The Truth Concerning What Humans Worship As God

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.

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


I agree, I am a part of this Source. And to go even further, there is no ending to said soul/s.

I believe in sharing and while I believe he indeed shares knowledge, the entire spectrum may not for me to know just yet until I have completed a task/tasks but I have no idea whereas He may indeed give me all I want to know in my truer sense but then again what would I do back home if there is nothing to learn.

Sharing in the love may be different than sharing within his own Godhead...or mind. I am not sure I could handle that in my truer sense....time will tell though.

I've read the first edition of your book NorEaster and I also provided some feedback in one of your older threads. I think you'd be better off using simple analogies to try to explain some of the concepts to people. For instance, your concept of the PHC can be translated into the notion that self-awareness and human consciousness is separate from identity. Identity is something that's built based on experiences in an environment (as you refer to it an informational continuum "RC" or a "full" reality confine).

While it's absolutely true that this is the case, it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of something more grandiose like the concept of god or God (depending on if you're pluralistic or monotheistic). The most general quality that can be ascribed to the concept of a god is incredible, if not complete, power over a specific domain of reality. If we were Greek's we'd point to the pantheon and shiver in fear at the awesomeness of Zeus and his all too human sense of right and wrong. If we're Christian mystics our monotheistic tendencies would lead us to envision an all powerful, all knowing, ever present, and wholly beneficent creator.

The last definition has the making of a general conception of an all powerful deity. The concept of a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Something that can overcome all cardinal, ordinal, and dualistic limitations of reality. Though a person who's a deist is more than likely to believe this god isn't necessarily omni-benevolent, but would likely concede the first three qualities are a requirement for the individualized "god" to become a "God."

This parallel to mathematical primitives like cardinality, ordinality, and duality is important because it gives us a mathematical way to start to talk about what a God might quantitatively be capable of. Going back to great thinkers like Georg Cantor or Newton. They typically used flowery language describing God as absolute infinity, the universal set (the set that includes all sets including itself) and as capable of creating dualistic monism (unifying all things).

Where you're going to run into conflict (as you have seen in this thread) is that you're trying to redefine "God" as a totality, based on your understanding of human consciousness as a state of beingness or collection of data as an identity based on a series of circumstances a person has to go through in life in physical reality, rather than based on innate capabilities and qualities that are usually taken for granted when people think about God. Also how is your model any different from pantheism with a nod to biocentrism? Numerous philosophers like Sartre (who you seem to respect as an existentialist) and others have tried to make the statement that Decartes idea of "I think therefore I am" is actually incorrect in that there's a pre-step.

That pre-step is I cognize or will, and *that* leads to a thought (which is different from perception and information). So this pre-step is closer to the concept of human sapientness. However others have noted that this comes close to an infinite regress. Can we always say there's one more step before? Some people would say yes. For instance, a person who's in a coma still shows brain activity, but many of these people when they come out only describe dreams with a lack of internal conscious thought. This is obviously still a state of being and so some people would say this is a type of consciousness just not self-directed.

So my point here is that cognitive scientists recognize there are many states of and order graphs to consciousness and some fringe biologists like Rupert Sheldrake even advocate Morphic fields (which you appear to draw from). You seem to be trying to synthesize and to define these different fields and states up to and even after death and extrapolating about the nature of the larger framework. No secular audience is going to buy this. To better accomplish what you're attempting, you might want to sit down with a transpersonal psychiatrist to help build up case data and diagrams. You'll hear all sorts of crazy things (like how people have dreamt of themselves as an object, such as a hat). Though even if you build up an evidential basis for the concept, to try to define the internal state of something that's a God based on accounts of mystical experiences (people seeing a light at the end of the tunnel) isn't going to convince others that an eternal conscious intellect (which is supposition in its own right) can have any defined characteristics beyond what we're willing to conjecture based on our own human experiences and subconscious premonitions.

So while I agree with the idea that there are sets of information that build on each other in a differentiated environment (this is important). And while I'm tentatively even willing to agree that human consciousness can probably be stripped naked of identity to the point of something like a PHC. I think that will only ever tell us about ourselves. For those who believe we are god or that we can eventually rise to such a level (ex.), then and only under that condition does your model have anything to say about the nature of a deity, but that's a fairly large caveat and should probably be stipulated in advance.

Originally posted by MamaJ

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.

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

I agree, I am a part of this Source. And to go even further, there is no ending to said soul/s.

I believe in sharing and while I believe he indeed shares knowledge, the entire spectrum may not for me to know just yet until I have completed a task/tasks but I have no idea whereas He may indeed give me all I want to know in my truer sense but then again what would I do back home if there is nothing to learn.

Sharing in the love may be different than sharing within his own Godhead...or mind. I am not sure I could handle that in my truer sense....time will tell though.

The Questions never end! Thank God!

"The birth of a question is what begins the Circle of Life and the answer completes the circle, for another question to be born from, to continue the circle forever." - Old Toad Proverb


Ribbit

Ps: Confucius say, "Never pick nose with tampon."

Pps: Ever notice Confucius' name? Con-Fuci-Us.

Originally posted by MamaJ

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.

"I and the father are one". "Before Abraham ever was I AM."

So he was also saying that "he" was one with God, but I don't believe he was speaking of himself as Jesus of Nazareth, but from the perspective of a new identity which he came to have after his initiation by John the Baptist, and the double dose of spirit he recieved as a result.

reply to post by Beamish


That was me, I called you kitty eyes yesterday in the Defenders of Earth thread. George Lucas channeled the Sith from that guy. Your avatar makes me feel a little drunk to tell you the truth. LOL.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

How could a mere man be "God" or how could the human form contain, without measure by divine proportion and extension of the eternal Godhead, the fullness of the spirit of God?

This may sound rather solipsistic I suppose, but it's not outside the realm of possible that the human being, as the "last who is first" could very well be the crowning glory of an evolutionary eternal resurrence, if only in potentia, or in JC's case, fully self realized in the fullness of time and history (fully in formed). That is if we consider the possibility that the entire cosmic evolutionary process is a type of non-local, holographic phenomenon.

Even still, thinking ABOUT such things, doesn't really give us the experience that Jesus (and God) intended, it's not the thing itself, just the model, not the real love, which is still accessible to this very day!

P.S. It is for these reasons that I call myself an "evolutionary Christian mystic".

What I like about it is it's in perfect alignment with modern scientific understanding, with the exception, perhaps of the "miracles", then again, for God all things are possible and given enough time, eventually even probable, and therefore actual, plus they serve as allegories, whether literally true or not, but some were likely true, there was just so much talk of Jesus' good works, even of ancient historians referring to him as a "sorcerer".

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Feel free to compare these two statements:

The initiator of our reality has that same logical relationship with this reality. It simply can't inhale its own author.

One comprehends Everything One can render while passing through Every occasion of the Universe.

I don't really see anything in the 2nd statement that relates - in any way at all - to the 1st statement. In fact, I can't really say that I understand the core notion of the 2nd statement. Maybe you can make it more clearly defined. Maybe it's the usage of the word render? Maybe it's the capital letters in the wrong places?

RENDER
ren·der1   [ren-der]
verb (used with object)
1. to cause to be or become; make: to render someone helpless.
2. to do; perform: to render a service.
3. to furnish; provide: to render aid.
4. to exhibit or show (obedience, attention, etc.).
5. to present for consideration, approval, payment, action, etc., as an account.
dictionary.reference.com...

Originally posted by MamaJ

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

reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Is it me or is that not what the Op defined as truth?

This truth about physical existence results in the Informational Continuum, and each "full" reality confine is wholly and accurately defined by its own Informational Continuum.

You nailed it. Thanks.

Of course, that doesn't make the Informational Continuum a conscious and dynamic intelligent supreme being.

reply to post by NorEaster


"If what we know of existence was initiated by an intelligent mind, then that mind does not, and cannot, physically exists within the confines of that which it initiated." Wrong. If you really want to understand this reality study two things.

DIMETHYLTRYPTAMINE

DR MICHAEL NEWTON

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Feel free to compare these two statements:

The initiator of our reality has that same logical relationship with this reality. It simply can't inhale its own author.

One comprehends Everything One can render while passing through Every occasion of the Universe.

I don't really see anything in the 2nd statement that relates - in any way at all - to the 1st statement. In fact, I can't really say that I understand the core notion of the 2nd statement. Maybe you can make it more clearly defined. Maybe it's the usage of the word render? Maybe it's the capital letters in the wrong places?

RENDER
ren·der1   [ren-der]
verb (used with object)
1. to cause to be or become; make: to render someone helpless.
2. to do; perform: to render a service.
3. to furnish; provide: to render aid.
4. to exhibit or show (obedience, attention, etc.).
5. to present for consideration, approval, payment, action, etc., as an account.
dictionary.reference.com...

If you don't mind, I'll interject for him.

"The initiator of our reality has that same logical relationship with this reality. It simply can't inhale its own author."

"One comprehends Everything One can render while passing through Every occasion of the Universe."

On the later, One comprehends Everything, including its passage through Every occasion of the Universe but the Initiator/Author, as One also, comprehends not itself?

Clear contradictions!

The Author cannot be lesser than their Book!

Ribbit

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by MamaJ

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

reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Is it me or is that not what the Op defined as truth?

This truth about physical existence results in the Informational Continuum, and each "full" reality confine is wholly and accurately defined by its own Informational Continuum.

You nailed it. Thanks.

Of course, that doesn't make the Informational Continuum a conscious and dynamic intelligent supreme being.

edit on 10/26/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Your 'Informational Continuum' is a Time-Warp Loop to infinity, thus, not the Collective Consciousness behind this Matrix or the Universe.

Ribbit

Ps: This video applies to your 'Informational Continuum' quite well!

video.google.com...#

I understand what you're trying to say, and even then it's gibberish, just your delivery, not your idea.

You need to refine your ideas into simpler terms because it seems like you're trying too hard to sound like a new age intellectual and nobody will ever care or be able to practically apply this info in their lives if they need a dictionary for evey other word.

This is by no means discounting what you have to convey, just constructive critisicsm.

Originally posted by Darkblade71
Anyways, a simple explanation from my guide was this:

"The spirit world is full of every kind of energy you can think of and things you cannot think of.
Energy and consciousness co-exist within each other as one being.
this being is what we call "God".

The great consciousness acts much like a diamond.
It is filled with light, and within that light resides everything that was, is, or possibly will be.
All things are possible in spirit.
It is a hologram of consciousness."

That is the first time I have ever openly tried to ask my guides any sort of information like this, as I was asking about spirit guides but my guide felt it necessary to add that part about the creator.

Maybe I am just nuts, but....damn.

I take everything with a grain of salt, thanks for adding a sprinkle

I understand that your guide believes this to be true, and I also understand that most of those humans that have passed honestly believe the traditional notions concerning God and the identity of God. This - from what I've learned - is the issue that I'm trying to address.

When a person passes, he/she is no more and no less than the person they spent their life creating. Since the body is now gone and in a state of decay, what survives - if anything survives - can only be the personality of the individual. You, yourself, describe a spirit guide who is fully capable of intellectual rumination, and if this is true, then it stands to reason that the human being survives as intellectually cognizant as well. What is often assumed is that the passing event itself either flushes the individual with all knowledge of the truth concerning the nature of physical reality (on both sides of the divide), or it steals the experience of existence from the individual that has just passed, and hands it over to a nebulous, amorphous mass of identity-less "consciousness". The presence of your spirit guide suggests that the 2nd assumption is not true, since there'd be no spirit guide if all passed entities cease to exist as individual.

The 1st assumption definitely runs into a buzzsaw when one considers the existential protocols that would be required to instantly reconfigure the entire intellectual structure of the person that's just finished the life-long effort of crafting its unique Identity, in order to imbue that person with the require correction to their inevitable ignorance concerning the true nature of reality. And it's not even the instant reconfiguration of a lifetime of erroneous assumptions that is most troublesome, it's the violation of the primordial survival imperative "Identity" that causes the most trouble with this notion. In essence, the individual is - once the body has been removed from the balance of contributing factors - what that individual has established as the way he/she views reality and his/her place within that reality. Learning is one thing, but a complete scrubbing and reloading of that level of holistic perspective is akin to eliminating the individual that was created and replacing it with one that doesn't see anything from the same perspective.

What that suggests is that such a transformation doesn't occur upon corporeal death, and if that's true, then no one passes into eternity without all the ignorance and expectations gathered from a lifetime of social and cultural programming.

As for your spirit guide - given that such a guide exists, of course - I do know exactly who and what that guide is, and why it hangs around with you. Your guide was a corporeal human at one point, and he/she passed into the eternal realm with the same informational limitations as we all do. That guide knows what it knows to be true, but that's all your guide knows. Not all of it is true, but not all of it isn't. The tough part is determining which of it is true and which of it isn't.

Soooo... just going off the OP, what you're saying is... Everything simply is what it is, yet reality is what we view it to be because we are only capable of subjective projection in varying degrees? yes? no?

reply to post by MamaJ

 

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

reply to post by MamaJ

 

reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

reply to post by MamaJ

 

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

reply to post by Americanist

 

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

A full-on thread hijacking.

That's okay, none of you were offering anything worth a damn in response anyway.

Hopefully someone benefited from the opening post. If not, then that's okay too. I did what was required here, and that's all that really matters. No sense in spoiling the fun with any more responses.

Maybe you folks can make this a double-slit experiment debate thread?

I don't grasp all of what you claim.
However I'm thinking along some of those lines about the Heavy G.

Heavy G is something so alien from us that you really wouldn't be able to comprehend it.
And I think that it's level of consciousness is different from ours. Intelligent but not complete almost as if it knows everything but nothing at the same time.

Funky.

reply to post by NorEaster


Ack! I've been having the sneaking suspicion that when I'm done here I'm going to be working in the after life lately.
Your post kind of drives that suspicion home.
And it makes me nervous.
I have the fear the work to be done won't be pretty.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I've read the first edition of your book NorEaster and I also provided some feedback in one of your older threads. I think you'd be better off using simple analogies to try to explain some of the concepts to people.

You read my book? And you understood it?

Okay....

Two questions then....

What is the primary difference between TEC and HTEC and what was the fundamental requirement that brought that difference into physical manifestation?

and

What, specifically, is it that the SDI expresses, and what are the logical tenets that allow that expression to manifest as an existential whole?

Oh, and please don't copy and paste my own words into your reply. Put it into your own words. If you did read my book, and if you do understand what it details, then the answers should be pretty easy.

Thanks. I'll check back later.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I've read the first edition of your book NorEaster and I also provided some feedback in one of your older threads. I think you'd be better off using simple analogies to try to explain some of the concepts to people.

You read my book? And you understood it?

Okay....

Two questions then....

What is the primary difference between TEC and HTEC and what was the fundamental requirement that brought that difference into physical manifestation?

and

What, specifically, is it that the SDI expresses, and what are the logical tenets that allow that expression to manifest as an existential whole?

Oh, and please don't copy and paste my own words into your reply. Put it into your own words. If you did read my book, and if you do understand what it details, then the answers should be pretty easy.

Thanks. I'll check back later.

You gotta be kidding!

Guys like you and me I think we need to get out more, ya know?

The SDI, TEC and HTEC can surely wait.

JK!

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I've read the first edition of your book NorEaster and I also provided some feedback in one of your older threads. I think you'd be better off using simple analogies to try to explain some of the concepts to people.

You read my book? And you understood it?

Okay....

Two questions then....

What is the primary difference between TEC and HTEC and what was the fundamental requirement that brought that difference into physical manifestation?

and

What, specifically, is it that the SDI expresses, and what are the logical tenets that allow that expression to manifest as an existential whole?

Oh, and please don't copy and paste my own words into your reply. Put it into your own words. If you did read my book, and if you do understand what it details, then the answers should be pretty easy.

Thanks. I'll check back later.

You gotta be kidding!

Guys like you and me I think we need to get out more, ya know?

The SDI, TEC and HTEC can surely wait.

JK!

If that guy actually did read the book, then he knows exactly what those terms refer to. I had to shorthand things in order to prevent extensive digression. From what I read of his post, he's got no idea what my book is about. Especially since the "headline" itself - and the overwhelming implications of that "headline" - was not even mentioned. If he'd read it, he would've led off with that bit of controversy. Definitely if he'd wanted to school me by way of a detailed analysis of what my premise asserts. The truth is that I didn't recognize any of what he described. I'm wondering if he might've confused my book with someone else's book.

I don't know. Maybe this isn't the right community to bring this premise to? It presents itself as a gathering place of people seeking new breakthrough information, but as much as I try to see anything progressive in the majority of posters here, it's become fairly impossible to view anyone here as being open to anything new or revolutionary. Even the goofy stuff that's presented as original thought is deeply rooted in well-worn sci-fi plot themes.

The traffic is good, but it's a big board with lots of other forums. I think I've done as much as expected. Maybe more. I think I need to mull this over some.