God's Life among You

reply to post by backcase

There is no need to argue where there is love. And I don't see an argument as simply stating that I am wrong, what I wrote speaks for itself and I am sorry that you get offended, but I don't need to argue because I know.

There is is, right there. You "know." Based on what exactly do you "know?" And be aware, there are people in here that know the Bible a great deal better than the average internet preacher. I don't think you "know" at all, in fact, I think you suppose, and assume. Don't you agree?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by backcase

 

You wrote your proposition "God's Life among you" in the philosophy section of ATS, and proceeded to assert your entire belief system minus any argument. I'm your philosophical hurdle. I'm here to show you that you haven't shown any arguments, and thus, you are wrong. "Philosophically" present your case. Do it as literarily as you please; but if you don't expect a rebuttal, I should ask why you're writing your poetry here? If you wish to discuss religion with other religious people, or don't wish to have any opposition to your assertions, do so in the appropriate forum.

Yes, this does sound strange being in the Philosophy threads, after all, don't most Christians look down on philosophy? I think this thread was made to cause argument and gain rebuttals to make the OP into a martyr, a tenet of their "faith."

The God and Goddess that I know and love do not get involved in the affairs of humankind, they do not perform favours, answer fervent prayers, (all human willpower anyway) nor do they "live among me, around me, near me, or within me. I am already a part of them, and I am here to learn, not to bow down and supplicate, and act as a slave to any god, any Goddess, or anything that demands my worship or service, or inclusion in a religion, church, or cult.
To the OP:

What kind of arrogance, of self-importance, of narcissism, does it take to believe that the hypothetical creator of the universe would look upon you and give you his "love" ? Do you really think you are that important ? Oh, right, that god sent you his only son, here on this little rock we call our planet, lost among millions of billions of other planets, right ? And the only proof you have of that event is an old book ?

Lies can be comforting, I am not denying this fact. I am sure you really feel what you say, that's the power of the brain. You choose to base your life on fairy tales, and why not? But you should at least recognize that you have made this choice.

Peace to all of you who wish to maim and disprove what I wrote, I do not mind because I remain peaceful in the love of God. As what has been said "blessed are you who are persecuted for my namesake", I accept my persecutions as blessings. None of you argue, you simply state that I am wrong and try to make an argument out of it, you claim insanity and expect me to argue for my sanity, but I won't because I know. I shall tread the trail of thorns without malice or scorn because I love each of you, despite your comments. Because I know that each one of you have set up walls against all things intangible. But I love and will love and worry not about the forum because it is a trifle matter that you upset yourselves about.

God loves every part of His creation, and does not ignore what He has made because He has made it a part of Him.

Peace and love to each of you, for it is my intent to love and spread peace.

reply to post by backcase


Wow! You sound just like Jesus!

Originally posted by backcase
Peace and love to each of you, for it is my intent to love and spread peace.

You are failing to do so. You are spreading your dogmas, superstitions and metaphysics on people who are not you. This is not love. This is not peace. This is tyranny, vanity and self-gratification.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Peace again to you who seem to be an enraged Pharisee shouting anathema. I could also use anger against your false arguments but choose not to. The more a doctrine is persecuted the more powerful it becomes, and that is why Christianity is so powerful, because while you may call Jesus an instigator, He is the Victim. My message is peaceful and you wish to make it seem aggressive and tyrannical, but love speaks for itself and there is peace in love and I send my greatest love to you, who have forgotten what love is. Because the more you hate the deeper you sink. I am throwing you a rope and you refuse it. Love is perfection, not tyranny. I love you, o sad and despised, ignored and neglected soul, for your torture does not end and you will receive no joy where there is no peace.

Peace and Love to you, and may the Light come upon you as it did St. Paul.

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Peace again to you who seem to be an enraged Pharisee shouting anathema. I could also use anger against your false arguments but choose not to. The more a doctrine is persecuted the more powerful it becomes, and that is why Christianity is so powerful, because while you may call Jesus an instigator, He is the Victim. My message is peaceful and you wish to make it seem aggressive and tyrannical, but love speaks for itself and there is peace in love and I send my greatest love to you, who have forgotten what love is. Because the more you hate the deeper you sink. I am throwing you a rope and you refuse it. Love is perfection, not tyranny. I love you, o sad and despised, ignored and neglected soul, for your torture does not end and you will receive no joy where there is no peace.

Peace and Love to you, and may the Light come upon you as it did St. Paul.

I am not persecuting your doctrine, I am persecuting the way you sell it as if it was snake oil. I also don't call Jesus and instigator and I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. Also I haven't forgotten what love is, you have. Here's a refresher for you:

love |ləv|
noun
1 an intense feeling of deep affection: babies fill parents with intense feelings of love | their love for their country.
• a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone: it was love at first sight | they were both in love with her | we were slowly falling in love .
• ( Love )a personified figure of love, often represented as Cupid.
• a great interest and pleasure in something: his love for football | we share a love of music.
• affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf.
• a formula for ending an affectionate letter: take care, lots of love, Judy.

You have not thrown me a rope, you have thrown me a noose and some shackles and attempt to shame me for not wearing them. Yes I refuse your empty gifts, you vain, slavish, and tyrannical soul.

Good luck.

Love: The will to give of one's self for the sake of another's spiritual growth and well being
~ M Scott Peck, from "The Road Less Travelled, a New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth"

Carl Jung said that to be a fully self expressed and fully integrated or individuated human being, one must first throw off the "massman" and on the foundation of a working theological framework, enter the fray with one's entire being.

The sycophantic naysayers have nothing whatsoever to offer, so they offer only insult, while claiming to have been insulted by something that amounts to nothing less than the psychological and spiritual evolution of the human being towards God as love.

The heart of both the OP and some of the others posting in this thread is very easily discerned. Me I'm with him.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Love is not lust nor attachment. The love I speak of is entirely ethereal and cannot be defined, but It is felt as the hearts true feeling. I said that you call Jesus an instigator because you call love tyrannical, it is your spirit that accuses and says what you do not. This is not my doctrine, it is the doctrine Jesus, Who is victimized by your persecution. But He still loves you and wants you to love as it would benefit you greatly. Re read your posts and see your viciousness which is more vain than my love for you who refuse it, because persecution and hatred spur me towards love, which is not what you want as you would want me as hot headed as you. I ask you to meditate on peace and love instead of hatred, because you accuse me and I have done nothing wrong, would you strike a pet that has not bitten you?

Peace and blessing to you

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Peace to you, man.

We must persevere through persecution.

To know God is to know one's true self and reality as we and it really are

I saw that there was only a simple activity and concept manifesting under the form of every kind of remedial activity. It was always Narcissus, the logic and activity of separation. I examined all of this yoga, all of this seeking and performing,

and all of its results, and I asked myself: Why? Why should such activities be engaged at all? What are the motives for meditating? And the more radical my understanding became, the more absurd, unnecessary and impossible it became to justify any of these exploits.

All ways showed themselves to be founded in some problem, some aspect of life as dilemma. There was the physical problem, the vital problem, the problem of the mind, the problem of spirituality and super-consciousness. There was the problem of morality, love, communication, sex, the problem of sin, suffering, the problem of powers, reality, truth, and the universe itself. Even the way of Ramana Maharshi was concerned with the problem of identity. But I saw that the problem, in and form, always had the same structure, and the same fundamental assumptions. Thus, I became concerned with motivation, the principle of these various kinds of action, belief, knowledge, etc. I saw that, since all ways were founded in a problem, real life must be founded in the understanding of the primary problem that is the source of all ordinary activity. only thus do we know and enjoy reality, even in spite of moment to moment problem creation.

I saw that understanding was itself motiveless. But everything else was in fact the avoidance of relationship, and this was their very motivation: Thus, the longer a man lives, the more complicated, contradictory and suffering life appears.

I saw that understanding was not some unusual, miraculous condition or perception. It is the simplest activity, utilized by everyone in his daily experience. It was only that men abandoned understanding in order to exploit the kinds of seeking. But when attention is drawn to understanding, the whole movement of seeking comes to an end. The man only understands where he would otherwise seek. Understanding was simply a matter of observing oneself in relationship, in action, in life. And if a man could be drawn to understanding and always firmly returned to it, he would begin only to understand. Understanding would replace ordinary habit of seeking and his consciousness and activity would become simplified, free of prior dilemma. And this very state, when it became the radical premise of anyone's existence, was not in any different from the primary realization of yoga or meditation. It was the same knowledge and capacity of fundamental reality, but radically free of any limitation to certain kinds of action, mentality or experience.

I saw that men could easily be turned to self-observation. And the process of observation could easily be maintained by proper guidance or "hearing." And that process of observing gradually saw the emergence of fundamental insight. Men could understand the radical nature of seeking, the adventure of Narcissus, the whole complex life of the avoidance of relationship. And when understanding arose men could easily apply the uderstanding to moment to moment experience. Then understanding became the approach to life rather than all the automatic, confused activities of seeking, the drama of Narcissus. In that case, understanding became enquiry in the form of understanding itself: "Avoiding relationship?" And the abiding in relationship with the use of enquiry became the fundamental activity of conscious life moment to moment or in special periods of enquiry which might be called "meditation."

Such a way might automatically produce the unusual phenomena of "kriya yoga" or the whole expanse of intuitive knowledge. Or it might simply realize the natural existence of no-seeking, no-dilemma, primary creativity and freedom. I have described these results as follows:

But the truth of real life is simply what is when there is a removal of contradictions, no-dilemma, no-search. It cannot be described, nor is any name appropriate for it. There is no motive to name it. It is not an object, not a supreme and other subject. It is not separate from the one who understands, nor can he separate himself from it.

Adi Da Samraj

All this protestation and argument is utter nonsense by the vain narcissist who thinks he knows but for whom all real knowledge, which is the knowledge of God, resides in the domain of an unknown unknown or what he doesn't even know he doesn't know. It's utterly absurd and ridiculous.

Originally posted by backcase
None of you argue, you simply state that I am wrong and try to make an argument out of it, you claim insanity and expect me to argue for my sanity, but I won't because I know.

In your original post, you presume the existence of a "god". You say this god is "real" because of what appears to be epistemological reasons, since you point out that this god can be "known". You point out the characteristics of this entity of knowledge as having the qualities of being "felt" by others, therefore having a tactile sense.

So, my first question would be, if you can actually touch this entity, then what does it feel like? Hard, soft, hot, cold, rough, or smooth?

You also claim this entity to have the characteristics of human beings, such as eyes, since the entity can "watch" others. Since you add other characteristics of "god", such as love, friendliness, mercy, and also say it is "present", then it surely must be demonstrable.

So, my second question would be, where is it? You claim it to be a being able to have sense data and characteristics similar to human beings, so any philosophical inquiry would probably begin with questions similar to this on your main presupposition

reply to post by trysts

Check out the writings of people like Bernard Haisch and Irvin Laszlo re: the Zero Point Field as the center and source of all reality, all being and becoming, which is fully informed and fully self-aware. Then look at yourself as it's mainfestation and reflection in cosmic evolution.

Know youself, your deepest inner self, and then ask - where is it, what does it feel like, and how does it watch..

The OP is speaking from personal experience and wishing only the best for others.

How ironic then are the rather vitriolic responses..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by trysts

 

Check out the writings of people like Bernard Haisch and Irvin Laszlo re: the Zero Point Field as the center and source of all reality, all being and becoming, which is fully informed and fully self-aware. Then look at yourself as it's mainfestation and reflection in cosmic evolution.

Know youself, your deepest inner self, and then ask - where is it, what does it feel like, and how does it watch..

edit on 19-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit

Hi, NewAgeMan
Thanks for the recommendations. One of my friends reads Wilbur, which is probably why Laszlo is familiar to me. My argument with her is that I can't understand most metaphysics, because the connection of empirical data to the concepts involved in metaphysics, leads me to conclude that metaphysicians are these linguistic geniuses that are usually way over my head. It's similar to reading Kierkegaard, in that everything he writes about human existence I can understand, but I can't make the "leap" with him to his imaginary world. I totally understand why one would want to create a "unifying theory of everything"(especially when I read the complicated language metaphysicians are usually brilliant at using), but I personally can't see these ideas being connected to the world of everyday existence, which to me is much more fascinating.

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Love is not lust nor attachment. The love I speak of is entirely ethereal and cannot be defined, but It is felt as the hearts true feeling. I said that you call Jesus an instigator because you call love tyrannical, it is your spirit that accuses and says what you do not. This is not my doctrine, it is the doctrine Jesus, Who is victimized by your persecution. But He still loves you and wants you to love as it would benefit you greatly. Re read your posts and see your viciousness which is more vain than my love for you who refuse it, because persecution and hatred spur me towards love, which is not what you want as you would want me as hot headed as you. I ask you to meditate on peace and love instead of hatred, because you accuse me and I have done nothing wrong, would you strike a pet that has not bitten you?

Peace and blessing to you

Then what you speak of is not love, but an idea, one that you can neither define nor fathom. Also, I never called love tyrannical, I called you tyrannical. You are not love. Nor do I persecute you as you persecute me. I not once attacked you for your beliefs. I am attacking the way you insist on spreading your invasive ideas without providing ample arguments for your cause.

I refuse your love because it is empty. I refuse it because it is a disguise, nothing more.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
[

The OP is speaking from personal experience and wishing only the best for others.

How ironic then are the rather vitriolic responses..

edit on 19-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit

No need for passive-aggresiveness.

From the OP:

Every time you sit to meditate, offer it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, offer it with your soul and desire to go towards God in His purity, denouncing all that hinders us from holiness.

Now if I changed Lord Jesus Christ to the prophet Mohammed, would you consider that wishing you the best?

reply to post by backcase


God doesn't hate at all...

That's the last thread of yours I'll be clicking on.

Originally posted by Serenity777
reply to post by backcase

 

God doesn't hate at all...

That's the last thread of yours I'll be clicking on.

If only you understood the irony of that..

reply to post by trysts


"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and realization.

------------

According to James Oroc's experiences (Tryptamine Palace), when the ego is dissolved in consciousness through the temporary formation of a type of neurological "Bose Einstein Condensate", there is no real dilineation or distinction between individual consciousness and God-consciousness or the universal "akashic field" (Lazslo) aka Zero Point Field.

reply to post by trysts


Peace to you. You have obviously skipped over the part that requires faith. I never said God's presence is tangible nor material. To explain it to you without re writing the bible I will explain it as follows: divine joy, divine peace, incomprehensible happiness, Love, peace; comfort in sorrow, words of wisdom, poetic inspiration, the acceptance of God in the moment without care of the past or future but only the now. And oh, the waves of Light that make me feel like I am in a lovely abyss of nothingness, of grace and security. The only downside is having to go back into a malicious world that does not understand nor ever fathom how I have just felt, because I do not even understand.
God is Love as St. John said. Infinite in beauty and peace, wisdom and being ness.

And when I have been busy for to long and have given no time to God, I grow restless. My soul feels asphyxia and craves for God. Also sin makes me feel that way.

As to where God is, He is everywhere, but He may take up residence in your heart to be beside your soul, if you receive.

Have peace o curious inquirer, and bathe in the Light that is God, and leave behind all material sentiment for what is superior.