else seemed to know about or understand.

Edit: None of it however involved any sort of purely rationalized, metaphysical construct of thinking about God. Instead the "kingdom of God" was pointed to via a number of parables, each of which involved things intrinsic to human experience which could be understood from a variety of angles, perspectives and degrees of knowledge and understanding. The parable of the sower here comes to mind, which Jesus illuminated to his desciples who he was initiating, as representing the son of man who sows the word in the field of mankind who are at varying degrees of ignorance and receptivity, most of whom reject the word immediately ie: in one ear and out the other. Seems little has changed.


edit on 26-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Jesus, who's spiritual genius I certainly admire, seemed to think of God as a living ideal of perfection, wholeness and integrity who's form and function transcends circumstance, and is ultimately worth dying for to uphold where principals must be proven right by their application. Of note also is his reframe of God to the woman at the well, when they were talking about differing traditions of worship "we Samaritans worship on the mountain, but you Jews in the temple" ie: we have nothing in common re: God, to which JC replied "God is spirit and truth, who seeks worshippers who worship in spirit and in truth. The time is therefore coming, indeed it is already here, when people will not need to worship God either on the mountain or in the temple". We also know of course that at that time, the temple has been corrupted by a variety of influences (Imperialist Empire) and misconceptions (what is righteous?). At the same time, for metaphor and allegory, Jesus borrowed liberally from nature as manifestations of God ie "look to the bird they neither labor nor spin yet the heavenly father feeds them" or "the wind blows where it pleases, but you don't know from where it comes or where it goes. So it is for all who are born from above, by the spirit."
Much of his teachings, in my mind, and understanding, which is reasonable, also seem to point to God as a type of first/last cause, where the will to action, and therefore creation is the will to love which Jesus described in terms of having spiritual food that no one else seemed to know about or understand.

Edit: None of it however involved any sort of purely rationalized, metaphysical construct of thinking about God. Instead the "kingdom of God"was pointed to via a number of parables, each of which involved things intrinsic to human experience and understood from a variety of angles, perspectives and degrees of knowledge and understanding. The parable of the sower here comes to mind, which Jesus illuminated to his desciples who he was initiating, as representing the son of man who sows the word in the field of mankind who are at varying degrees of ignorance and receptivity.



edit on 26-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


This is my way of thinking as well, although open to other beliefs. I am inspired by the history of JC and what he was all about and the things in which he is said, to have said.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 

I've also considered that love, to be love, must not only be free, but apparent, in action. It must be made manifest, it must be communicated, to be made REAL.

In this way, the loving gnosis of Jesus Christ, to me, represents God as the will to love, entering the frame of human being and becoming, as much to remind us who we really are as children of a loving God, as to remind God of his own true nature as the transcedant Absolute Godhead (first father).

I believe this was accomplished, and that therefore, especially among those who bring JC to mind, and heart, that we DO know who God is, and likewise God also knows who and what he is as the Absolute, or the Transcendant.

The immanent Godhead, however, as JC pointed out, via the relativity of human being ie: to love neighbor as self, is NO LESS IMPORTANT, than the commandment to love God above all. This has extraordinary impications imo, as to my previous idea about God as a type of felt experience, and not something approached or arrived at by reason alone (which is utterly impossible to begin with!).

What it means is that we can literally practice God, experience God, share God and know God, without ever once even mentioning the word "God" which in our day and age is sure to immediately bias a lot of people, to use a boxing analogy, it might be called "leading with the chin!"


"I have only one commandment. Love one another as I have loved you. By your love for one another, people will see and know that you are my disciples."
~ JC, last supper.

And so I have to humbly disagree with the premise of the title of this thread, as I back down the mountain of ascending conceptualizations and theorizing about God, to live God by loving God, self and neighbor as self. I would rather know more of God, than to try to figure God out, something I've come to conclude is a fools errand, and no insult intended to the OP by that remark. God's terms are entirely sufficient for me, and his framework, fair and reasonable, and the example he sent into the world of humanity, an authentic model of leadership, once properly "grokked". Why would I discard that and demand that God adhere to my "terms", and to a model of my conception? To me that's both utterly absurd, and exceptionally arrogant, and well outside of alignment with the humility of Christ, for whom his great virtue, was power, restrained, and his great wisdom and the source of his power, that of "trust and obey" (the will to love at all cost except at the cost of love itself ie: God as love).

edit on 26-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ



How dew you think your Being of Consciousness or Consciousnes of Being came about?
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


Awww.....thanks for asking. I think
((((HUGS))))

To answer your question, my being was first a thought and said thought manifested.


Have you ever wondered when (moment in Time) said Being (you, kNot God/Source) manifested itself?


Ribbit


Ps: I'm pick'n your brain to try to figure out why you think the way you dew.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   


Text
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 



Have you ever wondered when (moment in Time) said Being (you, kNot God/Source) manifested itself? Ribbit Ps: I'm pick'n your brain to try to figure out why you think the way you dew.


I see that. I appreciate and welcome that approach.


I do not really question the when as it doesn't matter to me in the entire scheme of things. The fact that it is ....is enough for me.

If I expand on the thought of when then I must tell you my thoughts.

My answer:

In the beginning. (time)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MamaJ
 

I've also considered that love, to be love, must not only be free, but apparent, in action. It must be made manifest, it must be communicated, to be made REAL.

In this way, the loving gnosis of Jesus Christ, to me, represents God as the will to love, entering the frame of human being and becoming, as much to remind us who we really are as children of a loving God, as to remind God of his own true nature as the transcedant Absolute Godhead (first father).

I believe this was accomplished, and that therefore, especially among those who bring JC to mind, and heart, that we DO know who God is, and likewise God also knows who and what he is as the Absolute, or the Transcendant.

The immanent Godhead, however, as JC pointed out, via the relativity of human being ie: to love neighbor as self, is NO LESS IMPORTANT, than the commandment to love God above all. This has extraordinary impications imo, as to my previous idea about God as a type of felt experience, and not something approached or arrived at by reason alone (which is utterly impossible to begin with!).

What it means is that we can literally practice God, experience God, share God and know God, without ever once even mentioning the word "God" which in our day and age is sure to immediately bias a lot of people, to use a boxing analogy, it might be called "leading with the chin!"


"I have only one commandment. Love one another as I have loved you. By your love for one another, people will see and know that you are my desciples."
~ JC, last supper.

And so I have to humbly disagree with the premise of the title of this thread, as I back down the mountain of ascending conceptualizations and theorizing about God, to live God by loving God, self and neighbor as self. I would rather know more of God, than to try to figure God out, something I've come to conclude is a fools errand, and no insult intended to the OP by that remark. God's terms are entirely sufficient for me, and his framework, fair and reasonable, and the example he sent into the world of humanity, an authentic model of leadership, once properly "grokked". Why would I discard that and demand that God adhere to my terms, and to a model of my conception, to me that's both absurd and arrogant, and outside of alignment with the humility of Christ, for whom his virtue was power, restrained.


edit on 26-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


Yes, this is what Jesus teaches us with his actions and words via History books. For me...it is not only read, but when read it is felt with deep admiration and deep inspiration. A relationship has formed out of the Love given that has been made REAL. I totally agree.

The problem arises (for me) when a Christian begins to (try) define every passage because each within its own right will be based on perception had and or received. Thus, there are many truths but the one truth abides within all of us and does not deny the reality of the existence....while we do. For this reason I am a Jesus lover but not a Christian. Why should I confine myself to a label that holds many beliefs the Christian takes on, This is something I have trouble with. The labeling.

I asked a Facebook friend who is a minister what his thoughts were in regards to a verse he posted that is from John.


Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58 KJV)


He answered me by saying:


He is the Alpha and the Omega, the begining and the end. Jesus was before the foundation of the earth was spoke into existence. He is God the great I AM.


When I read that passage I think Jesus is saying that before Abraham ....he existed via reincarnation OR that he was indeed around before the creation of Abraham or He was Abraham. I do not take it to mean he is God.

SO many meanings can become of a word, let alone an entire sentence.

I can easily say we were all here before the foundation of the earth was spoke into existence. I could actually go on to say that we existed when the thought became a manifestation of our said existence. To assume Jesus is God is bold imo.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ



Text
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 



Have you ever wondered when (moment in Time) said Being (you, kNot God/Source) manifested itself? Ribbit Ps: I'm pick'n your brain to try to figure out why you think the way you dew.


I see that. I appreciate and welcome that approach.


I do not really question the when as it doesn't matter to me in the entire scheme of things. The fact that it is ....is enough for me.

If I expand on the thought of when then I must tell you my thoughts.

My answer:

In the beginning. (time)


The Time-Before-Time Paradox discusses the fact that Time has to occur for anything to happen, including creation, so Time cannot create itself for Time would have to exist to create itself, so there is kNOw beginning of Time, it is Infinite in beginning and end, just like the Space of the Universe.


However, your Soul does have a beginning but because WE are a Child of Infinite, WE have no end.


I find it interesting that the Math World thinks Infinity equals Zero, when in fact, Infinite equals Zion.


Dew you see the werd similarity?


Ribbit


Ps: Infinity does kNot equal Zero.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   


The Time-Before-Time Paradox discusses the fact that Time has to occur for anything to happen, including creation, so Time cannot create itself for Time would have to exist to create itself, so there is kNOw beginning of Time, it is Infinite in beginning and end, just like the Space of the Universe. However, your Soul does have a beginning but because WE are a Child of Infinite, WE have no end. I find it interesting that the Math World thinks Infinity equals Zero, when in fact, Infinite equals Zion. Dew you see the werd similarity? Ribbit Ps: Infinity does kNot equal Zero.
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


I can look out my window and depending on which way I look, a different image will appear. So is my belief system....it changes within each time frame, yet stays the same never the less.

IF (big IF) I look at MY being separate from THE source of my creation then when THE source thought me into creation is when "MY time" began. IF I look at the source within myself then there is simply time fragmented into an absolute of One or could be zero....which imo would be void.

Time to me (as of right now within my perception) is not defined as past, present and future. It incorporates the ALL. I look at God right now as a spirit that moves and doesn't stop moving meaning the future is not had (in a sense) because as it moves....it changes "with time".

In conclusion:

We are all fragments of time within (and possibly) outside a moving spirit that does not have an ending. It just IS and therefore WE are.




Time, it is Infinite in beginning and end


This too is very possible and I have thought this as well... Time as we know it has a beginning an and end because that is how we think. However it could be no beginning=no time... No ending=no time or
Time has always and always will be time.

edit on 26-10-2011 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ



The Time-Before-Time Paradox discusses the fact that Time has to occur for anything to happen, including creation, so Time cannot create itself for Time would have to exist to create itself, so there is kNOw beginning of Time, it is Infinite in beginning and end, just like the Space of the Universe. However, your Soul does have a beginning but because WE are a Child of Infinite, WE have no end. I find it interesting that the Math World thinks Infinity equals Zero, when in fact, Infinite equals Zion. Dew you see the werd similarity? Ribbit Ps: Infinity does kNot equal Zero.
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


I can look out my window and depending on which way I look, a different image will appear. So is my belief system....it changes within each time frame, yet stays the same never the less.

IF (big IF) I look at MY being separate from THE source of my creation then when THE source thought me into creation is when "MY time" began. IF I look at the source within myself then there is simply time fragmented into an absolute of One or could be zero....which imo would be void.

Time to me (as of right now within my perception) is not defined as past, present and future. It incorporates the ALL. I look at God right now as a spirit that moves and doesn't stop moving meaning the future is not had (in a sense) because as it moves....it changes "with time".

In conclusion:

We are all fragments of time within (and possibly) outside a moving spirit that does not have an ending. It just IS and therefore WE are.


What if when you were "Thought" into existence (your Soul), you were instantaneously connected to the very Consciousness that created you? Would kNot your experience encompass ALL Time, even including the Creator's Time in existence before "our" Time, if such a Time before our (WE the Souls) existence existed?

Just a hypothetical Thought that I hope you will look at and answer hypothetically.


Ribbit



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
"I was with you (first father) from before the very foundation of the world!"
~ JC



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   


What if when you were "Thought" into existence (your Soul), you were instantaneously connected to the very Consciousness that created you? Would kNot your experience encompass ALL Time, even including the Creator's Time in existence before "our" Time, if such a Time before our (WE the Souls) existence existed? Just a hypothetical Thought that I hope you will look at and answer hypothetically.
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


I believe I do have said connection outside my body like an umbilical cord. This is how I perceive it anyway.

It would encompass ALL time but only IF I was able to glimpse or BE that of the creators soul/existence and I cannot make sense of that one. It is hard for me to conceive the idea that I AM ...GOD because I feel as though I AM a mere image or part of God...but not the creator for the thought of being God would indeed mean I am him, and I think that is a bold idea as of right now.

Time was first looked into by me when I was very young and I still have issues wrapping the mind around the different concepts.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
"I was with you (first father) from before the very foundation of the world!"
~ JC


So are you saying Jesus is saying he is God?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist


The truth is, God is what people say it is. Even if they're wrong.


True...
Yet you can still admit the effort behind nature is indicative of its Creator.


If you mean apparently ultimately pointless, then I suppose you're right.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ



What if when you were "Thought" into existence (your Soul), you were instantaneously connected to the very Consciousness that created you? Would kNot your experience encompass ALL Time, even including the Creator's Time in existence before "our" Time, if such a Time before our (WE the Souls) existence existed? Just a hypothetical Thought that I hope you will look at and answer hypothetically.
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


I believe I do have said connection outside my body like an umbilical cord. This is how I perceive it anyway.

It would encompass ALL time but only IF I was able to glimpse or BE that of the creators soul/existence and I cannot make sense of that one. It is hard for me to conceive the idea that I AM ...GOD because I feel as though I AM a mere image or part of God...but not the creator for the thought of being God would indeed mean I am him, and I think that is a bold idea as of right now.

Time was first looked into by me when I was very young and I still have issues wrapping the mind around the different concepts.


You are a finite "part of God" and kNot God!
God is the Infinite, our Soul is a finite piece of that Magnificent Infinite.


What's your take on Sharing?

Dew you think God would have anything to hide from "its" true children, WE the Souls?

And since our Soul is indestructable, how could WE possibly hurt one another with the knowledge God possesses?

If two heads are better than One, then would a few quintillion heads be better than two, if the "Mind/Counsciousness" can handle it?

Could you think of a way to be closer to God than to share God's Mind as One, but as a Child of God, kNot as God?


Ribbit


Ps: An umbilical cord is a great way to envision the direct Connection from this Life to your Soul, and then to God/Source from there.
You might say your Soul is the true "middleman" to God.
However, I realize that may go against your take but just think about it.
edit on 26-10-2011 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
"I was with you (first father) from before the very foundation of the world!"
~ JC

So are you saying Jesus is saying he is God?

No, I interpret this as Jesus saying that God is love, and that love to be love involves a relationship between two or more, as that between a beloved and beloved other, and that this love, as his true essence and character, or his real and authentic self, is timeless and spaceless (eternal). In this area the Hindu Mystics, who studied the depths of the human being for 1000's of years, would agree. They call it "Bhakti" which is the love of dovoted selfless service. There is no Atma without Brahma and vice versa.
"It always takes two to tango."
And it always takes a conscious being, to join the circle.
"To be is to be percieved."

edit on 26-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   


No, I interpret this as Jesus saying that God is love, and that love to be love involves a relationship between two or more, as that between a beloved and beloved other, and that this love, as his true essence and character, or his real and authentic self, is timeless and spaceless (eternal). In this area the Hindu Mystics, who studied the depths of the human being for 1000's of years, would agree. They call it "Bhakti" which is the love of dovoted selfless service. There is no Atma without Brahma and vice versa. "It always takes two to tango." And it always takes a conscious being, to join the circle. "To be is to be percieved."
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Great,,,,so then the Great I AM is not to be mistaken as the son, Jesus. Jesus said, "God is love" and I believe him.
. Just wanted clarification in regards to your thought processing.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join