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.

 

We are made in the image of The Creator - The Creator is NOT The Destroyer (A New Philosophy Creativ

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
God, or The Creative, or even The Creative Spirit is the Creative Energy which creates things. All things come from This Source.

When The Creator creates, The Creation can create. This is called "being in the image of The Creator".

Unfortunately, sometimes The Creation will begin to destroy, and it will create a new energy of destruction. This is called "The Destroyer", also called "The Devil" in English. "Devil" or "Diabolos" means "Destroyer" in Greek, by the way.

In order to connect with The Creative Spirit of all creation, you must be creative. The feeling of being Creative is actually The Force of The Creator.

All of Existence is consciousness, anything that is created has the ability to create (no matter how minuscule it may be). When two things come together for the purpose of creating, this is called co-creation. If you run and trip over a rock, that was co-creation between yourself and the rock.

Destruction is a deviation from The Creator (The Energy Of Creativity).

The only thing that people can do for now to stop this energy from taking over is by trying to create a more creative world rather than a destructive one. Be an individual, be unique, allow your mind to flow and to express your creativity, try to help those who destroy REMEMBER that they are The Image of The Creative Energy and should be Creative instead of Destructive.

I was a bit skeptical about my interpretation of "it", until it orchestrated an experience to let me know without a shadow of a doubt, that I am seeing correctly.

I am calling "this" Creativism.




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
God, or The Creative, or even The Creative Spirit is the Creative Energy which creates things. All things come from This Source.

When The Creator creates, The Creation can create. This is called "being in the image of The Creator".

Unfortunately, sometimes The Creation will begin to destroy, and it will create a new energy of destruction. This is called "The Destroyer", also called "The Devil" in English. "Devil" or "Diabolos" means "Destroyer" in Greek, by the way.

In order to connect with The Creative Spirit of all creation, you must be creative. The feeling of being Creative is actually The Force of The Creator.

All of Existence is consciousness, anything that is created has the ability to create (no matter how minuscule it may be). When two things come together for the purpose of creating, this is called co-creation. If you run and trip over a rock, that was co-creation between yourself and the rock.

Destruction is a deviation from The Creator (The Energy Of Creativity).

The only thing that people can do for now to stop this energy from taking over is by trying to create a more creative world rather than a destructive one. Be an individual, be unique, allow your mind to flow and to express your creativity, try to help those who destroy REMEMBER that they are The Image of The Creative Energy and should be Creative instead of Destructive.

I was a bit skeptical about my interpretation of "it", until it orchestrated an experience to let me know without a shadow of a doubt, that I am seeing correctly.

I am calling "this" Creativism.



To create something means that you have to change/destroy something.

Your argument although well voiced is invalid.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet
To create something means that you have to change/destroy something.

Your argument although well voiced is invalid.


First off, 'change' and 'destroy' are not the same thing.

Second, you don't 'need' to destroy something, in order to create something else.

If you disagree, tell me why that is.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by mileysubet
To create something means that you have to change/destroy something.

Your argument although well voiced is invalid.


First off, 'change' and 'destroy' are not the same thing.

Second, you don't 'need' to destroy something, in order to create something else.

If you disagree, tell me why that is.



Seems like a simple concept to me. If you use anything to create something else then you have changed what it was thereby effectively destroying what it was.

Although you are creating something "new" you have changed or destroyed the old.

Life if is a cycle, always creating, always destroying, unless you are a god creating from "nothing".



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


You make a good point of how to view the world, although it still falls into the dichotomy of good/evil. The polarity of what constitutes good and evil is still, as far as I am concerned, constituted by moral relativism. One man's destroyer will be another man's creator. For example, whilst Bin Laden may have destroyed the World Trade Centre, some would argue that by doing that he created awareness for Islam and Al Qaeda.

I have not found anything which has led me to believe there are objective moral truths independent of God. Somehow I know what is right, and I know what I must do. It is when I do not act in accordance with this intuition that I would argue I become the destroyer you talk of, because I am undoing all the positive things myself and others are working towards in life.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashleygwsmart
reply to post by arpgme
 

One man's destroyer will be another man's creator. .


Sometimes, that doesn't make it right though.


Originally posted by ashleygwsmart
reply to post by arpgme
 

For example, whilst Bin Laden may have destroyed the World Trade Centre, some would argue that by doing that he created awareness for Islam and Al Qaeda.


Sure, but it had "destructive" energy, which is bad. If you want to create awareness for something you can just talk about it to people, not force people to convert to any religion or kill the people who don't believe.

This is what I mean by creation. I'm talking about creation without destruction.

You don't need to "kill" anyone to have a baby. You don't need to "kill" anything to plant a seed and grow a flower.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ashleygwsmart
 


So logically all morality dependent upon a god?

Following that logic means that those who do not believe in god can not exist, or that they posses no moral boundaries?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by ashleygwsmart
reply to post by arpgme
 

One man's destroyer will be another man's creator. .


Sometimes, that doesn't make it right though.


Originally posted by ashleygwsmart
reply to post by arpgme
 

For example, whilst Bin Laden may have destroyed the World Trade Centre, some would argue that by doing that he created awareness for Islam and Al Qaeda.


Sure, but it had "destructive" energy, which is bad. If you want to create awareness for something you can just talk about it to people, not force people to convert to any religion or kill the people who don't believe.

This is what I mean by creation. I'm talking about creation without destruction.

You don't need to "kill" anyone to have a baby. You don't need to "kill" anything to plant a seed and grow a flower.



Kill some one to produce offspring...

No but the energy required to reproduce requires food for the mother, which does require destroying or changing a form of life to something the mother can use to sustain the baby's life.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I see a reoccurring theme to your post, an anti-change theme if you will.

It occurs to me that you are attempting to justify a loss you have recently suffered. a loss that has angered you to the point of explanation by way of denying that loss is very much part of life.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet
I see a reoccurring theme to your post, an anti-change theme if you will.

It occurs to me that you are attempting to justify a loss you have recently suffered. a loss that has angered you to the point of explanation by way of denying that loss is very much part of life.


Now you are trying to project your own thoughts on to me. I am not attempting to "justify" anything. I'm telling you that The Creator does not create for creation to consume itself, and if that is happening, it has destructive energy around it.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet
I see a reoccurring theme to your post, an anti-change theme if you will.

It occurs to me that you are attempting to justify a loss you have recently suffered. a loss that has angered you to the point of explanation by way of denying that loss is very much part of life.


That was kinda off topic (at least I thought so). Reading both arguments is interesting, please continue like you did in the beginning, both of you have some good points, but i'm not yet sure which one has the final blow


|.SLO7H.|



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
You need to look a little more in to how Entropy functions in this dimension, then you will understand that to create something, change its energy matrix from one thing to another you must destroy the original matrix in order to create the other, its Thermodynamics 101. Remember there is allways a cost, you cant get something from nothing im afraid.
edit on 4-7-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mileysubet
 


No; morality exists but it is subjective, and always will be, unless there is proven to be a God whom has provided an objective basis. This is slightly off topic, but I was just saying that I believe that this objective morality can only be objective by the rule of acting in accordance with one's intuitive morality. Those who commit acts of evil have been corrupted by the (destructive) forces of greed, power and hate and are not following their true will. Thats just my two cents.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Yes but one man's right is another man's wrong. That is why morality is subjective.

I was being facetious, but my point was there is no creation without change, or rather the deconstruction of what went before it. In some ways destruction and creation are one and the same. They are certainly interchangeable concepts and not always polarised.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
There are 3 forces (3 jobs)

The creator only knows how to create, his job is to create. You use the creators energy when you are in creating mode.

The conservator preserves creation, it keeps creation alive and well, it feeds and cares about creation. We use this energy when we are caring about something or someone, when we are doing what is needed for life to live well.

The destroyers job is to destroy, to end creation. We use this energy when we want to destroy something allowing a future creation to take its place.

So guess what they all have a job to do, all forces are needed. They are all good and bad it depends of the use you make of the energy.

You can create a bad thing, preserve a bad situation and destroy a good thing.

All energy is neutral, all energy has the potential to be good used or bad used.

So i guess your theory is wrong IMHO.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Well done op ... the universe is that simple.

I'm astonished at the responses, plenty of ways to create without even using existing materials ... try smiling at a stranger ... you created good energy.

Mileysubet: you're grasping at straws ... and literally being the destructive force in opposition to this good creation of ... thought. Your scientific world view is as fatally flawed as an over religious one.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


"I'm astonished at the responses, plenty of ways to create without even using existing materials ... try smiling at a stranger ... you created good energy."

The stranger is there for you to smile at him/her, and yes there will be a better vibe there(good energy), but its still not something from nothing.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


He is not being destructive. If anything he is working towards the acquisition of truth. It is known as the Hegelian dialectic, in which you start at point A, and upon contact with B, you arrive at C. This is a continuous process which has been at work since the dawn of time.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
After reading your comments, I came to realize this.
Yes, in order to create something, something must be destroyed in a way. It depends on how you use it, what you destroy in order to create. Is that one thing you destroy really worth destroying? If you destroy that one thing, will people be affected in a negative way?

I think it's like this, it's ok to destroy in order to create, but are you more of a creator than destroyer? Or more a destroyer than creator? I think it's bad to be too much of a destroyer, because then you would not be creating as much, as the one that is much more creator.

But then again, that will balance itself, because if someone destroys, and doesn't intend to create from that, another being will use that and create instead. :S

The best thing would be if everyone had equal amount of creating and destroying, then certain people wouldn't seem so evil. I think that balance would be much more better, and loving.

|.SLO7H.|



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
OP, you've got another pair of opposites there, and just like yin and yang, creation and destruction are orchestrated by a higher harmony, a higher unity. Its as if there is a hidden alliance. Transcend the pair to be in harmony with the Tao. There is a little bit of yin in yang, and a little bit of yang in yin. Hence the white and black dots.

Sometimes yin becomes so yin it changes to yang, and sometimes yang becomes so yang it changes to yin. Change is the only constant. It's like a sine wave. Be in accord with the ups and downs.

Having said that, sometimes that which looks like destruction is merely renovation.


edit on 4-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join