God is Not a Person

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by old_god
 



A fallible god is a weak god and a weak god will be crushed eventually...in fact show me that god and I will destroy him to proclaim the title of god...but that sounds ridiculous.


This tells me you will never be a true god. Weakness is purely subjective. Have you ever watched Dragon Ball Z? I enjoy the series. The main protagonist, Goku, is strong enough to blow up a planet, but when he has his enemies on the run, he will actually stop and promise to let them go if they apologize and never return. Others would have destroyed those enemies out of fear of retribution, but he was fully willing to spare them out of compassion.

What one calls weakness, another calls strength. There is no honor or love in destroying something that is weaker than you. For this reason, I do not kill spiders or insects that cross my path when I'm in a building. I will either ignore it, or I will take it to a safer location. A bush or a tree. Because if I destroy something that is weak, what happens when I encounter something that is stronger? By all rights, I cannot fight. If I fight, I disgrace those creatures I have destroyed, for I fight for my life when I didn't give them the chance to live theirs.

The point of this whole post is to show you that a fallible god is NOT a weak god. In fact, it is those fallibility that can give us a reason to keep fighting, a reason to win. Some might call love or compassion a weakness, but in Goku's world, that only gives him a reason not to give up. The same goes for Naruto, and all sorts of different move and book characters that were willing to give everything they had to protect the ones they loved. And because of their sheer determination, they won.

I don't think you understand what it is to be strong. I don't think you understand what it is to be weak, either. And you are a perfect example for the rest of the human species, which does not understand ANYTHING of what it is to be a god. My point is proven. Thank you.



We will not admit that god is the unimaginable, that point far beyond our consciousness that we simply cannot comprehend, a being that is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient who wants for nothing yet all want for that god (to return and reconnect to your source).


We only want a god because we're afraid. We are afraid for ourselves, and we want Big Daddy to save us from the shadows of our nightmares. If we were godly, we would cast aside this "God" in a heartbeat. We would seize power, and we would be our own gods. We're only religious now because we are frail and frightened, and we know it. Do you know how many criminals who are not religious decide to turn to "God" just before they die? All of them. They are all afraid. They are afraid of what comes after, afraid of not getting another chance, afraid of retribution for everything they've done wrong. They don't do it because it's their duty as children of whatever higher power. They do it to save their own asses. They do it as an insurance policy. Their last act of desperation.

That's the nature of the human species. Fighting death until the very end. That's all the Christian god is. A way out of the inevitable. We wouldn't need a god if we didn't regret our lives. We wouldn't need an afterlife if we'd lived the one we had. People who are satisfied just don't care what comes after. They've played their song, danced their dance, and they're ready for whatever is next. The people with regrets are the ones who need "God". And that's the truth.
edit on 1-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by wildtimes
 


You are only pretending to be a person. Playing the role. Behind the mask what are you really?


Itsnowagain,
I've explained to you before that I understand the pov from which you speak. I rarely see you offer more than these "nuggets", as if you are a guru. If you want people (pretending to be people or not) to GET what you are talking about, you need to explain in terms that they (the people pretending to be people) can ACCESS.

Do you understand what I mean?
These endless "cryptic statements" don't really contribute that much. How about offering up something other than Taoist phrases? You aren't Confucius. (Are you?). If you want people to understand what you're saying, you need to make the information more apparent than speaking in riddles constantly.

Thanks, though, for your participation.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Ok thank for a reply at last, i thought you couldn't hear me.
I speak as clearly as i can as to not confuse. If it does not resonate, it does not resonate.

Thank you for the response.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Ok thank for a reply at last, i thought you couldn't hear me.
I speak as clearly as i can as to not confuse. If it does not resonate, it does not resonate.

Thank you for the response.

You're welcome.


I can hear you. I read your posts everyday. They seem meant to inspire thought and reflection, but they don't offer up much in the way of dialogue.....
I'd appreciate it if you would provide a bit more than you do.
Yes, riddles are great for people who are already on the path; to help them get further. But we are dealing with people who have little or no exposure to that style of thought.
edit on 1-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


If that's your idea of clarity, I'd hate to see your idea of vague and unhelpful.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes

I can hear you. I read your posts everyday. They seem meant to inspire thought and reflection, but they don't offer up much in the way of dialogue.....
I'd appreciate it if you would provide a bit more than you do.
Yes, riddles are great for people who are already on the path; to help them get further. But we are dealing with people who have little or no exposure to that style of thought.


You want more than is offered.
More or less?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


If that's your idea of clarity, I'd hate to see your idea of vague and unhelpful.



I did not state an idea of clarity.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



You want more than is offered.
More or less?


Now here's an example. I can read your question as: "do you want more really, or do you want less really?"

OR
I can read it as "is this what you're saying, more or less?" (using the turn of phrase "more or less", as in a sign for acreage for sale that reads: "15 acres +/-" meaning this property is "approximately 15 acres")



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You've just proven his point. Please, if you're not going to be helpful, then you're just going to be confusing. Either find another thread or stop playing "Ten Words Or Less".
edit on 1-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You've just proven his point. Please, if you're not going to be helpful, then you're just going to be confusing.

Quite correct. Except, "her" point would be more accurate.


Some of us are verbose, some of us are not. Some try to communicate with vague quips, others (like me) with long, drawn out, almost always take up the entire character count repetitiveness. I want to get my ideas across to as many as possible. I don't want to just hit and run with philosophical phrasing.
I want to discuss things with people who discuss things, rather than just interjecting nebulous ideas.....those ideas are for late-night, or solitary contemplation. What we're doing here is TALKING about it.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
I never said that in the universe isn't expanding. Where do you get that?


From your claim that the universe is cyclical and your dismissal of my pointing out that it is not.


Why can't it be both? We are observing its expansion, but we don't know that expansion isn't part of a cycle..


But, can you show me an example of a black hole that expanding, rather than contracting?

We don't know that there isn't a "wall" out there, that will cause the expanding universe to bounce back, and to contract.



A wall?


Okay, I know that physics isn't your thing, but no, there's no "wall" out there. The reason that the universe is expanding and continues to accelerate is that it is the universe itself that "holds itself together" and as the bits get further and further apart, it loses the ability to keep itself together. Barring an external force (which you say doesn't exist,) this will continue, unabated, until the expansion gets to the point where everything, every atom in existence is being pulled apart. Even your vaunted black holes will be ripped to quantum level shreds, and even the shreds get torn apart until there is nothing.


Perhaps your understanding of physics has peaked at an early stage.

Does The Universe Exist Inside A Black Hole/

Then there is the postulated model of the universe as a donut shaped torus universe.







It won't be pretty, and it will be the ultimate end of existence, with no way to be avoided or to rebuild, but it's about 16 billion years in the future.

We live in a disposable universe.


Really? Where will the universe go? It may disperse into infinitely spaced, infinitely small particles, or even infinitely small waves, as "String Theory" suggests, but energy will never cease to exist.

But even is what you postulate is true, and the universe is destined to "not be," then I would postulate that GOD also would not be. Maybe GOD can die. If all we can know is all that is, but if "is" ceases to be, then all that is GOD also ceases to be. Because GOD is ALL that there is.



edit on 1-12-2012 by windword because: ocd



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


God is not a person. Are you a person?
What is your definition of 'person'?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


God is not a person. Are you a person?
What is your definition of 'person'?

Friend,
fellow "person"....

really? That's the best you can do? I am a human being with a beating heart, breathing lungs, a brain and spinal cord and all the accoutrements of living in this "reality" (whatever it is).

I am also connected to everything else in the universe, including the Divine Source.
What is your definition of 'person'?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Here's what Google had to say:


per·son
/ˈpɜr sən/ Show Spelled [pur-suh n] Show IPA
noun
1.
a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2.
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.


So mostly, the definition finds itself concerned with human beings. Not quite applicable to a god.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




By the way, I'm trying my best to "draw you out" into the conversation with more than phrases and riddles. I really do want to know what your background is, what your culture is...
apparently you perhaps don't understand the dilemma of people who are nowhere near comprehension of what you are trying to convey. Lend a bit more info.

edit on 1-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Akragon
 


Instead of thinking God created from nothing... i tend to prefer "God created all from himself"


Which is all well and good, but it does not result in a universe that IS God, because God pre-existed the universe, by your own declaration, and therefore the universe is not God, but is the product of God.
edit on 1-12-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair



ahh... but... IF that "Singularity" includes all dimensions and all that exists... God is included in said "Singularity".... You say God existed before the universe... but if everything in the universe is munched down into that singularity... it isn't a universe until God makes it so...

IF God is the ALL... And ALL is created from ONE... The only logical explaination is God created the universe OF himself... NOT of nothing...




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Akragon
 


Instead of thinking God created from nothing... i tend to prefer "God created all from himself"


Which is all well and good, but it does not result in a universe that IS God, because God pre-existed the universe, by your own declaration, and therefore the universe is not God, but is the product of God.
edit on 1-12-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair



ahh... but... IF that "Singularity" includes all dimensions and all that exists... God is included in said "Singularity".... You say God existed before the universe... but if everything in the universe is munched down into that singularity... it isn't a universe until God makes it so...

IF God is the ALL... And ALL is created from ONE... The only logical explaination is God created the universe OF himself... NOT of nothing...



So where woud 'you' be in this?
It is single.
edit on 1-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Could you please start elaborating a little more so we can actually understand the conversation? This isn't a freakin' game, it's a serious discussion and I'm getting more than a little irritated with how you can't manage for then ten words per post.

ELABORATE!!!



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


So where woud 'you' be in this?
It is single.

Okay, I'm about to facepalm you here in my "reality" to which you are connected.
Yes, it's "single" - it's all connected, and we are all a part of that which we are trying to define.

I'm not trolling you....I just have to wonder if you just flip open "the sayings of Confucius" every time you decide to "reply".

I have a book of his sayings, too.
To wit:
"Study as if you were never to master it; as if in fear of losing it."
Chapter 8, verse 17.

ETA: I keep starring your posts simply because you are contributing. But, really, can't you "hear" us?
edit on 1-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
All that is real is here presently. It is presence.

The mind does not realize this so seeks, the seeking is the 'person' in time. In time, a 'person' is born, a seeker seeks in time, time is born with the seeker. The seeker is seeking the only thing there is but is looking elsewhere.

There is only this timeless being that is present always as this - there is no 'you' separate from anything because this is everything.

Until this becomes obvious it will seem like madness.
The madness will cease when oneness, wholeness is realized.
edit on 1-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join